Hi again. Any thoughts on the suggestion that SriMesh makes on the “Regina Neighbourhoods” talk page that all Regina neighbourhoods have their own articles? There are issues of spelling and grammar in the material she has inserted in the article regarding neighbourhoods but I hesitate to edit till there has been some discussion as to whether the substantial elaboration of the neighbourhoods article(s) is warranted. Masalai 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but would you mind adding your thoughts on the "Regina Neighbourhoods" talk page regarding Ms SriMesh's extremely ample additions regarding the neighbourhoods and zones? I would like to remove the list altogether, fix up the grammar and spelling of her paragraph of introduction to that list and cut it down somewhat and then move what is left to the introduction at the top of the page. Mr Siever appears to be in agreement that the list does not add useful information; my view is that Ms SriMesh's ambitious proposal to introduce a discussion of evolving policies in city planning by discussing the development of the city neighbourhood by neighbourhood is far too vast an undertaking vis-a-vis the value of the results. (A few sentences dealing with the whole subject would surely be ample.) And there is far too little to distinguish neighbourhoods other than the few already mentioned, (unless there are one or two more which merit notice) for any discussion of them singly to be anything but a colossal yawn. I appreciate that your view was that there was some merit in her proposal, though you rightly thought it should wait till other more immediately interesting tasks were addressed in the series of Regina articles. In any event, Ms SriMesh's additions were made in good faith and I don't like simply to start cutting them without it being apparent that there is some consensus among the regular Regina contributors that this is appropriate. (Too much rudeness in the world as it is without adding more, eh.) Masalai 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Terrific. Well done. Masalai 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Recent deletions and demands for citations in the Regina article
What do you think about the large number of deletions that a user in Australia is making from the article? I suspect she is a little unclear as to the correct use of footnotes: they are not necessary for trite matters of generally common knowledge (though it is certainly possible for me to add the citations she demands); but I do wonder if it is appropriate for her to have deleted a great deal of material on the basis of its being in other articles. It is common for the main article to summarise such material, which is then elaborated in detail in the relevant sub-article. Masalai 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...well, KMSiever seems to agree with her about the deletions, though in my view they make the main article a bit skeletal. I have extensively footnoted the section on bedroom communities which she demanded citations for (trite though the demand is, I think); I don't know where the figures on climate come from and I'm afraid someone else will have to take charge of documenting those. Masalai 13:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For a moment I thought this must be some connection of Sir Richard Burton (Pierre Berton was with an E) that I didn't know of and that the query related to Islam or Sindh or Sir Richard Burton's script for the Sindhi language or the Arabs or the Mormons in Utah! I have heard quotations similar to that one but tracking down a quotation by Berton is going to be a big ask: he was extremely prolific. (It's not in The National Dream and The Last Spike, which is where he talks about the establishment of Regina and the national scandal that was occasioned by Dewdney's corrupt choice of the location.) And, alas, not always very meticulous -- he was, after all, a journalist, not a scholar, and perhaps carried Philip Graham's line about journalism being the first rough draft of history over into his history books. I'm afraid I can't help: is there a dictionary of quotations you can consult? And are you sure it was Pierre Berton? It also sounds like the kind of thing Peter Gzowski used to say when he was getting all sentimental about Saskatchewan. Masalai 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I just checked the deletion discussion for the Sk in Pop Culture article and I think its days are probably numbered. However, it's a nice pithy observation and if you can track down its provenance it could go in the Regina article in the discussion of the development of a green and pleasant town in a, to put it mildly, improbable location. Masalai 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Jiejunkong becomes quite upset and is easily provoked every time you address the user directly. I recommend that all of us actively attempt to defuse the current tense situation. After all, the current reckless path of the malicious aggressor is eventually going to result in a long block. In the interest of creating a positive atmosphere for editing at Goguryeo, we should all ignore and/or slow revert any bad behaviours. But we need to understand that the more we argue with the user, the more disruptive s/he will be. Don't directly address the user unless one has to deliver a legitimate warning. We should realize that this user is an attention-seeker: one look at Jiejunkong's "contributions" shows that his/her behaviour has really devolved into nothing but malicious pestering, personal attacks, and trolling on article talk pages and user talk pages. Let's pity the user who seems to believe that other editors are plotting against him/her. This user is a drag on the resources and bandwidth of Wikipedia -- let's ignore baiting and bad stuff and slow revert if we must. Ignoring the user except to revert and/or report bad behaviour is justified because the user has consistently displayed an unwillingness to edit according to policies and guidelines and has displayed bad faith in almost every single one of the user's edits. Mumun 無文 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't entirely agree with your method, I'll take your advice. Cydevil38 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Jiejunkong becomes quite upset and is easily provoked every time you address the user directly. I recommend that all of us actively attempt to defuse the current tense situation. After all, the current reckless path of the malicious aggressor is eventually going to result in a long block. In the interest of creating a positive atmosphere for editing at Goguryeo, we should all ignore and/or slow revert any bad behaviours. But we need to understand that the more we argue with the user, the more disruptive s/he will be. Don't directly address the user unless one has to deliver a legitimate warning. We should realize that this user is an attention-seeker: one look at Jiejunkong's "contributions" shows that his/her behaviour has really devolved into nothing but malicious pestering, personal attacks, and trolling on article talk pages and user talk pages. Let's pity the user who seems to believe that other editors are plotting against him/her. This user is a drag on the resources and bandwidth of Wikipedia -- let's ignore baiting and bad stuff and slow revert if we must. Ignoring the user except to revert and/or report bad behaviour is justified because the user has consistently displayed an unwillingness to edit according to policies and guidelines and has displayed bad faith in almost every single one of the user's edits. Mumun 無文 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't entirely agree with your method, I'll take your advice. Cydevil38 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this note that you left for me, just FYI: you might want to take a glance at a person's edit history before sending them a boilerplate, "Welcome, newbie - you screwed up!" message - I've been editing since 2005. (Although yes, I did screw up! ;)) -- Hux 14:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:-) Replied on your talk page ^^ Mumun 無文 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Kbrnzemldc200BC-AD100.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kbrnzemldc200BC-AD100.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, fellow regular contributor to the Regina, Saskatchewan articles. My apologies for the recent contretemps with a user in Australia, which you may have felt yourself involuntarily drawn in upon. I confess that I overreacted: Crummy English I can handle; rudeness and arrogance together with crummy English sends me ballistic.
Actually, I continue to maintain that my response to such user was not out of line — I do correspond regularly, believe it or not, with all manner of non-native anglophone business associates and friends in a half-dozen countries and in three languages — but never mind. Apparently for Wikipedia purposes I was wrong and I shall be more careful in future. (“Ad hominem, “ indeed!)
However, please do not intrude on my user page. I am a poor weak fellow and I am susceptible to taunts. If I delete matters from my user page it is because I do not wish to be provoked by them to further indiscretion. If you barge in and restore such deletions without comment, surely you can understand how I might perceive that as being, at least prima facie, and certainly if it is without explanation, an act of aggression.
I have just added this to my talk pager per your COI query.
If you will go back to the original discussions on this article you will see that we have discussed this matter in depth - the article did indeed derive from my CV - You will also note that the edits I have been performing have simply been in line with the comments of wikifying it (adding references in an appropriate manner etc.). I am eagerly awaiting an editor to work on this as was suggested, or I would be happy to do so if you would like to make suggestions. I would point out that the argument that others have short bios is probably more of a condemnation of the bio writing than the actual contributions - particularly of the two you mentioned.
P.S. I would be grateful for assistance in altering the article. Everytime I touch it someone says its a COI - (which is obviously true). I know it reads like a CV since when my assistant put it up she used mine from her files.
Thanks for the edits. It reads much better. Could I ask you a favour - could you put back in the note on being an Eagle Scout/Medal of Honor winner? the reason for this is that I am in the list of distinguished eagle scouts (put in by Gadget380) and the article should have reference to this. Also, would you then remove your COI tag once you are finished?
Hi Mumun, it is not unfounded that Komdori's origin is suspicious, especially considering he/she is so obiviously advertising that his/her origin is Korean. Also his/her attitude as a editor is problematic. He/she constantly deletes contents from his/her talk page that don't please him/her. See for example [1]. Besides his/her editing relating Korea is so mean (and sometimes goes almost up to paranoia) and relating Japan is so generous. I gave up addressing to Komdori after effortless trial to advise against his/her reckless deletions. In fact WP gets less and less credible because of editors just like Komdori. Be careful dealing with Komdori. Ginnre 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
right, i agree.Leavepower 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Due to your continued abuse on this page, it has now been protected for 24 hours. I am sorry it had to come to this. In the future, please refrain from abusing the unblock and help templates. --Yamla 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yamla has now lifted the protection and the autoblock has now also been lifted. Re. your comment to Clown, the original autoblock admin; autoblocks and range blocks don't appear in your block logs. Take a look! - clean as can be. Clown applied the original range block and didn't block you directly. Seriously - chillout - Alison☺ 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
retired from wikipedia due to harrassment and abuse
I was blocked for no reason and then I was attacked for attempting to remove the block by admins. In one single day I have been so abused and harassed such that I have no other option but to withdraw and retire. I can see that administrators protect each other no matter if they have abused others. I was wrong to appeal by email and other official channels. You will not hear from me again. You may erase this user account and all the edits associated with it. Good day. Mumun 無文 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You were never blocked. If you decide to leave for this reason, it's due to a misunderstanding of the autoblock process. LeeboT/C 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[4] Never blocked, sorry. You were probably autoblocked. Your account nor your edits can be erased. — Moeε 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(copied over from WP:AN) Step back and analyse the situation for a second here. You were rangeblocked (it happens to us all) and that's no reflection upon yourself nor does it appear in your block logs. You overreacted in a big way and repeatedly didn't produce the autoblock ID which would have been your key to getting out of that mess. When the autoblock was lifted/expired, you went gunning for both Clown and Yamla on their talk pages and on here. So what started with an autoblock needlessly escalated into something else altogether - Alison☺ 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Mumun man. I would like to apologize for this misunderstanding; someone has been targeting and harassing another one of our contributors, through the use of both sock accounts and IP hopping. As a result, your IP range was temporarily blocked for a short period of time while this was being handled. Your assertion that other administrators here have harassed and abused you is patently false; several different people, myself included, attempted to assist you, but throughout the process you kept blanking your talk page and hurling unnecessary comments making it dificult to do so. The range block has since been released, and your personal block log is completely empty. I ask for your understanding here and hope that you will reconsider after taking some time out for reflection. Sincerely, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't leave WP on account of a misunderstanding. You're a good editor and your reputation precedes you. Your block logs are 100% clean and you have done nothing wrong here - Alison☺ 21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, don't leave!! The admins are good people, even Yamla. It looks like all this was a misunderstanding and it would suck if you left because of it! Hope to see you editing soon 216.104.34.66 06:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you trying to do, rouse up people in order to start a wiki-war? One thing's for sure: The user ID "Mumun man" was associated with your "good edits", which were no doubt valuable to Wikipedia.--Endroit 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd noticed that edit, too, but had let it slide. - Alison☺ 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
