| Revision as of 22:05, 1 January 2012 editMarcusBritish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,077 edits →Remark: +cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:06, 1 January 2012 edit undoDolovis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,916 edits →close discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper ] procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows ] and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of ] and ]. ] (]) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | decline=See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. ] (]) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed | 1=There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper ] procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows ] and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of ] and ]. ] (]) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | decline=See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. ] (]) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)}} | ||
| {{discussion-top}} | |||
| :Your request for unblock makes no mention of your past move restrictions. In a discussion at ANI last July, an editor stated "deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith". I have reviewed the following AN thread from October: ]. Please comment on whether you have been following the October update of your move restriction. I notice that you are still busy fighting against diacritics . Your continued active struggle against diacritics certainly makes a charge of disruptive editing plausible. Any claim that you needed a warning before blocking seems ironic given you have been in so much trouble for such a long time, and you give no evidence of having learned any lessons. Thank you, ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | :Your request for unblock makes no mention of your past move restrictions. In a discussion at ANI last July, an editor stated "deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith". I have reviewed the following AN thread from October: ]. Please comment on whether you have been following the October update of your move restriction. I notice that you are still busy fighting against diacritics . Your continued active struggle against diacritics certainly makes a charge of disruptive editing plausible. Any claim that you needed a warning before blocking seems ironic given you have been in so much trouble for such a long time, and you give no evidence of having learned any lessons. Thank you, ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
| :::: Just for the record, and to express my outrage for this totally inappropriate block, I am not the one who is moving articles - it is the pro-diacritics group who are doing that. The moves I made, which lead to my move ban, were done in accordance with ] and ], but those facts are either misrepresented (or conveniently over-looked) by those who want to continue to push their ] agenda. ] (]) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | :::: Just for the record, and to express my outrage for this totally inappropriate block, I am not the one who is moving articles - it is the pro-diacritics group who are doing that. The moves I made, which lead to my move ban, were done in accordance with ] and ], but those facts are either misrepresented (or conveniently over-looked) by those who want to continue to push their ] agenda. ] (]) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| {{discussion-bottom}} | |||
| :::::How can wanting to use the ''form of lettering'' that is natural to their language, and probably on their birth certificates and passports, "pro-diacritic"? You're not making sense. Are you therefore anti-diacritic, or do you simply represent plain text? '''] <sup>[] • ]]</sup>''' 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:06, 1 January 2012
Hi there! This is my talk page, and I do hope that you will leave me a pleasant message to help make my day a bit brighter. I am open to hearing your constructive comments concerning my editing, but like all humans on this planet, I am more likely to take your comments to heart if they are written in a civil and polite tone. If you have come here to harass or bait me, please don't. If I do not want to respond to your message I won't. Don't take it personally. This is my talk page, so I will choose which discussions will continue, and which discussions will not. If you have been asked to stay off my talk page, then I ask that you respect my right to do so, and to refrain from posting your comments here. On a similar note, please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone is saying is no reason to remove it. However, if it is clear and obvious vandalism, then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, that's a neighbour looking out for its community, and I thank you for taking it on. A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor would still be appreciated, and even then, it may be better to just leave me to clean up my own page. You take care now, y'hear? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
| This is Dolovis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
John Ramage (ice hockey)
Won't lie, I see no value in redirects such as this. I have started a discussion at RfD on it here Resolute 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Misplaced Pages:DGUIDE
Hello Dolovis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Misplaced Pages:DGUIDE, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 23:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
RMs on article names
Keep up with the RMs, Dolovis. Even if you do end up getting barred or blocked by the pro-diacritics crowd, atleast you didn't cave in to their 'mother country pride' PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why on Earth would I be barred or blocked when I am following following established wiki-policy and protocol? I have been told numerous times that RM is the proper way to open a discussion for an article move. It appears to me that there is a double standard. I wish other editors would also use RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, you shouldn't be barred or blocked. But the pro-dios crowd have had a majority control for quite a few years & will fight tooth & nail to keep that control. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is in no way a majority; just a very vocal and militant minority, several of whom abuse and misrepresent wiki-policy, to further their POV goal. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are a stubborn group. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is in no way a majority; just a very vocal and militant minority, several of whom abuse and misrepresent wiki-policy, to further their POV goal. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, you shouldn't be barred or blocked. But the pro-dios crowd have had a majority control for quite a few years & will fight tooth & nail to keep that control. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dolovis! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Talkback
Message added 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhiteWriter 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
RM Milan Jurcina
Hi Dolovis: First, congratulations / thanks re: the Marek Zidlicky RM. I take it success in these requests is rare of late; always nice to see the right outcome happen.
I recently came across the RM for Milan Jurcina; but I just wanted to give you a quick heads up before I posted there. In doing a quick check and gathering some facts before posting, I noticed that, as with Zidlicky, all English (and several foreign) press dropped the diacritics; however, in checking the book references, I found that, of the 18 publications with Jurcina, a single English reference listed him as Milan Jurčina in relation to the 2006 Turin Olypics. Since I do, as I trust you and most of the others seeking to drop incorrect diacritics, want Misplaced Pages to be correct, the question then becomes what's correct? And I believe that (generally) English country resident / citizens have the diacritics (properly) dropped by default in our culture. That said, were it apparent that Zidlicky wanted his name spelled with, and typically spelled his name with diacritics, I'd consider it to be more a question of treating him with simple respect to spell his name according to his wishes (not to be confused with the apparent desire of some to use them even when they aren't appropriate ). And while I do agree that the title of Jurcina's article should be the most common English spelling (without diacritics), I also think that, given that his name is listed as Milan Jurčina in this single reference, that spelling of his name should be clearly mentioned in the body of his article. But given what I understand to be the historical outcome of these RMs, I'm sure my mention of any source with diacritics will just make it that much tougher; so I just wanted to make sure you understood that I have no desire to sandbag this RM or the cleaning up of all these mistitled articles. Anyways, I'll post on Jurcina's talk page a little later, but I wanted you to have a heads-up first. Cheers til I see you out there again. — Who R you? Talk 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(P.S. I posted a big-assed note on my otherwise relatively blank User page to notify of these diacritic related issues, since I wouldn't want to WP:CANVASS again; I've updated it right now with Jurcina's link and, should I find or nominate any others, I'll add them there; should you decide to do the same on your page, great, once I spot it I'll start watching your user page; or alternatively, feel free to update that section of my userpage should you come across any that I don't seem to know about.)
WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is 
Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
- Hurricanehink (submissions)
Sp33dyphil (submissions)
Yellow Evan (submissions)
Miyagawa (submissions)
Wizardman (submissions)
Casliber (submissions)
Resolute (submissions)
PresN (submissions)
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
- The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
- The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
- The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
- The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
- The Did You Know Award:
The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1. - The In the News Award:
Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1. - The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Misplaced Pages has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
2011 WikiCup participation
It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Back atcha
- It has been proposed that Ľubomír Višňovský be renamed and moved. Dolovis (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletionish discussion
There is a deletionish discussion about some of the articles you created at Talk:Dominik Halmosi/AfD discussion. Since the person who initiated the "AfD" failed to notify you, I thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Blatak
Howdy. You should've reverted Djsasso's page move, instead of opening an RM - to revert it. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Even though BRD is the right thing to do by policy and process, if you remember, the pro-dios crowd piled all over me for performing BRD moves, resulting in a page move ban for me - but not for the instigators who were then able to continue their moves unabated. Dolovis (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Dominik Halmosi
Ah, that's got nothing to do with the "AfD" discussion. That page is transcluding Misplaced Pages:WikiProject English/WPPolicy, which is part of Wikiproject English. That Wikiproject has been sent to MfD at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English, so all its pages have MfD templates on them. The article isn't currently nominated for deletion. Hut 8.5 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Re RM close on Lubomir Visnovsky
Dolovis, clearly you are unhappy with the close decision, but in my opinion the discussion did not result in a clear consensus to move to a new title. Everyone had their own arguments. You firmly believe that your position was policy based and other positions weren't. I am confident that the opposers feel the same way. There are a lot of subtle things going on with Diacritics in WP and its an unresolved issue. Until those subtle issues are resolved at the guideline or policy level, title changes like this are likely to be contentious and unresolvable. I would encourage you to work for resolution at that level instead of fighting battles at the individual article level. Remember, above all WP is for readers. Redirects and article content ensures all possible spellings of a name can be found and read about by an interested reader. For this particular article, the current title does no harm to the encyclopedia. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because this is a controversial issue it is important that Admins follow actual established policy, and not to just blindly accept that the contributing editors "firmly believe" in their positions. I have asked you to explain your written reasons for the “No Consensus” close on the Ľubomír Višňovský RM where you stated “Everyone made a good case based on policy and guidelines”. I am confused by this statement as the RM was nominated based on the established Misplaced Pages policy of WP:UE, including WP:COMMONNAME, with the Support side providing overwhelming evidence of reliable sources to support the policy-based Requested Move. The Oppose side quoted no established policy at all to oppose the move, instead arguing broad POV concepts of using the “correct” non-English name for biographies. Please enlighten me on exactly what established policy the opposed side based their “good case” upon, because I just don't see it. Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read the discussion with an open mind and you'll answer your own question. Enough said. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, My request was for you, Mike Cline, to answer my question. You appear to be unwilling, or more likely, unable to point to an established policy which supports the opposed side. Please explain yourself. Dolovis (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read the discussion with an open mind and you'll answer your own question. Enough said. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Archives
I've got a Bot, which archives my talkpage for me. An adminsitrator, should be able to set one up for you. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the instructions for the most common archive bot. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- James Sanford (ice hockey) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to Dayton Gems
- Russ Sinkewich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to Alaska Aces
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper WP:RM procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows WP:COMMONNAME and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT. Dolovis (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Your request for unblock makes no mention of your past move restrictions. In a discussion at ANI last July, an editor stated "deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith". I have reviewed the following AN thread from October: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Page moves for User:Dolovis. Please comment on whether you have been following the October update of your move restriction. I notice that you are still busy fighting against diacritics here. Your continued active struggle against diacritics certainly makes a charge of disruptive editing plausible. Any claim that you needed a warning before blocking seems ironic given you have been in so much trouble for such a long time, and you give no evidence of having learned any lessons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects. Any redirects which I have made follows all relevant instructions, guidelines, and polices. The only editing restriction placed upon my account is a ban on moving pages concerning diacritics (a restriction which no other editor has been asked to follow). Such moves are controversial and should be discussed at RM, and I have absolutely adhered to my editing restriction without exception. Dolovis (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you found an ingenious way to avoid the letter of your October ban, while still achieving the same goal. You are defending the result of your original move, back in May 2011, by reverting another editor's change on 1 January. It does not seem that you have ever opened a move request about Tomas Jurco at WP:Requested moves. The October ANI discussion indicates that you had agreed to use RM in the future though I have not yet found the diff where you say that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have never had any editing ban on the creation of redirects. Any redirects which I have made follows all relevant instructions, guidelines, and polices. The only editing restriction placed upon my account is a ban on moving pages concerning diacritics (a restriction which no other editor has been asked to follow). Such moves are controversial and should be discussed at RM, and I have absolutely adhered to my editing restriction without exception. Dolovis (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The editor on the Tomas Jurco article made an improper cut-and-paste, and I was absolutely correct to undo his edit. Please check the talk page and you will see that Tomas Jurco has already been through RM to settle the article's name. Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dolovis' is correct, concerning the Jurco article. There was no consensus to move to the diacritics article & so the editor who switched the article & re-direct to the diacritics form, was definitely in the wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm reviewing this as well. The gaming of the system seems quite obvious, as Elen explained at ANI, and you pretty well admitted as much in October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)..." Are you not now doing something very similar? Paul Erik 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I am not now doing something very similar. The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done. The stated reason for this block is Incorrectly redirecting, then editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention, however there is absolutely nothing incorrect about the redirects that I have made. No warning was given that I was making "incorrect redirects", and no "incorrect redirects" have been made. Dolovis (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- 1 single question: Since you are aware that {{R from diacritics}} must be included with the redirect to a non-diacretic article, why did you not include that template when you created the redirects?
- These are not moves where you would have to add it after the fact, but brand new pages where the redirect and any and all templates/categories can be added at one time.
- - J Greb (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware that there is a requirement to add {{R from diacritics}} at the time of creating the redirect. I just went back to the redirect article to add the required template. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- "The purpose of my edits is to create redirects which follow the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT, and that is what I have done."
- Your words. Your observation that the redirects need this template. Your defense of your actions.
- If you know this and you intend to follow through on it, why take an additional edit to meet this?
- - J Greb (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware that there is a requirement to add {{R from diacritics}} at the time of creating the redirect. I just went back to the redirect article to add the required template. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is the "editing redirects so cannot be reverted without admin intervention". Given what you clearly know about the system (and your comment I linked to above), why would you think that creating these new redirects in two edits, rather than a single edit, would not look the way it looks? Paul Erik 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't give any thought to how it would look. I was just creating the appropriate redirect according to the written instructions. Dolovis (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. You knew full well what you were doing. There were no such redirects created in a single edit during that period. All were created in two edits. You took a chance, probably to see if people were still looking. It didn't work. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I repeat. There was no warning that my edits on redirects was incorrect, and there is no editing ban on me creating or editing redirects. So no, I am unaware that I made any incorrect edit on a redirect. Dolovis (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. You knew full well what you were doing. There were no such redirects created in a single edit during that period. All were created in two edits. You took a chance, probably to see if people were still looking. It didn't work. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dolovis, right now you're experiencing the typical Wiki block experience of being swamped by admins and editors trying to impress their ideals on you, in a rather hypocritical manner, whilst editors get accused of attacking caged animals, admins are the ring-leaders with the whips. I suggest you don't fight it. They tend to get bored quickly if you don't fight them; they only work when their "collective unity" serves them in these cases, and I'm not afraid to say that they will attempt to bully you and will keep coming in greater numbers to defend each other if you persist in defending yourself. It is the admin culture here, which belittles us all. I expect nothing more than protests against my views, but I care not, it is not the issue here and I am on no ones side. There is simply the matter of your edits, and that is all you need to worry about right now. There is a wrong way and a right way, and the general opinion is that you have edited the wrong way. Your goal is not unreasonable: diacritics are like a foreign language to most native-English speakers, because few English words use them, and Anglicisation means more foreign words are written in standard English letters. Moreso due to technological limitations, keyboard layouts, texting (SMS), etc. Wiki can offer both because of redirections and because its search function will attempt to offer alternative suggestions whether a word uses diacritics or not (entering "dángéróús" in search, will still recommend "dangerous"). Your edits are being seen as controversial because you appear to be only defending one form of wording, and moving articles all over the place to make your point. I haven't looked into your history, can't be arsed.. simply put, the only way you're going to get on and stay on the good of those complaining at ANI and above it to adhere to a neutral POV. Think of it in the same way as the British vs American English debate, which ENGVAR settles. National ties come first, or common name. In many instances what was written first remains the primary article, all others redirect. In the end the result is the same page of content. Only in this case where Americans and Brits are generally aware of alternative spellings, we don't all know diacritics.. there must be dozens, and knowing them doesn't mean we also know how to use them. But we have to accept that if a Czech or Slovak, or whatever nationality, is given a name with such accented letters that we can't ignore them. Even Napoleon is spelled Napoléon by many authors, and he's far greater than any of these people you're getting into bother over. So consider really how trivial the whole discussion is.. a few wiggles and lines over some letters.. and you get a topic ban. Then a weeks block. Believe me, someone will be after your head next. Ain't worth it. You've been on Wiki for nearly 2 years, lots of edits, and your blocklog is too old to be of interest.. so chill. This isn't a one-way street solution, and there's no reason to get yourself banned or indef blocked.. it's not like you changed any ones religion or nationality, right? Could be worse.. so work with the people wanting to represent national ties, and don't create or move anything else that is going to be considered unfaithful to your original topic ban/restriction. Besides, some of my opening comments will ease the flak a bit now!
Cheers, Ma®©usBritish 21:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Remark
Dolovis is labelling his opponents "diacritic-lovers". If someone was constantly removing f:s, and another person reinstated them, would the latter person then be an "f-lover"? Dolovis's opponents do not "love" diacritics more than other letters, but they are of the opinion that they should not be removed. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pure BS, just like this block. I don't think I have ever called anyone a "diacritic lover". Show me the diff. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- How can anyone be a "diacritic lover"? That's like saying someone who uses capitals properly, instead of small case all the time, like some people do, are "caps lovers". It's just the way it is. Another form of written language. Period. Ma®©usBritish 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying. There is no such thing. So he shouldn't label people as such. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- He simply needs to rethink his POV, because it's just silly and irrelevant to Wiki-practices. Consider how many forms of Chinese there are.. do one lot of Chinese suggest that another type is stupid because they have different symbols? Are French 1s and 7s stupid because they have an extra tail or mid-line, which British schools don't teach us to do? SHM.. Ma®©usBritish 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just for the record, and to express my outrage for this totally inappropriate block, I am not the one who is moving articles - it is the pro-diacritics group who are doing that. The moves I made, which lead to my move ban, were done in accordance with WP:BRD and WP:RETAIN, but those facts are either misrepresented (or conveniently over-looked) by those who want to continue to push their FAIT ACCOMPLI agenda. Dolovis (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)