Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.74.246.179 (talk) at 08:06, 21 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

An image

Sorry to annoy you once more, but could you check out this image? Part of the FUR says "It is of much lower resolution than the original" which is confusing considering the size. Also, the source seems to be a book published in Bulgaria in 1941, which wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Thanks in advance, BalkanFever

Cham Albanians

Actually, the association Bilal Xhaferri is quite well-known in Albania, and especially in the Cham community. But, of course the way it was written, was unenecyclopedic. I`ll try to find Rs about it. By the way, should I nominate the page for the GA status, or is anything wrong with it? What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem if you want to expand a bit on the Xhaferri thing. It was just that we've had a single-purpose editor who's been rather stubbornly inserting very POV material about it. As for GA status, I'm skeptical, but right now the article is simply too long for me to go through it all and check it, sorry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hi future. This edit offers a viewpoint I very much disagree with, but I don't think it violates any policy. I would like to see the editor reminded to use the most civil language possible and to focus on content and citation issues, but holding fringe positions is not a blockable offense. And he's suggesting how he thinks the article should be edited. So I don't see how it's blockable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Holding fringe positions is certainly not a blockable offense. But wasting the community's time and patience by aggressively soapboxing for them is. So, he's "suggesting how he thinks the article should be edited"? Well, yeah: he is demanding Misplaced Pages should unilaterally declare Obama not in office. Of course he knows just as well as you and I that this "suggestion" hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell to become reality (in Misplaced Pages, much less in the real world.) Neither could any person with a healthy adult brain and a minimum degree of willingness to think realistically ever believe, even for half a minute, that such an editorial change would be a step towards neutrality. So, on both these counts, it is pure disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Future. I understand your point. But as he's making a statement about how the article should be edited, our opinions on the soundness of his reasoning is irrelevant. And as far as soap-boxing I am happy to provide diffs of much worse instances as well as incivility that should be acted on far ahead of his statement that because "proof" of Obama's citizenship hasn't been provided to the satisfaction of some parties the article should be edited accordingly. I agree that these views are fringey, but I don't think that makes them invalid or improper to express. I respectfully request an unblock with some guidance that comments should focus as closely as possible to citations from reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, sorry, I don't think I'd be willing to unblock here – certainly not as long as I haven't heard the user's own unblock request. No problem if you want to take it for review somewhere else. I appreciate your constructive approach in asking here first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(I've posted a note back at the original ANI thread, if that's okay with you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. As you've pointed out, the editor can contest or discuss their block. I left a note for them and will leave it at that. Thank you for your kind consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the thread contains soapboxing and a personal attack from other editors. I don't think these types of edits are helpful and they hurt our ability to have civility and reasonable discussion far more than editors who have viewpoints that are not widely shared. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed this already, but it was User:ChildofMidnight that claimed I was being too tough on the newbies, i.e. on the WND mushrooms that conducted a siege against the Obama page on Sunday afternoon/evening. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that Axmann himself was part of that siege, and was blocked shortly after posting ridiculous stuff like this: Baseball Bugs 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail on this matter. — Dan | talk 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre

Following on from the disruptive move war at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (and thank you for stopping that), I've proposed a topic ban on Sceptre for repeatedly violating article probation. Please see WP:AN/I#Disruptive conduct by Sceptre - as the previously intervening admin in this incident, your views would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for cleanign off the socks of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Thanks. The persistent vandal is a creator of sock farms (over 150 socks). Have a nice evening.--Caspian blue 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Chapple Norton

Could you restore this page please. Norton was definately real and automatically notable as an MP. I added a source and you'll find links to him Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ODNB entry Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but can you then please check all the factual claims in the article? According to what people reported at the ANI thread today, this hoaxer managed to fill up articles even about real people with loads of fictitious bullshit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Quickly checking the deleted article against your ODNB entry: not even the birth and death years match. So, watch out please. Might be better to start from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All is now correct but I've saved the source if you want to zap it and I'll recreate? Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

Hey there. I don't know if you plan on being at Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires, but if you do you might be interested in joining a panel discussion I'm throwing together: User:Coren/WM2009 panel. As a battle-hardened veteran of WP:AE, your perspective would be welcome. I'm trying to keep the size of the panel manageable, so it's first-come-first-served.  :-) — Coren  02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the invitation, but no, I won't be there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

Hi FutPerf. I've had a little chat with Axmann8 on IRC about the difference between verifiability and truth, and better ways to constructively contribute other perspectives to articles. He's been having a bit of a rough time, as most of his views are seen as extreme conspiracy theories, and therefore I'm not sure that he's been treated with the neutrality he deserves. I was wondering if you would mind if I unblocked him on the condition that his contributions to talk pages are a dealing with reliable sources, rather than trying to launch into political arguments. — Werdna • talk 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was contacted by e-mail by Rdsmith with a similar request, and will tell you the same as I told him: I personally rather doubt if this user has any potential of becoming a constructive contributor, and I don't feel I can personally endorse an unblock, but if you guys feel confident it is a responsible thing to do, you are certainly within your rights to overturn me. I've had three requests from third parties now, so deal with it as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked Axmann8

Hi Fut.Perf,

Just thought you should know I've unblocked User:Axmann8 after discussion with a promise to stay away from the Obama article and withdrawing certain accusations against you. I'll continue to keep my eyes out, please let me know if there are any more problems.

Cheers! henrik•talk 11:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I just noted Werdna's note above. Alas, as long as the wiki doesn't have any form of mutual exclusion mechanism, I guess things like this can happen. :) henrik•talk 11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

User:Colonel Warden is requesting that Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer) be undeleted as it "is certainly real and so the article should have been stubbed and kept for improvement per WP:IMPERFECT."Cheers. Imperat§ r 13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If he is sure he can clean it up similarly to the other one yesterday, no problem with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look

Please can you take a look on Greeks in Albania. A user is trying to use this, this and this as the reliable sources, to say that Greeks were victims of hate crimes, when these three newspapers (one of which is a comment), just cite the Greek government.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is the "Albanian academy of Sciences" more reliable??--Michael X the White (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are becoming my tiddles, wherever I comment, you`ll respond with irrelevant issues. It is good to have a tail.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation of banned sock?

The latest edits by anon 79.101.200.189 (Cyprus, Bucharest, Belgrade) follow the same pattern as the banned sock User:NIR-Warrior. Could you check this out, please? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, reverts to same versions, but it's a different IP range and country. Let's wait and see a bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Karposh's Rebellion

Hi Katze, is it possible, because of permanent vandalism from IP-s this article to be semi-protected? Jingby (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising article (proposed split)

Hi, I know you are involved in Macedonia related topics and you are an admin user, so I wanted to ask you if you can take a look at and comment the following discussion: . I also commented at the end of the section, I made a research on Scholar Google and it appears Ilinden and Preobrazhenie uprisings are mostly seen as two separate events. I think it is good idea to split that article, what do you think? MatriX (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My topic ban

I think it's quite unfair that i got banned,while editors who are messing up hunders of articles are free to do what they want.I'ts really enoying to have to read the same articles over and over every few days just to protect them.Why is nothing beeing done about those people?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about a response?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously I don't find it unfair that you got banned. Your ban had nothing to do with other people's poor editing, it had everything to do with your poor behaviour. As for disruption from other people, we try to check as much as we can. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,I'm sorry i lost my temper,but this is going on for far too long.I'm so tired of reading the same articles over and over again and so are other editors.It's sad that every deacent editor eventualy gives up on fixing the articles and just stops contributing to wikipedia 'cause as soon you fix something it gets trashed again.People are tired of wasting their time with nonsense and because of that they have less time for editing and contributing.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

time

oops, i did not notice it. I felt that I had reverted for the last time some 50 hours ago. Sorry.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

please

can you block this guy?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support of keeping the File:Turkic_language_speaking.PNG . Take care of yourself. Maverick16 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Can I have your opinion on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#UNPO_on_numbers about the reliablity of UNPO?Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please give your thoughts, about a GHM report, cause it seems that people are confuse, on what authors ment.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, anon invasions, would it be a good solution to semiprotect the article?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Check ur Email inbox Mactruth (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite?

Future Sunrise, if I were to bash a Greek, I would be immediately banned. Well, in the talk page of , ΚΕΚΡΩΨ states "They also believe they're ethnic "Macedonians"..."

Mactruth (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Blockable?

anon invasion and presistence. What should we do?Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still think that the page should be semi-protected.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On "Blocked"

Future Perfect Sunrise, you did unlawfully block my account for 24 hours, having unjustly accused me of "display aggressive and disruptive ... tactics on the talk page". You must have been dreaming or hallucinating! Which disruption and which aggressive behaviour were you talking about? Present some explicit examples! You owe me an unconditional apology and an explanation! I am absolutely mystified by your behaviour. Of course, it is conceivable that you may be enjoying exerting undue power over others, in which case you are demonstrably unfit for your present administrative position at Misplaced Pages, but for the time being I am not going to consider this possibility. I was at the very least entitled to know the basis for your utterly unfounded accusations at my address before having my account blocked! Your statements on my talk page amount to no more than unfounded assertions. I am further dumbfounded that you suddenly appeared out of the blue! What caused you to come over and for absolutely no reason block my account? Who egged you to do so?

As for "edit warring" on "Shatt al-Arab", you must have mistaken me with User:Ev. If you read my comments on the talk page of the latter entry, you will realise that I have repeatedly asked Ev to explain the basis underlying his edit warring! He solely referred me (not once, but every time that he responded to me) to a page that he himself has edited; he brazenly justified his edit warring on the basis of the contents of this self-made page (nowhere in the world can a defendant act as his own witness – one needs independent and impartial witnesses; Ev has created a vicious circle — you should also realise that Ev has no contribution to any Misplaced Pages entry regarding Iran and/or Arabic countries; how is it possible that he has become an expert regarding the name "Shatt al-Arab" – a word that cannot have existed before 1920 and a word that is essentially a creation of Saddam Hossein who, along with his henchmen, believed that God should not have created three things: Persians, Jews, and Flies.). Please read my comments! The name Arvand Rud is the name explicitly referred to in the Algiers Treaty of 1975; this Treaty being ratified by the Parliaments of both Iran and Iraq, its contents are constituents of International Law (ask this from someone who is familiar with International Law). I have asked repeatedly from Ev to present a document in which "Shatt al-Arab" were the legal name. His sole argument is that Goolgle hits m times "Shatt al-Arab" and n times "Arvand Rud" and since m > n, "Shatt al-Arab" were the correct name. What kind of a logic is this? There are at least over 70 million Iranians who refer to this river as Arvand Rud? Where is this fact reflected? The methodology as employed by Ev has absolutely no validity – no one, except those who know absolutely nothing about a subject matter, uses this methodology.

Aside from all these, if you look at my edits, you will realise that in my edits I did nothing to the word "Shatt al-Arab"; the only thing that I did was adding the name "Arvand Rud" after "Shatt al-Arab" in the captions of figures. Where has Ev got the right to remove this addition? There is no reason why the name Arvand Rud cannot be in the captions of figures (we are not dealing with an imaginary name!). Ev seems to be someone with a political agenda, and you have been, whether wittingly or unwittingly, acting as his facilitator on Misplaced Pages! That is unforgivable!

As I said above, I expect an unconditional apology from you – what you did was absolutely unacceptable. You even did not have the civility to tell me about your intention of blocking my account before proceeding with this blocking. Have I not had the right to know about the accusations, so as to be able to defend myself? It seems to me that you and Ev must have had some secret dealings with each other: you took his side, without considering to provide me with a chance to clarify my position (it is highly suspect that you somehow appeared from nowhere – you must have had some prior discussions and agreements with Ev about which I have been left totally in the dark). Of course, you both may hate Iranians, but as an administrator you are supposed at least to keep up the semblance of impartiality. Your failure to apologise, will lead me to lodge an official complaint against you – failing to apologize will establish that you do not posses the qualities expected from an administrator, who must be impartial and fair-minded.
PS: I am bringing this comment to the attention of User:Stifle, User:Khoikhoi and User:Hiberniantears. --BF 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this posting is the best demonstration of why your block was absolutely justified. I will have no compunctions blocking you again, and for longer, if you continue editing in this disruptive style. That said, your above rant is so chock-full of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and assumption of bad faith that I'm not going to waste a minute responding to its contents. If you want to be talked to seriously, learn to communicate reasonably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you fully agree with yourself. You also decline to apologize and explain the reason for getting involved into a problem in which you never had been a party. Let us hope that there is no evidence to be found on the Misplaced Pages pages showing your collusion with User:Ev. --BF 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

It's quite easy: Ev reported the matter to the admin noticeboard. That's where I found it. That's the full extent of our interaction. Ev also notified you of this report, on the Shatt al-Arab talk page. Yes, I'd never been a party to this problem, indeed. That's just as it should be, because I dealt with it as an entirely uninvolved admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion had been going on without I ever having been made aware of it. This is an example of the abhorrent underhand activities that are being pursed by some on Misplaced Pages. This is totally unacceptable! Somewhere in the latter page you refer to the people with "nationalistic pride" (you even call out "Block them."), supposedly considering me as one. If so, you are utterly mistaken: telling the truth has nothing to do with "nationalistic pride". The fact of the matter is that there is no historical reference to "Shatt al-Arab". Iraq did not exist until 1920 so that "Shatt al-Arab" is a post-1920 creation (this fact can even be surmised: the region that became Iraq was before the creation of Iraq part of the Ottoman Empire; Ottomans being Turks, they would never have named the river at issue as "Shatt al-Arab" – I have explained all these in my comments on the pertinent talk page); it is very likely that the name "Shatt al-Arab" is a creation of Saddam Hossein in the 1970s, when he came to power and started his anti-Iranian crusade (even moments before being hanged, he was spouting abuse at "Persians"). In contrast, the name "Arvand Rud" is even mentioned in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the historical sources underlying Shahnameh pre-date even Zoroastrianism (and tomorrow we will enter the Zoroastrian year 3747). I am very sorry, I am not going to shrink from telling the truth because someone like you, who clearly knowns nothing about the details of the subject matter, would call me someone with "nationalistic pride". Actually, you are entitled to think of me the way you like best; what you are not entitled to is blocking my account on the basis of your perception of me. Your failure to distinguish between your private thoughts and your public duties makes you unfit for your present position. --BF 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, hate when activities are pursed. I'm more of a wallet kind of guy. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pursing my activities further, I just idly checked a bit for how long the name has been in use in English. It's quite easy to find English attestations of "Shatt el-Arab" from the mid-19th century, so it definitely predates the creation of Iraq, and most certainly "Saddam Hossein in 1970s". Haven't got access to the OED right now. Don't know what the Ottomans used to call it. Not that it matters, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please give the relevant references, containing full details concerning the geographical location named Shatt al-Arab! You will have to realise that there is a massive falsification going on. They are removing (by paying mercenaries) references to "Persian Gulf" and calling it "Arabian Gulf" --- historically, "Arabian Gulf" is the name of the Red Sea. The same applies to Shatt al-Arab. If you look at it logically, Shatt al-Arab cannot have been the name of a river opening into Persian Gulf. Please find a 19th-century map on which Shatt al-Arab is recorded where Arvand Rud flows. Without this I am not sure we are talking about the same river (consider the example of "Arabian Gulf" which indeed exists, but rather than being the well-known Persian Gulf is the Red Sea as referred to during the ancient times). This article (which I presented at the time on the talk page of Shatt al-Arab) indicates that not until the early 1970s was there any dispute about the name of the river at issue.

Below Ev comes along with his ever-ready reference to Penny Cyclopaedia. The one he cites is published in 1835 in London. A little bit of knowledge regarding history would be useful here: 19th-Century was the time of the Great Game and the British Imperial power was amongst many things involved in a heavy propaganda war. The Anglo-Persian War was not far in the future when Penny Cyclopaedia was being penned in London. As late as 1924, the British were heavily involved in getting Khuzestan separated from Iran. For doing so, giving the local river an Arabic name would prove auspicious (why would otherwise the Khuzestani's want to separate from Iran?). In short, a reference to Shatt al-Arab in a 19th-century British source cannot be viewed as proving anything; the source is not impartial. To appreciate this, one should consult some of the books written during the Soviet era in Russia: almost all major and minor inventions and discoveries were ascribed to the Soviet thinkers and scientists of good standing with the Politburo.

The Penny Cyclopaedia at issue posits the question as to why Shatt al-Arab is not called Euprates or Tigris, and provides a quasi answer to this self-posed question (it brazenly says that this was because the local people were not sure whether Tigris contributed more to the river at hand or Euphrates, and thus they opted for Shatt al-Arab!). The most logical answer to this question would be that Tigris means The Swift River, which is also the exact meaning of Arvand Rud (see the above-cited article in Encyclopaedia Iranica, that is this). Similarly, Euphrates is also Persian; it is the Graecized form of the name Forāt. In other words, Penny Cyclopaedia contrives a convoluted reason for convincing her readership why a river with a Persian name somehow miraculously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! (Tigris has in Modern Persian become Dajle so that in Modern Persian Tigris and Euphrates is referred to as Dajle va Forāt.) Just imagine: a river whose origin consists of two rivers with Persian names, opening further into Persian Gulf, somehow mysteriously has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab in the middle. To accept this nonsense, requires a total denial of human logic. As I have mentioned earlier, even the name Baghdad is an Old Persian name, consisting of Bagh (God) and Dād (Gave). The capital city of Iraq has a Persian name, but a piece of river to its East has got the Arabic name Shatt al-Arab! Could this be feasible, given the fact that the Arabs in this region of the world had not the political clout to give names to major geographical locations? --BF 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen enough of this. This has now been the third time I see you in action with this same disruptive style (one was the Unruled Paper (film) issue, one was the issue of the non-free images the other day). In each case, your behaviour have been a mixture of aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Misplaced Pages's agreed policies. I am now putting you officially on notice that if I should see you stirring up the fuss again in similar ways, on this or on a different issue, I will block you for longish periods. – Now please stop posting here about the Shatt el Arab issue; your rants are not welcome on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you consider it as your birthright to keep hurling insults at me: "aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Misplaced Pages's agreed policies"! You are either insolent, or downright illiterate in the language that you purport to know, or both: "waffling", of "waff", is the "yelping of a dog"! (Typical of the people who "learn" English on streets, or in gutters, without ever considering to read a proper book.) Did you respond to any of my above points? Points that you raised yourself. As for Unruled Paper (film), that AzureFury had, by his own admission, not seen the film, not read a word about the film previously, did not know the language, and did not now any of the persons involved in the film, and yet had the temerity to vandalise the entry (now it is Ev's turn to pontificate on the name of an Iranian river and get his way under your protective shield). It seems that all these are fine from your point of view! These are all hubris and unmistakable signs of utter disrespect towards the people of a certain origin, which you have made abundantly clear in your way of addressing me time and again. Not only have you not apologized (for blocking my account without informing me of what had happened in the background – you accepted Ev's assertions, without ever considering to hear my part of the story), but have adopted your offensive mode and are in your usual manner threatening to block my account. As for my "rants" on your page, I should say get yourself some proper education and learn some civilized manners! Insolence is not a merit. --BF 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents at 16:38, 16 March. I informed you (and everyone involved) at Talk:Shatt al-Arab at 18:07, 16 March, an hour and a half later (my apologies for the delay).

A few examples of English-language books published in the 19th century using the name Shatt al-Arab for the waterway are found on this Google Book search (so much for Saddam inventing it).

In any case, Misplaced Pages's naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names are the only relevant factors to determine what names are used in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have noted User:BehnamFaird's comments and indicated to him the existence of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not quite sure if that was the best piece of advice for him though. He can't file an RfC/U, because he won't have a second certifier as matters stand now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again

anon invasion again. I`ve reverted him some 100 times, but I dont think that this is part of 3rrBalkanian`s word (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why did you fully-protected those pages? Established users have a consensus on them, semi-protection is what is needed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On revert limitation

In the pages I am concerning for now, there are concensuses to deal with. As such, I do not think I need a limitation, as there is no revert I have to make if a vandalism does not occur. For, what you said, as far as I know reverting vandalism is not edit warring, and as such, I do not think I was part of any edit war. You fully protected the page on the wrong version, although you could just change it on the right version, as for all consensuses we have. Per WP:CONSENSUS I request the removing of fully-protection.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What is vandalism then? Removing well-referenced text, without an explanation, isn`t a vandalism? If it is not, I just did not knew it. In every case, why should you protect the page in that version, as you perfectly know that it is not the WP:WRONG VERSION, but the actually wrong version, the one were no consensus exists, where an anon, who does not know wiki rules intervines, with just say-so edits, etc.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that fully-protecting those pages for three days, was the most wise move?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

hello please take a look here User talk:85.74.200.102 if you havent so i have no unfinished business85.74.246.179 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)