User talk:WeisheitSuchen

Rock5410
See his talk page to see why I've blocked him indefinitely (a block he can get lifted easily if he wishes). Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes perfect sense to me. He has gotten better about not copying and pasting text, but obviously he doesn't understand image copyright. Duplicating the images and putting new licenses on them, claiming he's the creator, shows he hasn't taken the time to read the information after multiple explanations. I've made my attempts to explain and assume good faith, but he chose not to pay attention. Thanks for letting me know. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

elearning
Hi, I was asked to move it on IRC, and the user provided some pretty good sources for moving it. Since it needed an admin to move over that existing page, I did it for them. It was PACSNL who requested the move, so you might want to discuss it with him. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Prodego talk  21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, oops, wasn't thinking there. I fixed the talk page, thanks! Prodego  talk  21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sita manu
I just saw that you were trying to have some reasonable conversations with this editor. Since you happen to have history with this person, can anything be done about it? Cleaning up ridiculous page moves and resultant redirects is a cumbersome task that we could do without. I've just had to do two of that today. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to have reasonable conversations with him, and for a while it seemed to be making a difference. His edits had gotten to the point of "mostly harmless" at least, which was a big improvement from the disruptive moves etc. After you left your warnings, he actually requested to be blocked, although he then deleted the request. (The IP address is one of his; he's had rangeblocks before and I recognize it.) Blocks haven't been helpful because he just changes his name. Semi-protection slowed him down when he was editing fewer articles, but now that he's branched out it would be too many to protect. We could try a combination block on the username plus a rangeblock again if needed. But to be honest, I've been dealing with this guy for two months and I don't know what to do anymore. I thought I was finally making progress since I'd actually gotten him to respond to some messages, but now I feel like we're back to where we were in June with disruptive moves and copyright violations. Hopefully he is serious about not wanting to edit anymore. I'm all for assuming good faith, but I'm ready to give up on him now. I think GeorgeWilliamHerbert's idea of "convincing them to go away" is the only thing that is going to work. If you have any other ideas, I'm certainly open to them, but I'm stumped. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No ideas here, except that one more disruption and another visit to ANI might be appropriate. The page moves were absurd, and addition of content on a couple of pages in the guise of copy editing was also absurd. It's just a waste of productive editors' time. cheers - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like he has stopped using his username, although I've seen some anonymous edits that look like him. If he persists in disruptive edits, you're right that another round with ANI may be in order. Let me know if you see anything blatant again (especially something like a threat of vandalism, which given his previous pattern of behavior should be his next step). WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noticed that your page was a vandalism magnet for the associated IPs yesterday, any action on that? - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP address doing most of the vandalism was blocked, and it only got hit once after that. Today he apologized for getting angry, which means at some level he realizes he screwed up. But the back and forth is crazy. I don't think I can report him when the last thing he did was apologize, so I'll wait until he does something again and take him back to ANI. I'm fed up with the drama. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Name Prob
Please your are an admin why don't you change the name of the article NIIT, you know quite well that the name of this article wrong so pls change it, i can't do myself since i'm not an admin.--For Loop (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. I don't have the ability to change it, as I've already explained. I'm also not convinced that if it's changed that you won't decide in another month to play a different game and change it back, and I'm tired of your drama. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Biry0501
Actually from my understanding, many of the parent churches of the United Church of Christ are United churches from Germany... which are really more Lutheran rather than Reformist (meaning from Calvinist theology). Others were Swedish Lutheran as well as Calvinist and Puritan. If I am not mistaken, the UCC it is a United church, not a Calvinist or Lutheran church but a union of both, with small ingredients from others. This is implied in many parts of the article repeatedly, which is why I added the Lutheran bit--to make the article 'agree' with itself. I also would assert that Congregationalist churches are different in different parts of the country. Where I am from, they look a lot more Lutheran than anything else, using Luther's catechism and Augsburg Confession.

Perhaps it would make more sense to delete Reformist in that line, rather than add Lutheran. United churches really are not just a sum of their histories, after all. They have their own unique theologies and histories. But I would argue, based on the history of the UCC and on the article itself that it would be more correct to assert it is both Calvinist and Lutheran, but I think it would take a good defense to leave in the assertion that it is 'mainly Reformist' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biry0501 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Show me the reliable external source that backs you up. So far I hear a lot of "my understanding," "If I am not mistaken," and "I also would assert." That's original research, and it's not acceptable here. Feel free to join the discussion on the article discussion page too. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. It would have been simpler to say that the article didn't agree with itself, since the 'History' section discusses its Lutheran and Calvinist roots--though I concede that it is more Calvinist than Lutheran today.  It was an editorial and not a research edit, but I am satisfied that the current edit is the most realistic and agrees with the rest of article.  Biry0501 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009


 * Good, I'm glad we got to something everyone can agree on. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. Your name is so long it takes an hour to type out without mistakes. lol. [what does your name mean?] Ok, to the point now. Thanks for your comments. I replied on the discussion board, as well as wrote a few comments on the reliability board supporting your points. I think you're right that my words are over the line. I sent a small hopefully sweet apology to the discussion board of Makrand Joshi hoping she/he's ok with what's happened. Actually I had accused the editor of being an spa a couple of months back too as you must have noticed that it was only after that that the editor started editing other pages. But you're right -- by that yardstick even i would be an spa. lol. Let's hope we develop a better page. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking the right approach now. Obviously you two have some history, but that doesn't mean you can't start over and be productive together now. My name is two German words: Weisheit = wisdom, Suchen = search/seek. Ich suche Weiseheit = I seek wisdom. I hope you don't mind that I always use Wifione instead of how you sign your name; yours is too long for me! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We had one philosopher when I graduated who used to use the words 'looking forward to learning from you' as a sign off message. Steve Jobs, in one Stanford convocation address, mentions that the guiding rule behind every day of his life has been to 'Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish', in other words, to continuously gain knowledge. I think your name is pretty similar to that. My wishes in your quest. Warm wishes Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

George.Joeckel
Thank you for bringing to my attention the potential COI of my contribution. I have added my information to the "Author Disclosure" section. Do you feel this is sufficient to resolve the matter? George.joeckel (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IIPM sources from archive.org
What you say makes sense. Thanks for the work. I'll try and use archive.org links in the future too. I agree there is a lot of information about non-IIPM bodies which needs to be cut down. I am also uncomfortable with big laundry lists used, like in one particular place, over a dozen company names are listed. Seems like name-dropping. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Suraj845
Thanks for the notification,i will take care about it and will add my own complete fresh content soon about Dalai Lama...--Suraj845 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh! FWIW, WeiseitSuchen, this was another tell-tale sign of sockpuppets created by the user Mrinal Pandey. The userpages would have some random text, usually copyrighted material just copy-pasted from some source. Usually about famous entities or famous topics. If you go through the sockpuppets listed at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey and check the last versions of their userpages before they were banned, the assortment is very informative and amusing. Citigroup, Tibet problem, Kashmir problem, caste problem,Obama, Obama again, MF Hussain male sterilisation!, something financial, Google, and randomest stuff. Most of the stuff is copy-pasted from newspaper websites. The pivotal "primary" account is given more thought, be it iipmstudent9 or mrinal_pandey or wifione. But I guess we can't blame him/her for running out of ideas and falling into a rut when putting on such elaborate puppet-theater now, can we? As soon as I saw that name, also following the naming pattern, and random text about Dalai lama, it was obvious that this is another sock-puppet. Sigh, I find it depressing that I know so much about an IIPM employee's wiki habits. :) Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I knew I had seen a sockpuppet page with Dalai Lama's info earlier too. Sure enough - here it is. These are some recurring themes with this puppet-master - Dalai Lama, Barack Obama, a lot of leftist causes, finance, Indian politics and caste-based issues. Makrandjoshi (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, looking through the old sockpuppet case. A saw some stuff copied from tutorials for Adobe software too--Photoshop or Flash I think. This is definitely another sock. I figured I'd delete the copyright violation since it shouldn't be here anyway, and that deleting it doesn't hurt the evidence you're collecting for this go round. I'm not surprised you can spot it quickly. I can spot the edits of User:Rock5410 on his dozens of IP addresses, and he's only been disruptive for a few months. Over multiple years, and with all the threats you've had to endure, I'd be quick to recognize it too. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione forum-shops again
This time returning to the admin notice board, because the wikiquette notice board folks didnt agree with him. I have responded there. Just wanted to let you know of this, since you are a regular editor at the IIPM page too. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette request
WS, do pl look at Wikiquette_alerts which I have started to request you to stop using uncivil words like "forum shopping" with me. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'm looking forward to seeing what others have to say. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping choose-your-own-adventure
I present you with the following one-step gamebook.


 * A. Someone is forum shopping. If you...


 * ...Tell them that they're forum-shopping
 * Proceed to B
 * ...Post links in each forum to the previous fora where the question has been asked, along with the statement, "Here are links to some recent discussions of this question"
 * Proceed to C


 * B.
 * You're bogged down in accusations and counter-accusations, you find yourself participating in discussions of "Wikiquette" reports, and you're distracted from the original edit at issue. Bummer!


 * C.
 * Problem solved. Congratulations!

Hybrid solutions, incorporating elements of both choices, also lead to B. It's something to think about. Sometimes a little bit of strategy and a little bit of restraint goes a long way. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I responded to Wifione posting the same argument here and here today like this, without pointing out the forum shopping. We'll see how it goes from here. I can see that your way would be productive with many people; I'm not yet convinced something this subtle will work for this particular editor. But hopefully I'm wrong! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll see. :) Just now while working on Requested moves, I came across the IIPM advertising controversy page. There, I asked a couple of questions that I hope advance the conversation. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your questions and partial move, and I replied. I guess we'll see where things go from here. BTW, note that my actions above were before I saw your not-subtle "blech" on the wikiquette board. Your reply wasn't necessary, as I'd already changed tactics. But hey, I guess you needed to prove that mentioning behavior guidelines was uncivil and provoking, right? Making your point was more important that seeing whether I'd read what you said and changed my own behavior. The irony isn't lost on me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The "blech" was a intemperate, yeah. I apologize for posting in irritation. I guess it really irked me to see "please stop pushing this button" followed immediately with a push to the button. Do you know what I'm referring to, as the button? That kind of thing bothers me. I didn't intend any irony, and I'm willing to strike my remark that offended you. There is no "point" for me to make that is more important than whether disputes are resolved, and if I say something that is unfair or escalates the dispute, then I've screwed up. Please let me know what I can do to mitigate any offense I've caused. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think you escalated the situation rather than de-escalating it. It really rubbed me the wrong way. I think your general point is correct, and I'm going to try to follow the good parts of what you said and ignore the intemperate parts. But I think for now I'm going to stay away from the WQ board and not reply to you there. I started to draft a response there and thought better of it--I know it would have been there to continue pushing buttons. But no, I wasn't trying to offend Wifione with my response, in spite of what you said. And the "point" it seemed like you were trying to make is basically that if everyone followed your essay that we wouldn't provoke and offend each other so everyone would be happy and productive. I don't think it's as simple as that. But I'd like to step away from it for a while and see how Wifione replies. Unfortunately, I suspect that he's going to take your "let me know if the provocation continues" as ammunition in every content dispute going forward. We'll deal with that if it comes to that, right? If you want to help, just try to be a voice of sanity in the IIPM move request. Beyond that, how about we agree that you owe me a favor if I need help figuring out how to deal with a dispute in the future? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm glad to help, if I can. I don't claim to be perfect, or to always successfully follow my own advice. However, when I screw up, I'm pretty good about acknowledging it and apologizing. I've struck the remarks at WQA, and I thank you for not posting back in irritation. You're leading by example, there. In my experience, I've never seen the personally directed comments help. Even comments such as mine that I struck don't help, and I didn't call you any kind of name. Simply by showing my irritation, I made things worse. I do believe that "comment on the content, not the contributor" is a simple rule that would obviate 99% of disputes I've seen here. I don't know how much less "simple" than that it needs to be, but I'm always open to being convinced by a good argument or example. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "ammunition", he can try. I think I have reasonable judgment about what is and is not provocation, and I'm not an automaton who blindly does what someone asks. If I'm wrong, I'm sure we'll see that in time. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking it, and I appreciate the apology and how reasonable you're being. I did physically get up and step away from the computer for a bit, which I think I needed to do (always a good idea when I'm feeling irritated about editing here). While walking around, I realized that part of my issue at the moment may be that I spent several months dealing with a sockmaster who wouldn't respond to nice and polite. He's the example of how it isn't always that simple. I tried to be nice; if you look at the history of my user page, you'll see how he repaid me for trying to help him. He literally just ignored anything civil; he wouldn't even reply unless there was a threat or something nasty in it. So I adjusted my tone for working with him. I don't think I've entirely adjusted it back to the tone I should be using, and I need to figure out how to break the habits I learned dealing with that particular editor. Rock5410 is the exception though, the 1%, when you're right that 99% of the time that approach isn't the right way to deal with things. Getting the perspective on that is a good thing for me to have gained from all of this. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disputes on Wikipedia are a little bit like driving in bad rush-hour traffic. Either one will seriously tax any philosophy of patience and understanding. ;) We muddle through, somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

talkback
.

View
WS, You might be interested incommenting here '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following the discussion. I'm ambivalent about this; I can see both sides of the argument. I kind of feel like it's best to stay out of it since I don't have that strong of an opinion either way. But I'll keep watching to see if one side or the other gives a rationale that sways me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal
WS, if you find time, click here and leave your suggestions pl. Thanks '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really want me to be one more voice opposing your proposal? I'm with the majority here; I don't think it's actually a good idea. If an individual admin does something problematic, I'd rather that be dealt with on a case-by-case basis than to severely hamper every other admins ability to contribute to Wikipedia beyond administrative actions. Admins who do only administrative work tend to be less happy and satisfied with Wikipedia. Admins, for the most part, are like every other editor. They didn't get involved here to do little petty stuff like reverting vandalism. They got involved to make contributions to articles. Along the way, they discovered they wanted to do more. But that initial driving force of editing and improving articles is still the core reason I think most admins are here, even when they get so caught up in the other stuff to not have time to do much regular editing.
 * Are you sure you want me to post that rationale on the page? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I may debate with you but I respect your views - whether negative or positive. And I'm sure they'll go a long way in giving impetus to policy changes, one way or the other. That's why I wanted your comments on the Village Pump. I think that as a majority do oppose it, it will be closed soon. However, it's quite a learning experience. Thanks for the reply. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the discussion is pretty well closed at this point, so I think I'll refrain from extending that conversation unnecessarily. But thank you for asking my opinion, even though I disagreed. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

hi :)
Hi WS, I trust your editing completely, so am asking your opinion here instead of on the talk page. You added a note "NVAO, the accreditation authority for Belgium has clarified that IMI can not legitimately award BBA and MBA degrees and a graduate of the institute using Bachelor or Master titles can be prosecuted in Belgium". If you notice the article, it doesn't say that "a graduate of the institute using Bachelor or Master titles can be prosecuted in Belgium." I wish to request you whether you can put the exact wordings within the article? Thanks and best always '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wifione, I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? The letter from NVAO says "Graduates that use the title Bachelor or Master can even be prosecuted. Using those titles without holding a legitimate degree is illegal." "Graduates" clearly means "Graduates of IMI" given the context of the prior two sentences saying IMI isn't recognized and can't award legitimate degrees. The article summarizes that in point #2 below. The summary seems quite accurate to me. If you have a policy-based justification for using the quote rather than an accurate summary, please share it on the talk page of the article where everyone can participate.
 * On a related note, spreading out discussion in multiple places only avoids consensus; it doesn't help us reach it. This is part of why I keep resisting you when you want to split out the discussions so many places. Please keep that in mind next time the question of splitting up discussion comes up. I understand that you are often anti-consensus (your proposed WP:SPS policy being the most current example). But this lack of trust of the community has been observed by others as well, calling your ideas "against WP spirit," "contrary to the core values of Wikipedia," "unconstitutional, in the sense: inconsistent with our core principles," etc. Your current proposal is less overtly against the core values of WP, but still basically about creating a heavy-handed rule rather than relying on consensus. This is a recurring theme in your edits and ideas. It is often disappointing to see how little you trust the community, when that's the whole idea of Wikipedia. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WS, I think you have your right of opinion. I would refrain from commenting on the same. Will undertake the issue on the talk page of the article. Best '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  08:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wind quintets
You have edited the article Wind quintet in the past.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Wind quintet over the criteria for inclusion of artists in the "Prominent wind quintets" section, where the vast majority of entries are WP:Redlinks. The proposal is that listed quintets should either have their own Wikipedia article or should have a link to a reliable source (not the quintets own PR, but an external source) to show that they are notable.

Please add your opinion here. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)