text stringlengths 1 29.3k ⌀ | label float64 0 1 |
|---|---|
REDIRECT Talk:(177614) 2004 HK33 | 0 |
Northern Ireland
This section needs some material. | 0 |
I have made a free screenshot Image:Gran Paradiso alpha 8 with Larry on the default homepage.png, and replaced that one with it in Mozilla Firefox. — | 0 |
You've got mail!
—Contact/Contribs | 0 |
"
Not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. (Hypnosadist)
" | 0 |
"
I'm not defending or advocating anything. It's about notability. ""What makes Wikipediocracy notable?"" Editors are trying to keep the most visible and notable practice out of the lede for reasons that seem to be defensive about what should go there. Why do we need to tiptoe around it? It is what is. Calling them pedophiles would cross the line without reliable sources and that doesn't seem to be supported and is, of course, a crime. There should be literally no resistance to pointing out their main avenue of notability -> which is investigating and exposing editors they believe are doing harm. That's what they do. That's what they are known for. I'm not morally weighing whether they are right or wrong, just stating what is the elephant in the room. " | 0 |
"
As we are apparently at an impasse over this question, I will set aside tomorrow to ask for third party resolution. As to your theory of your ""right"" to suppress these facts, I don't give two cents for your words after that ignorant, preposterous, country bumpkin lie of yours about the BBC broadcasting lies in their story so they can drum up viewers like Fox news does.
" | 0 |
Quit advertising your website even in other people's ip history, lamer. | 0 |
"Wow! Thanks for the incredibly kind write-up in your nomination. After reading it, I'd vote for me, too ) (deal)
" | 0 |
"
Years in Jazz articles
Hello! I see that you have recently spent some time expanding a variety of ""Year In Jazz"" articles, such as 1930 in Jazz and 1948 in Jazz. It appears that these edits have added orphaned references, which makes them show up on Category:Pages with broken reference names; a list of affected articles (about thirty) appears there. In some cases, the AnomieBOT has identified possible uses of the ref names from other pages, and while they appear to be the same, I don't know where content was copied from to fill out the ""Year"" articles. Could you revisit the articles, and make the appropriate changes? Thank you! - " | 0 |
"
Ringerfan23: I just want you to let you know that you appear to alienate a lot of people on Wikipedia. Perhaps the problem can be best summarized by your own comment on this page when you said that you thought about the issue and came to agree with the rest of the group. In light of your failure to think about the issue in advance, your actions were shameful. When faced with a group of people who reached consensus, you still had the audacity to have the page locked to reflect your (poorly reasoned) point of view. These are the actions of a stubborn child who wants his way and completely contradictory to what Wikipedia is about. I think you should grow up, recognize that your positions are often incorrect, and defer to the democratic process. Seriously, why do you think your opinion is so important that your beliefs should outweigh a consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.207.186 " | 0 |
"::And I decline. It isn't ""your"" page, and you can't roam around the web site threatening people and then hide on this particular page when such matters need to brought to your attention and addressed by yourself.
" | 0 |
Factual dispute
By the late 19th century, the Qing Dynasty began training and creating New Army units based on Western training, equipment and organization.
Is that correct? I think we are not being told about the whole story. In any case, there is no source to support it. | 0 |
Thanks, I'll try that. I've got to get a real computer at some point and stop spending all these hours doing things on my phone I could accomplish in a few minutes on a computer. Thanks for your quick response. Will let you know...
Ragityman
72.53.194.237 | 0 |
"
How did we end up with three people named Zoe all commenting on this RfC? Anyway, I support the proposed version as clearly superior. T " | 0 |
Note to Tbeatty
Note to Tbeatty Sorry my tongue-in-cheek attempts at humor fell flat with you. Seriously though your repeated actions of raising the spectre of Willy Horton when talking about the Peter Roskam article is an example something that political operatives advise against. (unless you are trying to bias others against Roskam, that is). You see these actions have planted the mental image of, and thoughts about a convicted rapist and murderer in the same 'mental frame' as Peter Roskam - in my mind and possibly the minds of others reading your comments probably not what you intended. Politics 101, Mr. Beatty. - | 0 |
i will not delete articles like you....attitude | 0 |
REDIRECT Talk:Somerset – Bridlewood | 0 |
"
Infobox
I made a infobox for Danish universities (:Template:Infobox Danish University). It is simply copied from the Swedish one, but adapted to the info I could find on the Copenhagen University website. I couldn't find any numbers on how to break up the student body into undergraduate and doctoral students, nor on how large a part of the staff is actually teaching staff. Look at the Swedish box at Uppsala University for comparison. If these things can be found, the template can be adjusted accordingly. ""Athletics"" is important at American universities and doesn't really need to be in the infobox for European universities any more than a lot of other student activities or societies. / 23:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)" | 0 |
cited material censorship
why, duncharris and ian harris, do you insist on removing this cited academic material precisely on topic? is it because you think it's wrong? is your opinion the slighest bit relevent? ungtss | 0 |
Actually a lot changed as a result of this battle. The German High Seas Fleet could not beat the the Grand Fleet in battle and as a result it remained in port for the rest of the war and never put to sea again. As a result, the British could move troops to France with impunity. Therefore, it was at least a strategic victory for Britain. ( ) | 0 |
"
The most hilarious aspect of all this is that from what I can tell - since alphachimp didn't include any citations or references, is about my very own talk page, not about any of my substantive contribution to wikipedia. It is autocratic idiocy like this that turns off the average person from contribution to projects like wikipedia. The mentality that places like this breed are totally laughable. I will end this day knowing and believing I contributed well to the ""actual"" content of wikipedia, in spite of the unwarranted, rude, abusive, actions of a few wikipedians, and an even fewer wikipedia admins. Hooray for that at least. Boo, on the nature of creepy characters on the internet who lack focus on the subject matter at hand. Today that was about seeing that a notable article, and a notable, hard working, man remained a contribution on wikipedia. Thanks to I will archive the AlphaChimp abuse at an appropriate interval on my calendar. Thank goodness this is only the internet after all. 23:54 17 September 2006" | 0 |
"
Or could the article be called ""Perspective change""? 20:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)" | 0 |
Canvassing
Yeah, interesting how that's enforced on one sided around here, huh. | 0 |
"
The 2nd is a copy of this very article. I don't know what the CompSci book is copying (I noticed it too), but we should make sure it's not an old version of us. But you're right, ""geographically"" is too vague to be meaningful. We can probly find refs they're legally separate lakes, and certainly they are culturally. — " | 0 |
"Why isn't there anything or any link to the story about him and that woman in Toronto?
A vandal deleted the reference and no one caught it. It has since been readded, under the personal life section.
I'm back now, and it looks like someone deleted that section again.
I won't get into the existence of a Criticism section, its been discussed before, and if its consensus to keep it, I'm all for it. But it does seem to be piling it on when the Bronson Arroyo glove slapping incident is mentioned in two separate sections. It appears under criticisms and under the 2004 section when it happened. Under the criticism section its even referred to as ""blatant."" And while I think it actually was pretty blatant, it seems like POV to use such a strong word. The Schilling quote following it sums up the feeling enough, I think including such an obviously subjective word on top of it actually detracts from the critical nature of the paragraph, and makes it seem more like A-rod haters wrote it than an objective encyclopedia. The evidence is damning enough - I won't change it yet, but anyone have any thoughts?
Agreed, and changed.
2001 & 2002 HR's
It says his 109 HR's in 2001-2002 are most ever for consecutive AL seasons...... I believe The Babe hit 113 between 1920 & 1921.... Not sure though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).
The Bambino also hit 114 in 1926-27 (60 and 54).
It says right-handed in the article, the Bambino was left-handed.
Clean-up
Regarding Greiner's reverts, 1) it was proper to include the second comma in a series, for example A, B, and C, and his revision is therefore inappropriate; 2) it is proper to have the year series read 1988-90, as I had it, and therefore his revision is not appropriate, and 3) while it is the general rule to write out numbers one through nine, here in baseball articles, and in articles that also have the same numbers in a series represented by numberals, as in hit ""9 home runs and ten home runs in consecutive years,"" it is acceptable to have numbers 1-9 written out. It especially aids the reader in articles such as this one, which are replete with numbers, in that numerals are easier to scan.
More Trivia
I pretty sure the name A-rod is trademarked, unfortuntly i can not find anything that can fully confirm this. Help would be apriciated
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state;=36qnco.3.1 Curse of the A-Rod was a registered trademark of a company in Boston, Massachusetts, but beyond that, no trademark exists for A-Rod.
The picture of arod hitting against the rockies is actually a picture of derek jeter.
More HR's and RBI's
A-Rod hit two more homers against Tamba Bay and has some other RBI's that need to be posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.123.59 .
Home run records are now up-to-date. He's also 1 away from tying the AL and MLB April RBI record, 35 by Juan Gonzales.
Middle Name
His middle name isn't Enmanuel, it's Emmanuel http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq;=t&ie;=UTF-8&rlz;=1T4HPID_en___US218&q;=alex+emmanuel+rodriguez
I think Alex is the best player in the world. I like he has the same middle name. My mom says it means Jesus. I think that mean maybe Alex is related to Jesus like Jesus is his great grandfather. Thats why he is the best player in the world. I think he will beat Barry in the end.
Arod
The page Arod currently redirects here. At the top of the article there are links to other pages users might be looking for when searching for Arod. Currently unlisted is the | 0 |
"
YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND
I made a (rather poor quality) youtube video of my own version of the Buckminster Fuller Jitterbug; look up The Polyflex says ""Hello World"" on YouTube.
I would have just linked my youtube video directly, but the URL triggered wikipedia's protection filter.
I used to make them in my home in Santa Cruz, California when I was a UCSC student, then sell them to toy stores all over the Monterey and San Francisco Bay Areas.
I started making them after a friend gave me his, as he had to cut down on his stuff before moving away to Canada. After a few minutes of my playing with this toy, he realized how much fun it really was and asked for it back.
I'm pretty sure that Fuller invented them. I have both volumes of Synergetics; they're really cool but don't make a whole lot of sense." | 0 |
Catholic butchers to Evangelicals again
Search
Home · Who Are We · Local Ministries · Contact Us
Main Menu
· Home
· Feedback
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Surveys
Categories
· All Categories
· Israel
· Palestine
· Jordan
· Egypt
· Syria
· Lebanon
· North Africa
· Persian Gulf
· Other
· Features
· Opinion
· Top Stories
Survey
Do you think the US political involvement in the Middle East is good for the Christian Witness?
Yes, indeed.
In some countries
In most cases it is bad
Results
Polls
Votes: 455
Comments: 0
Search
Lebanon: Catholic Villagers attack and vandalize Baptist Church
Posted on 29 August, 2006
Maronite Catholics attacked a newly-built, independent Baptist church near Beirut this month, mauling churchgoers preparing to host war refugees from southern Lebanon.
The violence flared up after of several weeks of tense public debate between Maronite and Baptist clergy. More than 20 men from Ajaltoun village attacked Christ Bible Baptist Church on August 2, slashing car tires, breaking the church door and windows, stealing computer and sound equipment, beating men and groping several women.
Compass Direct, Aug 22, 2006
A group of 10 Maronite men assaulted Baptist Pastor Raymond Abou-Mekhael and another church member at 6:30 p.m. as they were on their way to retrieve items from their parked cars. The Maronites broke the unidentified church member’s rib and both men’s glasses, smashed the car windows and then dumped the two men inside before joining another group of 10 in attacking the church building.
“Police were at the church watching everything,” Abou-Mekhael, 35, told Compass. “They even advised the attackers on what to steal and vandalize.”
Abou-Mekhael said that the men were led by Ajaltoun Mayor Khalil Tabet, who had the church officially sealed off with “red wax” immediately after the attack so that no one could enter the building.
In an August 6 newspaper article entitled, “No Justification for Building a Baptist Church in a Region whose Overwhelming Majority is Maronite,” the local Maronite bishop attacked the Baptist church’s right to exist.
Bishop Guy-Paul Noujaim wrote in local newspapers that there were “no followers of the Baptists in Ajaltoun,” and the “decrees of the Middle East Council of Churches [to which the church does not belong] prohibit building a church in areas without followers therein.”
In an e-mail to Compass, Bishop Noujaim said that the Baptist congregation had requested a permit to build a residence but had instead built a church. He declined to answer questions about whether he had been aware of plans to attack the church on August 2, but said that he had been celebrating mass at a church in the mountains when he received a telephone call alerting him to the violence.
In articles published in Addiyar and Annahar newspapers, the bishop called for the attorney general to close down the building.
“This is nonsense,” said Salim Sahyouni, President of the High Council of Evangelical Churches in Syria and Lebanon, to which the Ajaltoun Baptist church belongs. “We can worship in a legal church building, we can worship in an apartment and we can worship in the free air.”
As a Protestant community in Lebanon, “we have the full rights to build churches to worship freely in any place we choose,” Sahyouni told Compass. “We do not need to get permission.”
Worship Rights
In his written responses to Compass, Bishop Noujaim did not specify why it was illegal to hold church services in a home but claimed that the Baptists were violating the law by owning a printing press in the basement of their building.
The bishop’s biggest complaint was that the Baptists aimed to steal Maronite members of his flock.
“Why don’t the Baptists want to be part of the Middle East Council of Churches?” the bishop wrote, referring to an ecumenical council of Orthodox, Catholic and certain Protestant churches that he said forbids proselytizing each other’s members. “Don’t they support ecumenism and dialogue? If we are mistrustful of the Baptist people, it is because of their bad behavior.”
The bishop did not respond to questions about whether individuals in Ajaltoun had the | 0 |
Griffin v. California
Hi,
I noticed you removed my self-nom Griffin v. California from the DYK candidates page. Could you explain why? I'm not familiar with the procedures. Thanks - | 0 |
One more sad reason to give Messiah Part II more prominence, | 0 |
I've done a bit more - but still loads to do here! | 0 |
"
Thank you, I understand. I became frustrated when 7 articles came up at once by Mdtemp. After I put in a lot of work into the articles. I argued found sources, argued again, and just gave up. One who made it through was James Thompson whom was an Olympic Alternate 4 or 5 times and 6 time medalist in the National Championships while also being the subject of independent articles . Even there, they kept saying he didn't pass manote, when he obviously passed GNG. I don't believe that the group of individuals were looking at WP:BEFORE where it stated ""D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.""
I was typically referred to opinions on subjects like wp:manote (even though it say it is a guide) and GNG (which is a policy). So I read some of these policies and made sure that my articles fit those narrow criteria. I started to put in minimal writing so that I wouldn't get upset if they were deleted. I used google news and google books as my primary sources as per AFD WP:BEFORE suggestions. That is why you see a lot more Olympians and Negro League players now from me. They are automatically considered to be notable. I was surprised to see some of the martial arts editors editing the articles on negro basketball and baseball players I created and . This annoyed me as it seemed to go into the area of WP:HOUNDING. I was trying to avoid them and possible confrontations. You are right when it comes to the Eve Aronoff article. I will fix that. Also 69-73 are the same person. . He uses his nickname and a middle name (which are forwarded to one article). That article was initially speedily deleted but passed DRV . So that is why I didn't count them and had a lower number than the 14. Number 132 redirects to another article. That leaves 8, which will probably turn into 10 (I am assuming that John Roseberry another African American Judo practitioner who won a silver in the national championships (had an independent article written about him, founded a style of karate, and won multiple military championships) in Judo will be deleted. I do believe that I am doing far better than some other individuals who have created articles on martial arts Again, thanks for responding and I will address my own issues. " | 0 |
"
...and I forgot to mention that, though you may not know it, I believe your suggestions of late will be paramount to the successful inclusion of RantMedia. I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as since Tuesday afternoon. I wasn't clear to me what was necessary to be done with the article, and you helped lead me to the answer of my question of ""what is it going to take?"". So from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ₪— (T·C) "" " | 0 |
How can you ignore truth? You want to libel me think about where you get your sources from. | 0 |
I've finished your most recent British Vogue infobox. Here's an article you might want to read about the rise of celebrities as cover models for fashion magazines. Another resource you may find helpful for figuring out cover models is thefashionspot.com, a forum of obsessive fashionistas that document basically everything that happens in any fashion magazine of any importance. (Along with full-color scans of pretty much everything... it's amazing they haven't been shut down yet!) | 0 |
"
Fixing the article
I’ll propose below, for comment, a couple of alternative ways to proceed to fix No Gun Ri Massacre. But first ….
The recent interest shown by , and, now, presents a real opportunity to improve the article and bring it back to high WP standards. In the past couple of years, new sources have been published and there have been new developments, including a more settled estimate of the dead from South Korean authorities. They belong in the article.
But it will be a demanding task; there’s a hell of a lot wrong here. And, most of all, to fall back on a cliché, it’s essential not to lose sight of the forest for the trees. One big “forest,” clearly, is the way-out-of-line behavior of WeldNeck, not just at No Gun Ri Massacre, but Wikipedia-wide, as evidenced by the repeated warnings from other contributors, including many he simply deleted from his Talk page, as with ’s edit-warring warning at [], and including ’s observation [] that he has engaged in “POV pushing on all the articles you have edited.” As said, one must go back in his Talk history to find the thousands of illicitly deleted bytes. Then recall his outrageous action of just two days ago, killing my posting here at NGR Talk, and his taunting “have fun with this” when he posted his frivolous bid for a topic ban at ANI. When you combine all this with his dozens and dozens of rapid-fire, unjustified, unexplained reverts at No Gun Ri Massacre, I think it should be clear this is a guy who cannot be trusted on anything.
The “trees,” the distractions, are the red herrings that WeldNeck and other denialists wave on No Gun Ri. (Before WeldNeck, there was an NGR denialist going by ""Kauffner"" who got banned for general mayhem around WP.) The denialists arose in the year 2000, grasping at anything to attack those whose research work exposed No Gun Ri and thereby made the U.S. Army look less than saintly. One of their problems, along with their blinding anger and their obtuseness about so many things, is that they’re stuck in the year 2000.
Since then, after long investigations, the South Korean and U.S. governments confirmed that the U.S. military killed the trapped refugees at NGR “by the effects of small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing”; it emerged that more than a dozen military documents showing orders to shoot civilians were suppressed in the U.S. investigation; a Harvard historian reported (in 2005) the discovery of a U.S. ambassadorial letter to the State Department warning, on the day the NGR killings began, that the Army had decided to shoot approaching South Korean refugees (another suppressed document); other media organizations, including the BBC, replicated and then advanced the NGR story beyond the original reporting; a government committee led by South Korea’s prime minister certified a minimal death toll, with identified victims; and the government built a large memorial park and museum at the site where the facts of NGR are enshrined in exhibits and informational material, and where a new, consensus death toll is accepted. This is the “forest” to keep in mind.
Other knowledgeable journalists and academics have looked to me to maintain integrity on this subject in WP and elsewhere, as a retiree with more time available to learn WP's basics and monitor things. But they and I literally haven’t had the stomach even to read the article for many months, so disgusted were we at the way one out-of-control guy was allowed to run roughshod over the truth, not to mention turn it at times into a semi-literate, illogical mess. I’ll swallow hard and read it now.
A couple of possible ways to deal with this problem:
TimothyJosephWood, admirably, was willing to dig right in yesterday. He started from the top of my “litany” of WeldNeck’s unjustified reverts (a list done months ago but never posted until two days ago), and it turned out that first revert, a minor matter, had been remedied since I first noted it. A possible solution: I’ll compare my two lengthy lists of problems (from late 2013 and late 2014) and update them into one that lists problems that still exist. And Mr. Wood or others could then work from that. That might take me one day to prepare.
Alternatively, I myself could begin making edits, and other interested parties could stand by and observe the reaction (and ask for better explanations from me or whatever). In that case, I might as well also assemble some of the new material and sourcing I refer to (to include new external links etc.). That might take me u | 0 |
"
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums you made four reverts within one hour: , , . (talk|contribs) " | 0 |
"diff=78997601&oldid;=78985708
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=78548760&oldid;=78530450
reversions of officially referenced material
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=75056898&oldid;=75050135
Even when I have nothing to do with a situation, my SN is used as revert sockpuppet this.. or that. They are the only ones who post on anything about me that is negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=77463836&oldid;=77241382
They open up a RFC about someone else and the title is my SN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ccson#User:StrangeApples_etc
please take a look at the contant reversion that have been going on between those who oppose the views of Robotam, Ccson, MrDarcy, and Bearly541 over only the past few days.
reversions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=78996087&oldid;=78923637
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=78675005&oldid;=78650285
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=78530450&oldid;=78528580
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=76794285&oldid;=74548014
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=78548760&oldid;=78530450
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&diff;=78528580&oldid;=78527642
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=78996087&oldid;=78923637
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=75888115&oldid;=75673172
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=77241382&oldid;=77230347
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=77779028&oldid;=77472924
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=66651311&oldid;=65463353
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78997601&oldid;=78985708
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78985708&oldid;=78983008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78973273&oldid;=78964438
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78964438&oldid;=78956759
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78952804&oldid;=78934974
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78861878&oldid;=78832597
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78820838&oldid;=78818511
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Kappa_Alpha&diff;=78770985&oldid;=78762960
Even the removal of chapter video's that detail the fraternity and it's history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff;=68340685&oldid;=68047316
If you would help me to file an RFC I would be more than thankful. Everytime I have tried to file some kind of notice, the group of the previously listed users have simply gone onto these pages claming harrassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syrthiss#Mykungfu_Harassment
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ccson&oldid;=76850236
or they have simply ganged up stating that I am the one who is doing the wrong things. They have also collectively shut down the Alpha Kappa Nu article b/c it simply disagrees with the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black inter-collegiate fraternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu_%28second_nomination%29
Even if the article is highly referenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_kappa_nu
The addition of dispute tags to articles that were created by myself under my first SN
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&diff;=76774970&oldid;=75936756
and then disputing facts on whether a group is a fraternity even when on the official website stating that it is a fraternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi#First_African-American_Fraternity.3F
""""Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. ""
http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/
All in all, these individuals are not coming in with clean hands, but with dirty hands, and it isn't fair that i'm the only one being blocked indefinately. They simply have a better grasp of Wiki rules. They have to agree that everything that i insert is always referenced not simple vandalism, and i have no proble | 0 |
"
About Corticopia
Corticopia's past
Hello:
I just want to share with you some information you might consider important. We had a very difficult time months ago removing Mexico from Central America in the article North America. Why? Because an ""anonimous"" user (IP from Toronto Canada) was reverting all the changes. I finally discovered he was an already registered user and got him blocked because of sockpuppetry. One month later, I found out he was already been accused of sockpuppetry with that account.
Well my point is that he is against of Mexico being included in North America. His main ""argument"" was that the UN geosheme includes Mexico in CA and that's it. He also denies that North America is also a subregion of America and ignores the cited content proving him wrong. Well, he is Corticopia. For months he was retired and trust me, NO BODY changed the articles North America and Central America (specially this one) to say Mexico was in CA.
Suddenly a ""new"" user shows up. He deleted a line in the article CA. It said ""Mexico is rarely, yet sometimes included in Central America under certain definitions"". This line was discussed and agreed. He changed it to ""Mexico is included in Central America"" then to ""Mexico is sometimes included in Central America"".
I don't know what his problem is. The important thing is I totally felt this is the same person we had a very serious vandalism problems months ago, so I checked his edit list. Wow! What a discovery, his first edit was the article Issac Asimov and articles about Canada and some other regions of the world. It was very obvious it was the same person. Please check this sources and this . Please, read them carefully.
Please check the contributions of each accused sockpuppetry account, specially the one of User:Ex post factoid. It is very obvious he is the same person.
He was dragged into the article Mexico when he was unable to ""win"" again in the article Central America (he didn't even try to change the article North America because he knows a lot of people guard that article). So his reason to say Mexico is in ""Southern North America"" are purely false and personal. He wants to ""exclude"" Mexico or make it ""look"" appart from Canda and the USA.
I'm telling you this because I think you don't realize his reasons are just personal, a personal aversion against Mexico being included in North America. If he's so interested in accuracy of the articles, why isn't he editing the article USA? He even asked Supaman to do it by himself. He's just there to exclude Mexico. Please read carefully the evidence provided in each sockpuppetry case. You said that you're an administrator in Spanish Wikipedia, so I think you're experienced in these cases. You will find it is the same person. Cortiopia has edited the same pattern of articles that the other accounts did. Too bad I warned him and I'm sure he stopped editing with that account to prevent being identified. I think we should stop him and prevent him from editing the article with his biased, excluding information, even if sourced, because his reasons are just personal and not for the sake of accuracy. ( Let's talk! ) " | 0 |
". Wikipedia policy dictates that, no matter the relative stature of the subject, or how accessible ""well-known"" facts are via google or other means, all verifiable data are to be sourced" | 0 |
so wait, mr porcupine, when did you say you were planning on blocking yourself? | 0 |
The outcome is exactly the same. The fact that the charges are set for dismissal suggests at least that the charges do not warrant 12 references in a single article, unless you're out to damage the person who is the topic of the article. | 0 |
Technically it's a Phonogram (linguistics), but that will probably confuse people more.... | 0 |
"(Some days later:) I've WP:BOLDLY put back a much shorter version of the argument from ""pseudo-kerning"", citing Dr Newcomer as the source. Here's a copy:
Inter-character spacing
Joseph Newcomer, an expert cited by critics of the memos, claims that the memos display a simple alternative to kerning characteristic of TrueType fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing ""fr"", TrueType moves the ""r"" left to tuck it in under the top part of the ""f"".{{cite web | title=The Bush ""Guard memos"" are forgeries! | url=http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm | author=Joseph Newcomer | date=2004-09-15 | accessdate=2007-01-29 }}
Please note that my version uses Newcomer as a primary source, and so plainly is quite acceptable per WP:RS and WP:V#SELF. Cheers, (talk)
" | 0 |
Voice of reason
I appreciate your trying to bring reason to an attempt to destroy the valuable, public-spirited information at Politics of Gatineau Park. Though opponents may win in the end, I'm glad to see you stepped in to protect information the public certainly ought to know about.
Besides, Ahunt and Mnelson had done some work to bring the alternate view into the mix. Though they seem to have forgotten, since both have now worked themselves into an executioner's lather/frenzy.
As well, seems Ahunt's conspirators share a love for aircrafts. MilborneOne and the fellow who warned me at my talk page. Anyhow, I see them as ganging up on knowledge.
And so it goes. | 0 |
2005 Paris riots
I noticed that you where editing right now and I thought that maybe you could take a look at the 2005 Paris riots article? Irishpunktom believe that a previous attack against a synagogue in the area where the riots take place, is not relevant and not worth mentioning. However, I think otherwise. Maybe you could take a look at it and offer a third opinion? | 0 |
Eek! EC!
I did Talk:Rock_Pigeon#GA_on_hold, then EC'd with you putting this on review at GAN. Sorry 'bout that. '''' (H20) | 0 |
Wikipedia policies are worthless. | 0 |
"
Joy Division
Hi, the song in Trainspotting was ""Temptation"" by New Order, not ""Atmosphere"". Here's a link to the soundtrack. They're both great songs though! " | 0 |
"
I now see where this meets WP:BIO ""Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league"" " | 0 |
Suite101 dot com
I see a lot of discussion about whether these are suitable links. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Also see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. | 0 |
Wow, that is fancy. I wish I were better with those geeky things. Yes, that strikes me as very useful, and I am going to leave it right here. Thanks, | 0 |
HELLO
Nobs nobs nobs nobs nobs nobs nobs | 0 |
"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: your username contains the potentially objectionable word 'torture'. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
— (talk)(review) " | 0 |
it is interesting how the person whom attacked me was not blocked and did not have their comment removed. | 0 |
REDIRECT Talk:Democracy and Totalitarianism | 0 |
"
Thanks for the translator. The material that I have recently inserted into the article was intended to summarize the sentence you added. As I said, the ""warm and friendly"" and the ""secret"" stuff is already summarized in the present article. I think that the news sources currently cited in the article cover everything that you want. " | 0 |
. Again, see the suggested edit | 0 |
"
Good point with the faking of the cancer, which may also be what is referenced in ""Don't ask the Question. It lies.""... would it be in good practice to note this as a possibility? 17:03, 18 January 2007(UTC)" | 0 |
" December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you now if you and Elonka think my edits were biased or NPOV, then we can discuss your thoughts toward building consensus on that new, untagged topic. However, you have not listed bias or NPOV, you have listed two ""OR"" statements. Well, what they really amount to is misplaced clauses. We could easily delete ""to solicit donors"" and ""to assist Elder in the process"" and move them elsewhere, or move the footnotes and add other footnotes. But isn't it interesting that if that had been Elonka's concern, she could have deleted just the clauses instead of the whole sentences? Have you read User:Kazvorpal#Truth, not silence?
Also, as I will point out at AFD, the simple facts are that this usage was created entirely by Paul supporters, it received prominence solely due to Paul supporters, and upon reaching prominence it has been used by six campaigns. Your description of Paul's placement is precisely proper weighting for these facts. Also, I did not admit bias, as my refactor above makes clearer.
But most important, I thought third opinions were a form of mediation. I need you to answer questions (1) and (2) just above so that I know whether this process should continue or what other process I should invoke to build consensus. Elonka and I have seriously different intentions for this article, and that difference should be worked out by discussion. I have politely refused to encourage edit warring, to the article's detriment, and to fulfillment of my warning that Elonka's actions improperly encouraged AFD. Since you have also voted for deletion, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of ""third opinions"" and your place in this discussion; please answer those two questions. 07:34, 4" | 0 |
or in other Wikipedia articles | 0 |
"
Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also ""What Wikipedia is not"" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add to the top of Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester.
The reason I have put on the PROD is that the article simply duplicates information in the existing article Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, which is too short to need splitting. " | 0 |
The comment above is mine. ) | 0 |
"Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to [ create an account]. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address () is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on , or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! My talk " | 0 |
"
Jehochman you say you love the project. I wonder if you realize that the project would benefit from having more editors as 28bytes and less users as Jehochman? So,Jehochman, for the sake of the project you claim to love please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.210.186 " | 0 |
I understand. i've explained myself clearly on the talk page, and am also giving detailed reasons, while the other user is repeatedly making disruptie edits, without reason and also accusing me of lying. | 0 |
Hey, I'm all for it, I created the article initialy named as Battle of Benghazi, however another user moved it to Battle for Benghazi. I didn't mind because I didn't want to argue, however as far as I know when battles are named they are named Battle of...etc.. | 0 |
I do. It's a diversionary tactic. Since the writer cannot answer the issues you and I have raised, he is diverting the debate to a new, red herring topic. All Wikipeida editors write about topics that they fancy. This is not a problem. In fact, it is an asset since when we care about a topic, we are more likely to have the facts at our fingertips. The problems come with poor editing and poor logic, such as voting to keep articles that appear to favor one's personal political convictions, and to delete those that don't - and devil take the rules. Some editors will try everything in an AFD, shifting their arguments, false arguments, strawman arguments, personal attacks, outright untruths (I have pointed out 2 outright assertions of untruth in ADD's this week alone), and good red herring to get an article deleted when the only real argument they have is Wikipedia:I just don't like it. | 0 |
Don't leave. You are out Donald Trump: someone needs to call out the politically correct social justice warrariors here. | 0 |
"
I was not engaged in an edit war, but was trying to prevent an editor from using original research to justify his reversion of my edits. Wikipedia states,
""Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences.""
One Night in Hackney states, ""Sources get things wrong and make mistakes. GOOD editors are capable of noticing when sources have made a mistake and compensate accordingly, BAD editors are not and make a mess of articles by blindingly adding incorrect information"" and adds later, ""I even proved Bell contradicted himself..."". Clearly One Night in Hackney is conducting original research, as what he describes is ""original thought."" He provided no citation to a source indicating that Bell was mistaken, only his own ""proof."" Who is he, or I, or you, to unilateral make such an assessment he might be right, but it's original research.
The Wikipedia pages also state, ""It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions.""
One Night in Hackney has not been civil or neutral on this talk page or in responding to my edits. I have added factual information, direct quotations, only to have them deleted. When I attempted, in my last edits, to merge his point of view and mine, those edits were also deleted.
If there is to be only contributor to Wikipedia articles on items related to Irish Republicanism, and that contributor is One Night in Hackney, supported by ONIH's friends, then Wikipedia should advertise that and be done with it.
I am now blocked from editing even though he used the ""f"" word and called me ""ignorant"". Talk about blaming the victim.... WH " | 0 |
El C, can you please re change the article, i did not revert it the last time but only put the vandalized parts back to the article i guess youre not following the talk page and youre unaware of what is happening there.. | 0 |
Thanks to you for being reasonable. | 0 |
The existence of citations for POV and controversy does not make them NPOV. Sure, in publications that find the controversy to make a good story that will sell magazines, it's practically the entire focus of the story. But that doesn't mean it's a major part of the story in everyday life. Similarly, that stories dwelling on said controversy can find people who make claims about his motives does not mean those claims are actually true, or even widely believed. Magazine writers can spin narratives in line with their own perspectives; we can't. (I might also note that the quote you cite does not actually say the same thing as your paraphrasing, but it really wouldn't matter if it had.) — | 0 |
Hello. Sorry to disagree with you, but the page had virtually no content. It also duplicates an existing topic: []. I believe you will find that Star Wars is already well represented; you mayu wish to consider expanding an additional article. | 0 |
No it won't. It will improve the Spongebob Squarepants article a lot. I think that this article should be in the Spongebob Squarepants article. ( ) | 0 |
"
Cochinchina
Hi. You added the date of arrival of Portuguse traders in Vietnam in 1516, but the page you cited in your source doesn't mention the naming of the area as ""Cochinchina"". Could you provide a source for this info? A scholarly one, at that. Thanks. " | 0 |
"
""Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."" " | 0 |
"
I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I tend to think of it in similar but slightly different terms, but I don't want to create too many suds.
I still think it would be good to discuss the dissemination of hummus worldwide, the role of the Arab diaspora (and even Israeli expats) in bringing it to North America and other places. I remember seeing sources for this somewhere. If I bring them here, (and they are reliable and relevant) will they be used? talk " | 0 |
I already requested an received approval for the two usernames, they will both carry the flag. The flag is needed due to the amount of edits performed. (Need help? Ask me) | 0 |
Done. There's still a lot of other ones out there to convert. It's going to be a long job. | 0 |
Copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the author in many countries and Wells lived a long time | 0 |
))This is obvious, here is English wikipedia.But about using latin alphabet by Azerbaijanis in addition to arabic alphabet, the contributions of Azerbaijanis from Iran in Azerbaijani wikipedia both in latin and arabic versions are live reliable source.Azerbaijani langage also doesn't have official satus in iran to have official alphabet. | 0 |
"
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Tutor. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. " | 0 |
Can you please answer my question? | 0 |
"
Egypt also has a blockade of Gaza. (talk) " | 0 |
"
Hey random dude guy who added the Leben info. I agree that it was hilarious and maybe even factually relevant but your tone and wording was incredibly biased. WP is not an entertainment mag, I think if you avoided phrases like ""made [Leben] break down and cry"" then your addition would work. But for now I've reverted it. " | 0 |
"
Well, at this point five editors have participated in a discussion that has gone on for several thousand words, and four of the five are in agreement. I initially thought Jytdog's comment above to you was a little harsh, but I think you do need to realize that ""consensus"" doesn't mean that we discuss this issue endlessly until the other four of us ""understand"" the topic better and come around to your position. I think we've got a consensus and its time to acknowledge that rather that continuing in WP:IDHT mode. talk|contribs| " | 0 |
Comment: Could the author's imaginations of this weapon been inspired by the garrotes reportedly used by the Thuggee in India/Pakistan? | 0 |
11:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) | 0 |
"
Admins, I suggest you check out this diff before you consider unblocking.— dαlus Contribs " | 0 |
Other page redirected. You are correct that we don't use (per the manual of style) honorifics. Since it was not sourced, it was not suitable for merging. | 0 |
"
LOL bite me. talk " | 0 |
Jesus told me to write this, you can't delete it | 0 |
"
Re: Henry Percy (Hotspur)
Hi - looks like you are very quick off the mark! You undid some of my work while I was still adding information, and then you undid some more of it while I was hunting down a reliable reference. A bit more patience would have saved us both a bit of time and effort. I've added three reliable sources to the Tottenham link now - they're everywhere, and it would have been far easier to check that rather than risking an edit war. I can add more if you like. Next time, waiting more than a handful of minutes before reverting would be advisable, and refraining from shouting would be nice. PS - did you really think that someone could confuse the Tottenham Marshes and Welsh Marches? ...wha? " | 0 |
I completely agree with Wjhonson here. The wikipedia has certain core policies that are non-negotiable without regard to how strong the temporary, mutable consensus seems to be.
I agree that those who argue that the consensus should over-ride the actual wording of the policy should undertake to formally revise the policy. I agree they should do this first. | 0 |
It is the last one i object to. It was removed claiming to be unsourced, so per talk page, i remedied the problem. | 0 |
" June 2013 (UTC)
Mopping up operation
See →Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Equipment of the Philippine Army←, listed by BLOCKED/BANNED lame duck 7 days ago. Thoughts? ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:52, 17" | 0 |
. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to do, but you shouldn't link directly to the image on the source website. You have to download it and then upload it to the Wikipedia Commons | 0 |
Strictly scribbles and vandalism, with misleading edit summaries. | 0 |
Thanks for experimenting with the page Jodie Sweetin on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. (talk) | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.