Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:34, 6 November 2007

I am currently busy in real life. I will check here and respond to questions about my own actions and edits, but I may or may not respond to requests for assistance on other matters. Please see the appropriate noticeboard for assistance. Thank you for your understanding.

User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Calling out other editors

Hi Thatcher131,

I saw your comments here and thought you might be interested in User:GHcool's page. I brought this issue up a while ago on WP:AN/I and while several admins agreed that his userpage was out of line, nothing happened and the thread got archived.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 24.10.2007 15:18

No comment? pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:05

I'm not interested in being a user page cop. If you are concerned, you should report this on the admin's noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I had already taken this up on WP:AN/I (see discussion here, the thread used to be called "Calling out other users one one's own user page", but the user in question continuously changed the title to something more innocuous) and a number of admins concurred that the userpage in question was out of line, yet no action was taken except for some minor changes by the user himself. I would not have contacted you directly before having taken this step first.

If you don't have the time to do this, I understand and will go seek help elsewhere.

Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 31.10.2007 16:40

Removed my comment?

Hi Thatcher - did you mean to remove this comment from me?: "We're on the page "Requests for Arbitration" - it might be useful if the ArbCom accepted this opportunity to take a look at User:Zeq's editing record. Not in order to iron out content disputes, of course, but to examine general use of sources and pattern of editing. His joking "For all you know I may even wrote some of these sources" might be indicative of his general academic standing and even ability. ex-17:28"///// PR 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is not really appropos for the "Requests for clarification" section. The appropriate place to raise those concerns is either at Arbitration enforcement, to request enforcement of Zeq's probation as to particular articles or topic areas, or if you feel the probation has been ineffective, as a new request for Arbitration. "Requests for clarification" typically get a lower level of Arbitrator attention, especially once they have turned into a content dispute. Thatcher131 12:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm terrified that the concerns I have are genuine but far above my pay-grade. PR 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for removing the content dispute. Zeq 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible personal attack from User:Misou

Misou has called myself and another editor "book burners" here: Could you please look into it with consideration of this :?--Fahrenheit451 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:Giovanni Giove

Please take the time to take another look on the Marco Polo article, the man reverted at least a couple of times, he is quite obviously infringing on the restriction. He buried the reverts in a million other edits, please look carefully. DIREKTOR 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, please try to be more constructive. Btw I've also read and implemented all your suggestions. Now I discover that you are accusing me, after your proposed "agreements". I find this very sad.--Giovanni Giove 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To Thatcher131, there is actually a problem about the sourcing of Britannica in Polo's article. I've tried different solutions and I've opened a discussion (actually user:Zenanarh deleted a sourced statement with poor pretexts). I do not think that I've done some "reverts", anyway let me know if I've done something wrong. Please, protect the article against unregistered user, the article was vandalized several times in the last days. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I realize searching for the numerous reverts is tedious work, but both User:Kubura and I have provided several diffs to assist you. This matter should be looked into, so I'd like to ask you once more to take the time to "dive into" User:Giovanni Giove's edits and take a look at the quite painfully obvious repeated reverts. DIREKTOR 17:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if bother you... Giovanni Giove is functioning to principle: what's last said by him at the talk page (no matter what it is) - that works for the article, no matter what was written by the others before that, including sources, references,... He simply writes no relevant documents at the talk page and then he inserts (revert, edit) his POV into the article. So unfortunately now we have a several destorted articles and huge inarticulate talk pages. I didn't delete any objectiveness. Zenanarh 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seem that the "Greater Croatia Army" (Kubura, Director and Zem.) complots against me:) It shall be noted that the attack against me come from a goup of Croatian users very famous for their nationalism. User Zem. constanly post insults personal attacks against me. (that should be punished)--Giovanni Giove 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I am agianst the continuation of this dispute on Thatcher's talkpage, I must respond to these de-facto personal attacks. I am a staunch anti-nationalist (as is obvious from my edits in the Mostar, Bleiburg massacre, and Jajce articles), and I must say that it is riddicuolus to call us the "greater Croatia army", when we are the "defending party" in the dispute. Dalmatia is within Croatia, and Giovanni is trying to italianize it to the fullest extent possible (i.e. he is the "attacking party"). DIREKTOR 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I need suggestion

User:Raguseo has started to revert some edits of mine, against the posted evidence. DIREKTOR and Zem. and Kubura are not the only users to impose nationalistic POVs. I do not want to start further edit war, but if an user do reverts, against posted references and established rules, what Shall I do?. Tx for the suggestion.Giovanni Giove 21:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done a single rvv against a revet by user:DIREKTOR, see Roger Boscovich, plz. He did a massive reverts, even of sourced statments, such us a correct infobox. I'm open to discuss the P single POV statments, but I can not accept massive reverts. --Giovanni Giove 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)