User talk:Tocino/Archive 1

Reply
Yes, that is how you do it. Gran2 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SUFC
You removed the semi-protection (which I had requested) in your first edit. The problem was that a host of anon editors have been adding POV comments every few seconds since the games ended today (mixed up with some valid edits from others). My apologies if I undid constructive edits as well - as a United supporter my day has been a bad one. -- roundhouse 17:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  ~ Wi ki her mit  20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

British Isles/Islands of Great Britain and Ireland
Are you kidding me? That's an actual dispute? Who knew the Irish could be so picky about something so insignificant, eh? :D - PeeJay 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you and others are coming from with regard to the naming dispute, and I agree that changing the wording of the phrase does sidestep the issue. It was a good spot. It just seems rather silly to me to replace a widely accepted name for not just Great Britain and Ireland but also the surrounding islands like Shetland, Orkney, the Isle of Wight, etc. with a rather verbose example of political correctness gone mad.
 * I'm glad you enjoyed your trip to North Wales. Did you get over to Anglesey? The views of Snowdonia from there are pretty spectacular. As for you going to see United v Benfica, I can only imagine it would have been quite an experience. I'm going to be going to the United v Inter game on 1 August for what will be my first ever United match at Old Trafford. The excitement is quite overwhelming, even more so when I received the tickets in the post on Saturday.
 * Anyways, keep up the good work with helping maintain the Man Utd article :) - PeeJay 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the match might be a bit of a mixed bag, to be honest. Since tickets went on general sale, I'll be expecting a pretty even distribution of genuine fans who don't have season tickets and prawn sandwich eaters who just want to have the stigma of having been to a United game. I'm going to be sat in the Stretford End, so I'm hoping I'll get a decent smattering of true Reds around me, all willing to sing with me. I'm really looking forward to seeing Anderson, Nani, Hargreaves and hopefully Tevez in action. Believe it or not, this will actually be the first time I've been to OT for about three years, so it will be interesting to see the new quadrants in the flesh. I might try and pick up the new home shirt while I'm there, if it's grown on me enough by the time the game rolls around. - PeeJay 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- Chris.B 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ermmm... how was my edit vandalism? I posted my thoughts in the NPOV section and eight hours later Gibnews deletes them and someone's elses comments without explanation. --Tocino 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he moved them to an appropriate section because it did not conform to the talk page guidelines. You deleted his reply to your comment, thus removing a legitimate talk page comment, an action which could be construed as vandalism. -- Chris.B 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I thought he just deleted them entirely. I didn't notice that he moved them into another section. --Tocino 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, just take more care next time. -- Chris.B 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinny Testaverde
Good work scooping everyone else on the Testaverde Panthers signing.  young  american (wtf?) 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Names
Hi. I noticed you were changing instances of Red Star Belgrade to the local name. You do have a consensus for all these edits changing names, I take it? I'm not saying I disagree with them, just asking. --John 02:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing them to what the article is currently named, FK Crvena Zvezda. Red Star Belgrade redirects to FK Crvena Zvezda, so basically I'm correcting the links. Also, the current UEFA Champions League 2007-08 season and UEFA Cup 2007-08 have the club listed as Crvena Zvezda. Besides correcting the links, it is also creating uniformity, so instead of one artcile using one name and the other using a different one, they're all linking to the same, correct link. --Tocino 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillsborough Disaster
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The JPS talk to me  21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I believe user: Vera, Chuck & Dave has also made three reversions in a 24 hour period as well. He keeps posting a controversial and offensive statement, then once it gets deleted he puts it back up and orders editors to "Wait for a citation". Well by that same logic I could type in on the New York article that, "Aliens have landed in New York!" and I could say, "Wait for a citation," when someone rightfully deletes it. --Tocino 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's usually a grace period to allow people to add citations, unless it's in violation of WP:BLP. Your hypothetical example is clearly absurd, and you couldn't expect to keep such a statement in the NY article. This claim, on the other hand, is realistic. It would be acceptable to remove it if it remains for a couple of weeks without citation.  The JPS talk to me  15:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2007-08 group stage
I found the attendance numbers on the UEFA media services page: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/mediaservices/presskits/ucl/md=5.html See the Full-time summary report for the attendance stats. --Jacobko (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index
You currently seem to be engaged in an edit war in the article, List of countries by Human Development Index, claiming that an edit by User:Ostiferia is vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism and WP:Edit war to understand what vandalism is and that edit warring is harmful. My advice for you is to try and gain more input on the matter being debated on the talk page or through an RfC in a calm and civil matter. Any further edit warring without an attempt to gain a consensus may result in a block. Thanks very much. Tbo 157  (talk)  19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comment at WP:AN/3RR. Thanks.  Tbo 157   (talk)  22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Crvena Zvezda
Hi, seeing you have been involved in the previous RM discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one too. Ban Ray 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 deaths
Hello Tocino. Are you certain Yitzhak Shamir has died? GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. He was listed on the Deaths in 2008 article so I put him on the 2008 article's deaths section. --Tocino 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
What you said isn't true. See List of states that have recognised the Republic of Kosovo. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a list of states that are planning to recognize the Republic of Kosovo. They have yet to formally do so however. --Tocino 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
I reverted this edit, as you inadvertantly reverted my last edit. Article is moving too quickly... J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
All of the countries that will not recognize Kosovo will have a reason, please be patient. Thanks.-- Rob NS  20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're trying to do, but if we put an explanation for each country's action then it will clog up the list. I suggest starting a new section and in that section you can explain, in prose, why each nation is doing what. --Tocino 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
I understand what you're trying to do, but if we put an explanation for each country's action then it will clog up the list. I suggest starting a new section and in that section you can explain, in prose, why each nation is doing what. --Tocino 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea, will look into it. Cheers.-- Rob NS  20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo: Taiwan problem
Hi, I'm just here to thank you for helping me keep up the NPOV for the placement of Taiwan. Users, especially Konekoniku has clear political objectives in trying to place Taiwan in the top countries list. You can tell by his name that he is of Japanese origin, and the guy that complained, name's "K kc chan", is an avid pan-green and Japanese supporter. I think we both realize what kind of people we are up against. As for Mareklug, he has a large vocabulary, but i cannot fathom why he supports independance movements so much, as he is Eastern European (seen from his website). We must keep constant vigilance to keep the article as NPOV as possible. Since each person is only allowed to revert twice per day, I suggest we work together in making the necessary reverts in the article. And I'd still like to hear your view on abolishing placing ROC on the list at all, and instead put the party in the "parties striving for more independant" section. Thanks again! --Ruolin59 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo map
I would but let's wait for some statement from MFAs of those countries. If they are concerned about their secessionist movements there is big chance they might decide not to recognize Kosovo. --Avala (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Carson‎ Move
FYI... there's a move function you could've used... it's the button at the top of every wikipedia page sitting between the "history" and "watch" tabs... ti does all the work for you... iteven moves the talk page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh... ok. I've had to do that before too.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

maps on commons
Maps on commons are now locked because of mareklug who rv them with the same old huge comments about me being personal. I don't know how to fight this as he is really vocal and hides his vandalism very well by yelling how I am pushing POV edits and how he is removing them. Reality being I am adding sourced information which he dislikes so he just blanks them. If you are an editor on commons it would be nice to see some help as an admin didn't want to look into it, he just locked it and gave last warnings before block to me and mareklug. --Avala (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2008: Too Many Events
About your recent comments, I could see why people would go to 2008 for updates on current events such as the Northern Illinois University shooting or such. However there are some articles deemed to vague such as some political events like elections that do not indicate the outcomes or the results as the US elections, Cuban elections, or Pakastani election have done. Whenever a new event is added, it should be scrutinized carefully from a historic perspective. It seems like this page is immitating the Wikinews and Portal: Current Events which to me, it should not since the year should only highlight events that significantly make that particular year noteworthy from a historical perspective. I look to a style similar to World Almanac or World Book Yearbook for a similar style.Birdienest81 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC
I don't want to start a huge debate, because where ever someone puts ROC it is going to be POV, for example i believe it should be with all the other states that recognise Kosovo and you disagree. However ROC does not fit under the category "Regions or political parties striving for more autonomy or independence", as it is not an autonomy or independence. It has never declared independence and it is not an Autonomy as it is self governed and administrated. It is recognised by 23 countries. it is also acknowledged by around 90 countries link as opposed to been officially recognised. So it should be in another category other than the one you have currently put it in and the one i put it in early too. The article is not for states which recognise the ROC, but for states that recognise Kosovo. So ROC is a state which recognise Kosovo. But to please both me and you so we don't disagree on where the ROC should be placed, i suggest that we put the ROC in a separate table below "States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent" and call the table "Partially recognised States which formally recognise Kosovo as independent". Do you agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, its just the ROC is completely different to the other Partially recognised states and other entities as was once fully recognised and has moved to and island and countries are unable to officially fully recognise ROC due to the PRC. Loads of countries have unofficial representatives in the ROC. It shouldn't be put with the others and not with fully recognised countries too. So thats why it should be separate. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

maps
I have updated those maps per wp article. Mareklug edited them according to his POV and not according to sources which is not the good way to edit Wikipedia. If he can't edit cool headed he shouldn't do it. --Avala (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted most of his vandalism ie. removing sourced content but I've missed Cuba. I will edit it. --Avala (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia has recognised Kosovo
That translation said that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo has been working with UNMIK in Kosovo and will change its status at the right time. UNMIK (United Nations Mission In Kosovo) has stated that Malaysia's representative in Kosovo (Mustafa J. Mansor) has announced that Malaysia Recognises Kosovo, so Malaysia has now changed its Status. This is an extremely reliable and valid reference Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kosovo
Hi, I saw your article on Controversy over Kosovo independence and it has great potential. It is well written and has plenty of references. You'd be a great addition to WikiProject Kosovo. I've just joined and am eager to develop Kosovo-related articles. Are you? Rayhou (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Project Kosovo
Small edits are definitely needed as much as new articles, maybe even more. They are what keeps this thing updated, corrected and running. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with creating articles either, but I'm learning and so are we all, even more experienced ones like you. I hope to see you around! Rayhou (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You have violated the WP:3RR by performing 4 identical reverts in quick succession in International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
This documents your 4 reverts. This is probably result in a block. Per Wikipedia policy, you should voluntarily undo your forcible revert and self-report the violation. May I add, that you are completely off base, and disruptive, going against consensus yet again and deleting evidence for POV reasons.

(cur) (last) 14:24, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,731 bytes) (User:Tocino certainly does not own this article either. And acting to spite User:Mareklug is a silly reason. "State" vs. "region" distinction was agreed to by several users. Cuba, Mali info = relevant) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:17, 25 March 2008 Shanticm (Talk | contribs) (117,514 bytes) (→States which declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:07, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,131 bytes) (Undid revision 200859458 by Tocino (talk) yes there was consensus ("state" vs. "region") and the Cuba, Mali info is not irrelevant.) (undo) (cur) (last) 13:36, 25 March 2008 Mareklug (Talk | contribs) (117,131 bytes) (Undid revision 200847600 by Tocino (talk) Vandalized heading (was consensus-supported). Also, covertly removed CUBA, MALI info!) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 14:29, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (117,514 bytes) (Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia are all unrecognized states) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 14:16, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (user:Mareklug does not own this article... he has provided no sufficient reasons for reverting my work.... this vandalism needs to be punished) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 13:52, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (reverted vandalism from user:Mareklug.... there is no consenus for that title... removing irrelevant information) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 13:01, 25 March 2008 Tocino (Talk | contribs) (116,914 bytes) (fixed title)

--Mareklug talk 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Military of England
Please feel free to revert the edit - and redirect it where you feel most appropriate. It was a joke - about the second I've made in a year-and-a-half of editing here. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility
Tocino, please refrain from writing edit summaries such as this. Don't let your disagreements make you cross the line into incivility. It is really not productive and will only inflame a dispute. Furthermore, I shall remind you that International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence is under probation (Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, later superseded by Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), meaning that any users that persistently engage in edit wars may be banned from editing it. This warning is not just meant to you, I will remind everyone at the talk page. Please, calm down and talk your agreements henceforth instead of plunging into edit wars and incivility. It's the only solution. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
Don't take every edit personally is probably the advice I wish to give. As with all articles related to Kosovo, it is going to be a ton of edits that might stick for a day or two and will get removed or modified. This is a work in progress, so while right now a lot of things will be in that above article, sooner or later, it will have to be trimmed. I don't know when that will happen, but it maybe will take the summer. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect spellings
Im starting to get really annoyed with certain editors who demand for Pristina to be spelled in an non-english way such as "Prishtina". Then they start complaining that it is POV to spell it with out the "h". Its just the English way of spelling. Same goes with "Kosova", in English it has an "o" at the end, not an "a". We don't have things written in German or Arabic or Zulu, so why should we have things written in Albanian, its POV writing in Albanian. It is English wikipedia we are using, therefore commonsense tells me that we should spell things in English, not any other language. Any way my point being, should me and you ask for an edit request for all the "Prishtina" changed to "Pristina" as it should be on English wikipedia? Will you support me yeh? Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Ive posted an edit request for change of "Prishtina" Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC) ''We should spell Pristina the same way the Republic of Kosovo's Constitution does as that makes sense. Kosovo's Constitution spells it as "Pristina". Please read Chapter 1 Article 13 Kosovo's Constitution'' They can not disagree with that. Ha! Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

 * Please would you give your view here Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Top scorers
I got the times from a UEFA press release from last night. This one. – PeeJay 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to believe that the PDF is probably correct. Artyom was telling me earlier that the website's stats aren't so accurate these days. For example, they added 90 minutes to Zlatan's total minutes played, when he'd only played 80 minutes of the last game. – PeeJay 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
I invite you, per aministrator User:Husond's suggestion, to the article talk page to please discuss, not forcibly revert, the issues and sources: for representing which countries officially did not recognize Kosovo's independence, which countries have expresssly called for continuing negotiations in the framework of Serbia vs. Serbia's province, and why three maps (countries that officially recognized; point of view #1 of all reactions; a competing point of view #2 of all reactions) is much more NPOV and inclusive of information than just having the point of view #1 map alone. Please provide evidence for each country you have listed in the above categories. Many of their characterizations are openly contested on the talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and are not documented in that article in the way you have characterized them within 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Official reactions of some of the countries you listed are not congruent with available information, for example Morocco or Portugal. I see a need to conservatively represent solid, official information, regardless of one's viewpoint. I hope you agree. Writing "several" may be a more reliable and verifiable characterization than attempting to list all countries by name, other than those officially recognizing. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying on my talk page and for adjusting some of the countries. If only one map can be shown, as you say, without harm for layout, could we make it the NPOV map that is used in the international reaction article? I hope you see that using one of two POV maps, when the POV is contested by the other, is not NPOV. Also, with adjusting other graphics (photographs), I believe the display of all three maps as I arranged it can work. Please note that I put hte two POV maps under a common headline. It can be reinforced with a visible border, which I suppressed. --Mareklug talk 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
Are needed in each section so the reader doesn't have to continuously scroll up and down.  Grsz  talk  16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty annoying if you're looking in the 7th round, and you have to scroll the whole way to the top to get the link for USC.  Grsz  talk  16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup
What do you mean by "What if they decide to have a replay?" Kingjeff (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Cup Final
As far as I can tell, the shortened form of FC Zenit Saint Petersburg that is used most often in that article is "Zenit St. Petersburg", yet you have changed the name under the diagram of the club's kit to "Zenit Saint Petersburg". Why is this? – PeeJay 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I made it seem like I was making a big deal out of this. However, in the interests of consistency throughout the article, I think it would be best to consistently refer to the team as "Zenit St. Petersburg". – PeeJay 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
Tocino, this diff of yours was brought to my attention and I must report that such comments are totally unacceptable. Not only they are deliberately uncivil and constitute a personal attack, as they also denote Wikistalking of User:Mareklug and display a xenophobic attitude towards a particular group of people this user happens to be among (in this case, immigrants). All of this is highly reprehensible on Wikipedia, aggravated by the fact that it happened on an article that is under an ARBCOM probation, which you had already been personally informed about. This time I will just leave a firm admonishment, but the next time I witness this kind of behavior from you I will be forced to issue a topic-ban. So please consider adhering strictly to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA henceforth. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tocino, regardless of any provocation that might have prompted you to respond in that way, there is absolutely no excuse for your words. You are also mistaken in your view that users who are non-native speakers of English should somehow have limited ability to criticize the English used by natives. And you are also mistaken regarding user pages. They are in no way a mechanism to transform Wikipedia into a "social networking website", but to simply provide some information about a user. For example, the fact that I state on my user page that I'm a bilingual English-Portuguese speaker has resulted in many users requesting me to provide translations or help at places where knowledge of Portuguese could prove useful. The stalking accusation didn't come from reading the boxes, but from investigating a user to learn that he was an immigrant, and attempt to use that fact to discredit him. "Immigrant" is indeed not an insult. But you clearly made it into an insult. Anyway I'm glad that you have vowed to be more careful in the future. Please do never resort to incivility, it leads nowhere. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
The recocnition is right. You should apoligize for what you have written.84.134.102.27 (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Please give me an answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.102.27 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Answer me84.134.88.242 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER ME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.96.185 (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this person is using a dynamic IP, getting a block may be difficult. Ignore him, I'll keep an eye on it. - Revolving Bugbear  11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Stoke City
Tocino - Just to let you know that I've reverted your recent change to the template of original Football League members. It was Stoke who were Football League founder members in 1888. The club did not become known as Stoke City until 1928. -- Higherwiki 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar
Hi there. I notice you keep changing Internal conflict in Burma to Internal conflict in Myanmar. There is currently a fierce debate underway at the Talk:Burma/Myanmar subpage about precisely what the name of the country should be listed as. While the dispute is ongoing, both sides agree that while it is titled one way or the other, all other articles must follow suit for continuity's sake. Since the article's name is currently Burma, I request that you please revert your move back to Internal conflict in Burma so as to not confuse readers. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have logged off, I'll take care of it for you. Happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C.
I have reverted you addition of flags to the infobox of Manchester City F.C., as the guideline on the use of flags recommends that they should not be included in such situations. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro
Joining the UN is an accomplishment (a feat) by a country, it does not constitute "statehood", but it does constitute the words in WP "officially the Republic of X". I was just trying to tell you that to be an (independent) country you don't have to be a UN member State. 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

civility on the Kosovo article
Please stop using an uncivil tone with other users on the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence talk page. Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia. In order to work effectively on this project, everyone needs to treat each other with respect.

Regards - Revolving Bugbear  16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it's very difficult to be civil with someone who's always opposing your moves, writes an essay response as to why I'm wrong every time, and is generally unpleasant. --Tocino 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the civility issue isn't really up for discussion -- I think that, if you read WP:CIVIL, you will find it is regarded as a core principle of Wikipedia. You may disagree with him, and even strongly so, but you need to do so civilly. I have already warned Mareklug about being uncivil as well. - Revolving Bugbear  16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rep. of Kosova discussion
You: So you didn't care when Burkina Faso and Marshall Islands recognized? Anyway, this section is about Montenegro, a fully-recognized, independent nation with U.N. membership that, along with the vast majority of nations, does not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent state. --Tocino 06:27, 7 June 2008 9UTC)
 * What in the world is a "metohija"? We are talking about Kosova, please don't change the subject to fictional locations or people. I do care that BF and MI recognized because it add a number to the list recognized...but realistically speaking what interests does Rep. of Kosova have with an African country or some micro-island nation in the other side of the world? It's more in our interest that our trading partners recognize us for lower VAT (import/export) taxes are lowered and we have more diverse food at a cheaper price (free trade). How is Mont. a "fully-recognized, independent nation", you yourself have noted plenty of times that some countries that have recognized Kosova have not recognized Mont? Montenegro sounds more like a country recognized officially by 90+ countries and is a member of the UN institute. Again, the UN is just an international institution, it does not defy who you are, if the UN disbands tomorrow it does not mean that America or Montenegro aren't countries/states/nations. Don't falsely believe that membership in the UN constitutes statehood, there are other factors in play. Viva Republic of Kosova Kosova2008 (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Everyone thinks your Serbian. They don't believe me when I say your American. Tell them your American please. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yeh thats what i told them, freedom of speech. I said you dont have to be Serbian to oppose Kosovo and that you can be Serbian and support Kosovo if you want. I know that hardly anyone in the UK knows about Kosovo, hardly anyone could point out Serbia on a map, never mind Kosovo lol. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should see the idiots in america who can't find germany, spain, and confuse turkey and the black sea.--Jakezing (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
I've noticed that you are a stupid bastard! ANSWER ME YOU STUPID SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are making the vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.68.243 (talk • contribs)
 * Just to let you know, I've put a "No personal Attacks" warning on his talk page. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

the kosovo articles
we represent opposite sides iof the arguments but your a little fanatical with your devotion to serbian kosovo. I suggest a possible break from thre articles, calm down and just spend a little time away from the hot topic, might help.--Jakezing (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good at playing both sides, i just lost interest in the article.--Jakezing (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Caution with reverting
It seems this is not the first time you've been too apt to revert articles. Decisions are achieved on this website via talk and consensus amongst editors, not merely your personal opinion. Please restrain yourself and engage editors in discussion before you do major actions such as moving pages. I also recommend taking a calm cleansing walk so that your assertions are more objective. .:DavuMaya:. 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Images
Yeah he has an agenda. It's obvious and it is disrupting Wikipedia.

For .png files you can use the simplest thing like MS Paint and for .svg Inkscape is pretty good.--Avala (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

football
Well that article is wrong because Serbia is successor to Serbia and Montenegro, FR Yugoslavia and arguably Yugoslavia. But anyway Serbia as such has played since 2006. So there is no result yet that stands out. Perhaps 2:0 in friendly game against Ukraine .--Avala (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
"What a great moment in the history of Kosovo. Some bimbo gets to participate in a beauty pageant. Are the separatists going to have a parade now?" I suggest to tone down the language of your responses at Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR for 2008
You have now reverted this article 3 times in 24 hours. If you do it once more, you will be in violation of WP:3RR and may be blocked. Let's discuss this on the talk page so this doesn't happen. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've done it 4x now. You are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy and may be blocked. Wrad (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you revert one more time I will report you and you will be blocked. This is your final warning. Wrad (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking
I have asked an admin to look at the IP and resolve this. It's obvious he won't stop per the message he left on his page.. America69 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The admin left this on the IP's talk page. Maybe he will stop, if not let me know. Thanks. America69 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

tocino
Your going against a concenous to remove those parties, every part of the talk you get invovled in turns into a war, your uncivil, amonsgt all kinds of problems. read the rules this and the one that super ceded it state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties --Jakezing (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Now your heading for violation of the 3RR. And guess what, we have majority concensous on the talk page, 9 to 1, so sorry,--Jakezing (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * actyuly, no im not, i revetted you once, and we had a majority concenous on the talk page to REMOVEthem, i'v reverted once, you've reverted 3 times, maybe 4 by the time i finish typing, so your the one in violation :P--Jakezing (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted me, that guy after me, then me agai nand finnaly the guy after me again. Therfor, thats 4 times, thats violation. :o--Jakezing (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * no, that new section was cheating by just changing where they were at, its still a revert just cheating. and thats still THREE reverts, even if the second wasnt a reverty, cant revert again anyways.--Jakezing (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Barack Obama 2004.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Barack Obama 2004.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, you didn't upload the image because it's on Commons but you were the editing the page on Wikipedia, as so your username was caught by the script WP:TW. The image page should be on Wikipedia for not having duplicated pages, one on Commons and other on Wikipedia.--Sdrtirs (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CL Scores
I find the latest results of these matchs on www.ergebnisselive.de, and sometimes by listening to local radios that are broadcasting some of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.6.11.165 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 deaths...not notable?
How can deaths of well-known personalities not be notable? --GSK (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, thank you for clearing that up :) --GSK (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * After the expiry of your block, you went back into the edit war on . Wikipedia is built on cooperation between users, and no one editor can impose his or her own view. You are now blocked for 48 hours. When your block expires, you will expected to help form a consensus with other users on this article. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that to be in an edit war you had to revert three times in less than 24 hours. All I did was revert once in 24 hours. I was not aware that you can not revert anymore after a 24 hour suspension. When is it OK for me to revert again without fearing any repercussions? Honestly, if I would've known that I would get banned for 48 hours because of only one revert, I would've waited a week or so and then reverted. I have tried to compromise on this, but User:Getoar is insistent that the partially recognized Kosovo Albanian separatist state be included amongst fully sovereign nations. Ohh well, I guess this means I will be doing more editing on Simple English WP over the next two days, which frankly needs a lot more work than this WP. --Tocino 18:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a 3-revert rule that you violated far in excess and were blocked. An edit war is where a page is repeatedly edited to suit a certain point a view. After your block expired, you continued on the path you were on before the block. It's a cynical act, and it shows an unwillingness to work with others, which latter is how Wikipedia works. As for the other user you mention, I think you will find that that user is in an identical situation. The situation of two users constantly reverting an article cannot be allowed to continue. It achieves nothing but chaos, and promotes the idea that users may act alone. Even though both of you have your points, a reasoned consensus has to be found. I hope you enjoy working with Simple English. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanred you this would happen tocino.--Jakezing (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ossetia
Hi. With the move discussion (and I'm saying this pre-emptively), I think we should weigh the views of registered users a bit more than those of anons. Also, a consensus should be about 5-10 users, and if not enough have responded it shouldn't be moved. I don't know if you were planning on it or not, but don't move it if not enough people respond. Things like this have a habit of eliciting retrospective action. Cheers,  Balkan Fever  05:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The next few days will be important in seeing how far this expands.  Balkan Fever  05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bachman

 * Delete. Stabbings happen all of the time. The person who attacked them was mentally ill, so it was not politically motivated. These people weren't notable before they got stabbed. No one will remember this in a few weeks. --Tocino 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it is asserted earlier in the discussion that Todd Bachman was notable independent of this event, do you have any counterarguments rather than just an assertion? Why did USA today call him "a noted horticulturalist"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

About time in sentences
If you can please rewrite these sentences, but don't delete them. Why did you delete the section about journalists in this diff? --Alexander Widefield (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 2008 South Ossetia War
Hi, I noticed you removed the fact of Azerbaijani volunteers of Georgian decent from the infobox. Actually we talked about adding that and everyone approved, see here so could you change it back or re-add it into the infobox. Thank you Baku87 (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, but I have to note these are not mercenaries but normal citizens of Azerbaijan of Georgian decent volunteering went to Georgia, so I believe it should be noted apart from mercenaries, so could you re-add that fact as it was before. Baku87 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

not approving your actions
i find that constant efforts are being made to remove those 2 / 3 sentences in south ossetia war introduction...i restored once..this time u have removed..i DONT approve your edit ..i have given my arguments in article talk page..please make your contribution too since i personally feel deleting the text gives undue prominence to saakashville propaganda to hide his nation's genocide campaign in the breakaway republicCityvalyu (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

i have read ur reply...altered my post above since i mistook you for toxygen ..sorry for inconvenience(my fault)..Cityvalyu (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

 * Please don't remove the words unrecognised from South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the info box as implying that they are on the same level as full soverign nations is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Regards Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He refuses them with Kosovo. Kosovo is independent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.82.202 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format in the 2008 South Ossetia war article
What are you doing? Why are you changing the format of all the dates? --Elliskev 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I came across as harsh, I apologize. I appreciate the discussion. --Elliskev 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image editing
I've edited the image and uploaded the new version to Commons now. – PeeJay 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I see that IP user 84.134 has been pissing you off again lol. He keeps leaving messages on my talk page, telling me to change my behavior and asking if im on drugs and stuff lol. Is there a way to block this IP? Ijanderson (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your best bet would be to report him for Administrator check. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, hes getting annoying, hes been some sort of mad renegade, vandalising peoples talk pages and stuff. However i find it amusing that he thinks your a "bad person". But he is really starting to annoy me. Ijanderson (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh we disagree on some things, but off topics relating to Kosovo, Akhazia and SO, i think your a cool guy. Anyway, if its an IP from Germany, can't they bloke the IP for that Uni on English Wikipedia. Im sure most people at that Uni will be on German wikipedia anyway and wouldn't mind if the anonymous IP is blocked for English Wikipedia. Ijanderson (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I should apologize for the way I treat you. I'm sorry.Max Mux (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please let us talk about it.Max Mux (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

heh, i really wish
you had a better name, type tocino into a search engine, sucky page comes up
 * look at this picture, first thing you see on the Tocino page ok?

--Jakezing (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, what has this to do with anything? He should try reading WP:NPA. This is an insult towards you, report him. Ijanderson (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ive created this page (User:Ijanderson977/Insult) please add to it in future. I will eventually submit it to an admin Ijanderson (talk)
 * This is insulting how>--Jakezing (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakezing, you have been warned for violating WP:NPA. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your entry on my talk page: Doesn't matter if you think his name is annoying or not. You are attacking another editor, and if you continue, you will be blocked from editing. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You havn't said WHAT i did that was insulting beyond showing him how annoying it is to get to his talkpage--Jakezing (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not annoying at all. You just click here. Talk pages are always prefixed with User_talk:. Not that hard. Just knock it off. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 04:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * and you still go around the real question.--Jakezing (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jakezing, the reason why I don't have (talk) after my user name is because I don't use these things, instead I do everything manually and it would take too long to write my User Talk after every comment I make. --Tocino 05:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo article
Why is leaving something out criminal? Max Mux (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, I have noticed your two reverts here and here. I'm warning you now that excessive reverts is considered disruptive. If you continue to revert without discussing on the talk page, you will be blocked for disruption. In addition please see Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thanks ——  nix eagle 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've only reverted once. The person who keeps reverting me fails to explain why he keeps reverting. There is no consensus to delete the "Expressed intent to reocgnize" section. Also, there is just no reason whatsoever to revert my positioning of the map. When Elymander reverts he is moving the map back to a weird spot which breaks up the flow of the article. See all that white space between the intro and the contents? Well I am getting rid of that big white space. Finally my edits are consistent with the standard the Kosovo article has set. Compare my edit to the current status of the Kosovo article, my edit here: ... current status of Kosovo article:  --Tocino 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they don't take it to the talk page, you need to take it to the talk page. ——  nix eagle 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S I consider both reverts, as you have the same edit summery for both "re-added section.... moved map", which implies that said section was removed and you are re-adding it. ——  nix eagle 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I went to bed last night the "Expressed intent to recognize" section was still there. I checked it today and it was gone. I wasn't reverting anyone in particular because I don't know who removed it. All I know is that there isn't consensus for removing it on the talkpage and by removing it we are not following the precedent the International reaction to Kosovo independence article as set. --Tocino 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I would not have minded had you mentioned something on the talk page. Just blindly reverting back and forth gets nowhere. Make a new section on the talkpage, and go from there. Please also note that there is now a warning when you edit the page on this very subject. (you guys are not the only folks playing revert tag.) ——  nix eagle 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning international reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please cease edit warring. The matter is being discussed on the article talk page, and at least 2 variants of the new, more accurate description for Cuba are evidenced there and await discussion, not forcibly restoring the old, wrong content. Returning to old status quo with faulty old reference (Castro did not publish in Radio Rebelde on 29 Feb 2008, for starters, and the link was not accessed last several months ago), with misleading edit summaries concealing what you are doing, is vandalism. --Mareklug talk 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Obama
I need your help. You voted to keep the article on Sarah Obama on her talk page. Jfire thinks that vote is insufficent. He/She insists that you revote on the page that is trying to delete her entry. Please click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Onyango_Obama and revote to save the article from deletion. There are now literally hundreds of articles mentioning her in the press. I don't know why people want to hide Obama's roots when, as you point out, George Bush's roots are on wikipedia. GreekParadise 17:00, 16 March 2008

Sock puppetry
I noticed what you said on the article about Digital Paper and alchaemia. So I've tried to follow it up a bit. This is Digital Papers contributions and this is alchaemia contributions. They are both very similar. They both have no profile and have very little on their talk pages. Alcheamia made his first edit at 14:56, 24 April 2008 and Digital paper made his first edit at 09:33, 6 May 2008. Not much between them. They both appear to be pro Kosovo. They both appear to argue with you lol. They both seem to say the similar things together on the talk pages and. I don't know if they are the same user using two different accounts and i don't think their is enough evidence to proof that they are in violation WP:SOCK, but it is very interesting. Just look out in the future. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, nice little sowing circle you got over here. Did you find out if I was Digital Paper or whatever the other person was? Lame. --alchaemia (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exo is not a sock puppet. Hes been on wikipedia since march 2006. We all know Kosovar2008 uses loads of anonymous accounts, so it may be him. This anonymous user has been deleting what i have been writing too. Im guessing your the one who reported and got him blocked. I wish there couldn't be anonymous users on wiki. I don't know why they delete out edits? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Try using this Requests for checkuser ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yeh Kosova2008 doesn't seem to be good at English and doesn't know much about operating wikipedia. They all spell things like "Kosova" and "Prishtina". They also forget to sign their comments too. Thats similar writing style. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup pots
I think the coefficients being used are official. The reason why adding the pots before the ends of the matches was OR is because the allocation of teams to pots kept changing as the results came in, and so they could not be reliably sourced by any means. Now that all results are in, all we're actually waiting for is the official confirmation of the pot allocations. Tbh, if you wanted to remove them, I wouldn't argue, but I see no reason to remove them now that the info is stable. – PeeJay 06:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Max Mux
You may be interested to participate in the discussion in Suspected sock puppets/Max Mux. It seems anonymous IPs 84.134.xx.xxx are involved exactly as in the case of Jakezing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Date format for Jorg Haider
Hi there. Just a note to ask you not to re-format the dates in the article Jörg Haider. The original format is dd/mm/yy and should be retained. Cheers. GeneralBelly (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
Hello Tocino.

There is currently a discussion which intimately involves you on Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo. I would appreciate it if you could give your thoughts at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo.

Thank you.

J.delanoy gabs adds 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, J.delanoy. Personally, I don't want to take part in this political lynching. Notice that they have not talked about my edits on articles they just have gotten their feelings hurt by political beliefs. The admin who is leading this charge is a questionable character and I don't want to give credence to his "discussion". --Tocino 17:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I cannot force you to comment, but you are only hurting yourself if you do not. The identity of the person who started the conversation is irrelevant. I did not even look at that conversation or any of Husond's reasons before I started looking around. Your assertion that "They have not talked about my edits they just have gotten their feelings hurt by political beliefs" is also irrelevant. I came to my conclusions based solely on my own research. Other users' opinions on you did not influence me in the slightest. Your own edits are what caused me to say what I did. I once again ask you to say something in response to my request on the talk page. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn, I was apparently not paying attention too well. I've removed my comments (at least temporarily) from the article's talk page until I have more time to look deeper. Right now I have to go to work in 10 minutes, so I'll see what I can do later.  J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please pay attention
Hi, Mareklug has a point, the template is meaningless there, please show your good will by reverting your edit and we can discuss it at the proper talk page. --Zakronian (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but still you have to raise the issue to include the article in the template in the template's talk page, that's because the minimal requirement for any navigational template to be placed in an article is to include the article itself. Non of us noticed that, i thought it was already included. Can you initiate the procedure in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Foreign_relations_of_Serbia ? i'm too tired right now. Invite other editors also to establish consensus. And please don't put it again like this, it has no meaning without the addition i'm speaking of. If you are preparing your defense than save it for when you'll have more time, it can wait. --Zakronian (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See the discussion opened by Mareklug also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_declaration_of_independence_by_Kosovo#.7B.7BForeign_relations_of_Serbia.7D.7D--Zakronian (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo-Nauru
Nice catch. We do have a speedy criterion for that (G4), so it is now deleted. If he continues this best to take it to WP:ANI. Wizardman 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban
Tocino, I was reading something recently about you; the topic ban discussion, I am sure you are well aware of. Its sad when it comes to a point where elected administrators are having to extend or initiate bans on certain people on certain pages because of alleged disruption the said user has conducted - hence why often, the uninvolved administrative opinion is usually key in the outcome of a decision of whether or not it should be implemented or not. I have been in such situations before, and I have evaluted user's edits to the point where I feel I can suitably make a reasoned judgement and made the changes where necessary. Consensus plays it role too, though. I have noted in the past that I feel you did not merit, for want of a better word, a topic ban for your edits; incidentally, with the administrator you mention most in your posts, Husond, here - back in July. Now, I don't want to be topic-banning (as horrible as it sounds) somebody who had made useful and sometimes good contributions to articles, where they have been appreciated by other editors - as was the conclusion in the comment I linked before. However, the consensus now appears to have changed and the topic ban discussion I first linked, seems to suggest that people now have a different view. I've noted this comment as being one, particularly, where there was a highlighted disagreement. So what's happened? I don't want any nonsense about pro-Serbian and pro-Kosovan views, or any other drivel that is irrelevant. What do you think has to be done, and what do you think the problem is? I need an explanation that is clear and isn't full of accusations and so on. If you could suggest ways in which you feel you can improve yourself, that would be welcome. Caulde 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance
Hi Tocino. :) May I set up an archive bot for your talkpage?  Currently the page is very long, around 80K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K.  But I could set up an automated archiving system for the page, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore?  It would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain amount of time, such as 30 days.  Please let me know, --Elonka 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! It'll kick in on the next pulse, which will be sometime in the next 24 hours, and then do a daily check after that. I've got it tweaked right now to automatically archive any thread which hasn't had any activity in a month, but I can configure this if you would like something different.  And don't worry, it'll never completely empty out the page or anything -- it will harvest threads down to a minimum of five, and then leave things alone unless there's more activity after that.  Enjoy, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

San Marino response
"Sono convinto che la vittoria del rinnovamento negli Stati Uniti avrà positive ripercussioni sullo scenario internazionale e darà nuova voce, anche in Europa, al desiderio di una nuova politica di riforme che superi il conservatorismo e affermi un nuovo, piu’ moderno ed equo ordine mondiale”. Lo dichiara il segretario agli Esteri della Repubblica di San Marino Fiorenzo Stolfi in occasione dell’elezione di Barack Obama Hussein a presidente degli Stati Uniti.

"I am convinced that the victory of renovation in the US will have positive effects on the international scenario and will give a new voice, also in Europe, to the desire of a reformations policy (pardon mf, I know it's ugly... hope you caught the meaning...) which could overcome conservatorism and impose a new, more modern and equal world order." This is the declaration the Foreign Affairs Secretary of Repubblica di San Marino, Fiorenzo Stolfi, in occasion of Barack Obama Hussein's election as President of the United States.

I did my best... of course it'll be needing some cleanup. Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he means that the victory of renovation in the US will have positive effects on the international... and will give a new voice to reformations policy. He hopes the latter should impose a  new world order. LEt me know for any clarification! Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your page
Please remove the nationalist nonsense.Max Mux (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing content
Please do not remove the content on the statement of the Crown Prince. You are right that Serbia is not a monarchy but that is why he is a Crown Prince not a King. Notice the difference between these two. But still he is recognised as such, he has the right to be addressed as His Royal Highness and is officially entitled to live in the Royal Palace.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the name of that article is not Reaction by Governments to the United States presidential election, 2008 but International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 and Alexander is an official Crown Prince. He will never become the king unless the constitution is changed through referendum to allow monarchy instead of the republic but it doesn't mean he is any less a Prince. It has got nothing to do with adding the opinion of the opposition leaders which can be added anyway. If you want to add the opinion of communist leaders go ahead because like I said the article name is not Reaction by Governments and the nature of this event is such that it doesn't require official reaction only--Avala (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all you must show me the link which shows the policy that International reaction is strictly restricted to elected officials. This way it's just your opinion that it shouldn't be added and "I don't like this" removal is forbidden. Secondly it is not the same to Bjork situation as Bjork's opinion is irrelevant for Kosovo recognition which that article in essence deals with while election reaction is simply that, reaction to the even which doesn't create any effect.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all those Hollywood celebrities you mentioned in summary, they are domestic. Second of all - "fake king" ? I will repeat what you didn't read - He is recognised as Crown Prince, he has the right to be addressed as His Royal Highness and is officially entitled to live in the Royal Palace. He is not a king and it was never implied that he was. Comparing this with Sealand is not serious.--Avala (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * President is also per constitution not part of the Government so do you suggest erasing it as well? Reaction by the Crown Prince is a legitimate, relevant reaction from Serbia - simple as that. He doesn't have to be a ruling monarch. We would have included Prince Charles's words if he made a reaction just as well.--Avala (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not mistaken - firstly President is completely separated from the Government and secondly he doesn't have a "host of powers" but couple of ceremonial peacetime duties like receiving credential letters from ambassadors. It is a completely different issue that Tadić is using the situation where his party holds all powers to play Putin and meddle into duties which are not his per constitution (he can do it because obviously he as the leader of the Democratic party which leads the govt which means what he says the govt will fulfill but if the govt was ran by a different party he would be simply blabbering and we see such situation in Poland and Czech R.)--Avala (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again like I said before, reactions to the election results unlike reactions to the independence declaration do not require any power behind them because they do not create any effect.--Avala (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Timothy F. Geithner
Stop trying to use a Pakistani hate article as a "reliable source". You are now dangerous close to breaking 3RR and are also guilty of BLP violations.  Grsz  11   →Review!  21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Timothy F. Geithner
Please stop your tendentious editing on this article. You are dancing pretty close to WP:3RR, which will likely result in a block. Nobody is disputing what religion the man is, and nobody is suppressing it. We just need citations from reliable sources. Same as any other article in the project. You're not new around here; I think you already know this. Frank |  talk  21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on November 21 2008 to Timothy F. Geithner
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 72 hours.

I find some of your edits puzzling. This for example: blogs are indeed generally not good sources (though there are exceptions, they have to be made). Your source here is clearly not accepable. You have a while to think this over William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an overreaction. First of all I stopped editing the article when I was warned. Secondly your reason for banning is ridiculous. You say you don't like my two sources. Well I think both of them are OK. One is a news agency and the other is a Jewish blog. The only reason people are saying the news agency is not a good source is because it is Pakistani. We ARE allowed to use sources from other nations you know. This is a simple case of discrimination. Besides, why would they lie about his religion? This is fucking stupid. I am sick of getting picked on. --Tocino 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you not see a problem with an article titled "Barack Obama by his friends you shall know him" from a Muslim publication?  Grsz  11   →Review!  23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Understandably you're annoyed about being blocked; however if you want to discuss the matter you'll have to be polite. I don't think your sources are good; but you didn't get blocked for those, you got blocked for edit warring. But as to your sources, consider . You say WP:RS says nothing about blogs being bad sources but WP:BLP, linked from RS, says Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).; but this has already been pointed out to you. Please tell me you are able to read the policy and now realise that your blog source isn't OK. And indeed, G points out one obvious problem with your other source William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 72 hours for this is competely disproportionate especially considering I stopped after I was warned. You said it yourself that there are exceptions made for blogs and I think that could've been one of them. And I am not prejudiced against Muslims so I don't dismiss their words as fabrications. --Tocino 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You were blocked once in March (24 hours) and twice in July (24 hours, followed by a 48-hour block the very next day). The fact that you started this pattern of editing in the first place justified a block. You didn't need any warnings today; you got 3 earlier this year. Keeping in mind that blocks are preventative, not punitive, I think 72 hours is perfectly reasonable. There's no specific formula, but 1/1/2/3 days doesn't seem at all outrageous. There are admins that would block you indefinitely for this sort of disruptive editing. Perhaps it would be controversial, but it's been known to happen. Furthermore, although I'm sure plenty exist, I don't know of any other editor who's ever been blocked four times without the final one being an indefinite block. You, on the other hand, are welcome to come back Monday and contribute constructively to the project. Frank  |  talk  04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohh give me a break. There is nothing disruptive about adding someone's religion to their infobox, especially when it is supported by multiple sources. What about the three other editors who have added his religion to the article? Are they being disruptive too? I would agrue that the people who are being disruptive are those who are mindlessly reverting sourced information. --Tocino 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Tocino, you are surely aware of what reliable sources are - and are not - because you've had this discussion before. And, as I'm sure you were told when you were a kid, just because someone else is doing something does not make it OK for you to do it...and indeed, those other edits are being properly reverted as well. All we need is a valid citation to support the edit, and the discussion is over. Until then, the information cannot remain in the article. Please be sure to follow the policies of this project, including (but not limited to) BLP. Frank |  talk  01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We had two reliable sources for Geithner's religion.   --Tocino 05:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out to you, above, why those sources are not reliable. If you attempt to re-add them, it will not go well William M. Connolley (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You said there are exceptions made for blogs. Why would a Jewish blog lie about this? And the other source's only crime? It being from a Muslim nation even though it is a news agency. That is discrimination. To be fair, maybe we sould not allow sources from Christian or Jewish nations when dealing with Muslim issues from now on. --Tocino 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The exceptions are rare, and need to be made before the edit, not after. "I want an exception to be made for this blog" isn't close. The other source is obviously unusable. Not because its from a Muslim nation, just because its clearly biased. All of this claims-of-discrimination stuff is not only wrong, its boring. Please listen to the advice you've been given before you return to editing William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Likely candidates for treasury secretary are Lawrence (Larry) Summers, Timothy Franz Geithner, and Paul Volcker, all Jewish." Why do we have any reason to doubt this claim? It isn't written as though it's a rumor, it's written as a well-known fact. It's supported by other sources. The article is an editoral, but we aren't putting anything else from the editoral in the Geithner article. What about Bob Novak columns? He is biased and he writes editorals, but he reveals lots of information in his writing. The Pakistani source is doing the same here. --Tocino 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most significant reason for not using blogs is that the one you tried to use is now claiming exactly the opposite about Geithner's religion. It's no more reliable now than it was before, and the information is still not able to be properly sourced, and therefore cannot be included in the article. (Click where it says "view blog homepage" to go to the original source and see for yourself.) In addition, the blogger has weighed in on the talk page of the article; he has demonstrated a lack of understanding of reliable sources as well. Frank |  talk  00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rest assured that I am not going to add Judaism to Geithner's infobox, because as you said, the blogs are now changing their tune, and also because I know that harsh punishment would come my way if I did so. --Tocino 17:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I would say is that you are requested not to add any info to the article that is not property sourced...it's not a particular religion that is of any objection, but rather whether or not it can be properly cited from reliable sources. Furthermore, punishment is not part of the picture. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. You were temporarily blocked to prevent further disruptive editing, not as any type of punishment. Frank  |  talk  19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

States and disputed territories
Regarding adding "categories" to International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008, I invite you to participate in a discussion on the talk page rather than blindly reverting. There is no consensus for your version and you have offered no legitimate argument against the edit I made.  Grsz  11  02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you never responded to me. My version makes no determination as to what is a state and what some think is not one, so you're wrong in saying that it would call things states that aren't.  Grsz  11  02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It in no way "tricks the reader" if the article is simply organized by continent. What's POV in the article is taking one side and saying this country is disputed when others say it's a state. I know you have a personal opinion in this that makes it hard to see it any other way.  Grsz  11  02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edna Parker
Why do you feel that Edna Parker, the former worlds oldest person should not be listed in the deaths list. She has an article on 18 different wikipedia's. Surely that makes her notable?????--Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

70.95.69.64 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! You're still stupid :)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vatican / Holy See
Regarding International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: The Vatican has no international relations (though the Holy See is member of organisations like the IPU on behalf of it), so I doubt any statements about the Gaza conflict were made on behalf of the Vatican City state. --JensMueller (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that the Vatican City is recognized as a nation state while the Holy See is not. I assume that it would be the nation state which does the diplomacy. I am not an expert on this so I may well be wrong. --Tocino 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From Vatican City: "Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard.", "Given the distinction between the two entities, the Holy See's immense influence on world affairs is quite unrelated to the minuscule size of the Vatican City State." See also Holy See: "The Holy See, not the Vatican City, maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations." --JensMueller (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-> I'll move that to the Talk page of the article ... --JensMueller (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits on "International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict"
I have reverted your recent edits about language style, per WP:ENGVAR (which you should read). I would like to make you aware of the following Wikipedia Policies:
 * "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others are. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using the following four simple guidelines. The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section."Source
 * "Consistency. Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; insofar and in so far; em dash and spaced en dash"Source
 * "Retaining the existing Style. If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor." Source

Please especially take note of the bold part. FYI, I created the article and I was the first major contributor too (proof), the variety I chose was British English and therefore British English should be used. There are no strong national ties to the topic from America, therefore there is no reason to change the existing style to American English. Changing the style to American English is violating WP:ENGVAR, therefore I will report you if you do it again. Please take this as a useful guide to editing Wikipedia in the future and as a warning. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)