User talk:Alexia Death/Archive Oct 2007

Kilbiga!

File:Gallo-Roman 4th century shield boss.jpg

Well done, Alexia! Sander Säde 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope I didn't sound too bad...--Alexia Death 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you did great. And Peeter was obviously impressed by both you and Wikipedia, so overall I'd say the radio show was very positive about Wikipedia. Hopefully it will have a good impact to Estonian editors in Wikipedia. Sander Säde 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That radio show was really good. You were great. Avjoska 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Alexia Death 04:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your images

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG 15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I dont know how to use images in Commons... Could you give me a tip?--Alexia Death 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stones and glass houses

An eye for an eye... You (hopefully) got it. RJ CG 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "An eye for an eye" is called pointy behavior and as such is against WP policies and grounds for blocks. I hope you will refine from it in the future or trouble will await.--Alexia Death 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bannable offence and Digwuren haven't got a permaban? Wow! Some things in life never cease to amuse me. Thanks for warning anyway.RJ CG 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, knowing the policies always helps. As for Digwuren, he has been banned for it in the past and has learned from it. Just tryng to help you learn the policies without doing the time --Alexia Death 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonians

Tere, thanks for your edit to Estonians. The dubious-tag wasn't intended to insult anybody, just to highlight that the claim is, well, dubious :-) I'm fine with using "citations needed" as you changed it to, though. If you feel like it, please take in the discussion on the talk page. Cheers and head aega! JdeJ 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :). I know it was not intended as an insult, but it gives the original author a negative impression and they are less likely to take kindly to your criticism... :) I hope this way it gets a better source or if not, fixed...--Alexia Death 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me, I had completely missed that :) JdeJ 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

I know nothing about the arbitration case or the underlying dispute, but it's hard not to sympathize with this plea. Wishing you brighter days ahead, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting proposal to reform 3RR

User:Alexia Death/Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia. I like the idea of counting it per edit, rather then per editor. It would significantly reduce pile-ons for reverting rather than improving content. Tiamat 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not support 3RR blocks at the time they were adopted. My objections then were that it would incentivize editors to create socks and to make accusations of sock puppetry, and without an accurate, simple mechanism to identify which edits originate from a particular person we would end up with more of a mess than reverts caused. I believe my concerns have by and large been realized. Whether the problems of socks are greater than the problems we had with endless reverts is an open question, but I still do not support 3RR. Prior to 3RR we did have examples of editors who would revert an article dozens of times a day. Another angle on this is the long-promised "stable versions" software change which, if it is ever adopted, may remove some of the incentive to revert. While your proposal is interesting, experience has been that complex rules don't work; adding layers of complexity to 3RR IMO is probably not the answer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have foreseen the issues that haunt all that are active in controversial topics today. However, id like to ask what seems complex about my proposal? Counting reverts per edit? Understanding, that when reverting for third time, you need to start the discussion in talk by rules of process? Something else? I am really interested in your thoughts. It is true, that complex rules my have difficulties, but I see no such difficulty here and i believe that it would solve a lot of problems in disputed topics rising due toue the nature of 3RR that gives power to numbers and disregards content.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By and large, there's a lot of sense in what you're suggesting. I can see problems with it as well, but I think the benefits outweigh those problems. JdeJ 07:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interesting in what you feel are the problems of my proposal :) I would love to hear about them in the Essays talk.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified your modification

Good afternoon, Alexia.

I've stolen your terrific essay, added some personal perspectives and completely changed your "3rd rule".

Please tell me if, consequently, you wish me to remove your good name from my mangled mess here: W. Frank talk ✉ 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The two comments below were copied from Frank's talk page)

You are welcome to have your own version to it, but I would appreciate it if you would link back to the source. :) --Alexia Death the Grey 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Thanks for your cordial and prompt reply, Alexia! W. Frank talk ✉ 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been named as a party. Cbrown1023 talk 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain to me...

So basically what you did was take a routine firewall alert, failed to assume good faith, and started screaming its Digwuren? And you don't see anything wrong with that? From a programmer Id expect more understanding of networking... Really.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why this routine firewall alert would come up w/ something from Tallinn? Why not from Bogota? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to explain why a random bot that happened to be in Tallinn accidentally scanned you? Hello! Its RANDOM. Ive traced more serious attacks like SSH forcing for example to totally random computers to as many countries as there have been attacks. IT's done with bots and more can be said when you stop being silly and publish the attacking IP.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All other IPs flagged low or medium as a threat level except that one. Wake up Alexia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wide awake and full of questions. So Its Zonealarm. And you apparently have no clue what KIND of attack that was? I haven't used Zonealarm for a long time, due to being a pure linux user... It will take a bit of digging to find out what Zonalarm classifies as high.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Google leaves me at a loss. Ill just have to rely on you to manage to read from your firewall logs WHAT was the alarm raised about. AFAIK that classification is also given to viral activities and pings...--Alexia Death the Grey 11:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged by what? What tool are you using? It seems that you are relying on some firewall log? Tell us the details, as it seems that you don't know much about networking and intrusions - or intrusion detection. You can easily tell us lots of things without revealing IP's or other personal details. Sander Säde 08:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Zone Alarm. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search match

Just thought it might amuse you - someone came to my blog from Google with search "Alexia Death pärisnimi". Sander Säde 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Really funny. Not netsavy then.--Alexia Death the Grey 10:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes or communes

This has probably been discussed somewhere, but I came across the topic reading the article of one Estonian county. AFAIK, Estonian Legal Translation Centre (or whatever they call themselves these days) strongly discourages the usage of both "parish" and "commune" and suggests "municipality" or "rural municipality" if distinction is needed -- 195.80.96.209 12:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a long discussion about it at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Estonia. the consensus was to use Parish because rural municipality is too long and draggy...--Alexia Death the Grey 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

What's with this? Just curious, when do I have to write down: support :)) Anyway, is there any kind of page, where you can propose a modification of an existing wp policy? --Ezsaias 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) . Trouble with 3RR is that is a long established rule and thus hard to modify. Recently a person proposed that I set it up as a proposed and optional guideline that editors can agree to adhere, but I haven't done it yet, right now it just an essay, but I'm glad you see the proposals merrit. I think soon I will try to write a proposed guideline out of this and let you know:)--Alexia Death the Grey 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) Yeeee 'kmon, stopdevor :) --Ezsaias 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Estonian Americans

Tere Alexia, List of Estonian Americans has been nominated for deletion. I thought perhaps you may wish to weigh in on this matter, as nearly every other American ethnic group is not listed for deletion. Proosit. ExRat 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe

I noticed that you nominated Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe for speedy deletion. User:Petri Krohn reverted it. I think it would have been better if Petri had provided an explanation but, since none was given, I am supplying one now.

At the moment, you have a point. However, the discussion on the Talk Page of Soviet occupations should make it clear that there is an intent to develop both articles so that, over time, the content on both pages will diverge.

Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe will focus on Northern and Eastern Europe with discussion of how this occupation affected the development of the occupied nations and the wider geopolitical implication of the occupation in Europe and the world, especially referencing the Cold War.

In contrast, Soviet occupations is meant to be an overview article which provides less detail.

Duplicating content is not a great idea but sometimes it's necessary to cover a topic at different levels of detail.

I would urge you to be patient and see if the articles develop as I envision. You can always take the article to WP:AFD if you disagree.

--Richard 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated it for speedy because I figured it was a move clitch. If you have plans for it, by all means develop it, but ATM it is a duplicate and perhaps starting over later with a clean slate would be better. However the choise is yours. I did not even watch it because I expected the case to be clear cut and I find Petri's un-notified removal odd...--Alexia Death the Grey 16:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia Star

		The Estonia Star
		For your outstanding contribution to Estonia related articles Martintg 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right

In here, see my reply on workshop. But don't give up and leave: this is a persistent, but curable disease. Enough people complaining about the same editors and enough evidence must eventually convince ArbCom to do something.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold my breath. Anarchy is a system that favors the rise of warlords. Sigh... Anyway, I am not leaving for good, I'm too stubborn to leave when driven away. Just taking a little recharging break, and hopefully return rested, unless of course I find myself then permanently blocked, then I'm just going to write Wikipedia off as a lost cause. Thank you for this kind note and your comments.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Did you know...
...that there's a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation going on here?

Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not go

Alexia, do not go yet. A proposed decision is not the final decision. I do not think Dig, Suva or Petri should be banned and I do not think arbitrators are that ban happy either. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh for my opinion. Anyway I am sorry that I was not able to spend more time on the case Alex Bakharev 10:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. What I wanted was equal measures for equal offenses, no get out of jail free cards for anyone no matter how big your edit count is. That is not happening. This proposal makes that much clear. So theres no point in saying anything else. It just is not worth the effort any more. So I'm leaving. I just logged on to give a bit better explanation than the initial emotional one and I thought you deserved an answer.--Alexia Death the Grey 13:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. Perhaps other arbitrators will not display "huge edit count==get out of jail free" behavior... and some other undertones - although I don't think I will get my hopes up about that. In any case, please do wait for ArbCom to finish before you decide to leave Wikipedia for good. -- Sander Säde 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to abandon hope. If even one of the decision makers is part of the problem , then the problem cannot be fixed, it goes too high. If something changes I may consider returning someday, but i wont hold my breath.(One more computer is left to log out...) --Alexia Death the Grey 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...
...that there's an ongoing attempt to develop a serious alternative to the conflict-ridden Wikipedia and both active and retired Wikipedians are welcome to register there?

Erik Jesse 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A little note...

Corrected now; sorry about that. Kirill 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Vikipeedia seminari plaanid

Planeeritakse Vikipeedia teemalist seminari mingil laupäevasel päeval Tallinnas. Oodatud on ka eestikeelsed vikipeedlased, kes eelistavad ingliskeelses vikis kirjutada. Ehk soovid osaleda ja võib-olla isegi artiklite neutraalsuse teemal rääkida? (oleksin eelistanud teadet saata e-postiga, kuid Su kasutajal ei ole seda tuge.) Avjoska 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Ei ole yldse välistatud et võiks tulla kyll... Anna mulle teada kui midagi täpsemat selgub. Minule võid otse meili saatmiseks kasutada hoti kasutaja alexiadeath meili(paned vast kokku kyll, ei taha indekseeritavale lehele ilmutatult kirjutada). :) --Alexia Death the Grey 09:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]