User talk:AniMate/Archive 4

Zadar section Recent History discussion

I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section in order to achieve a more NPOV version. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Zacchara

She is notible enough to be on Wikipedia. Plus - A character like Farah Mir who only appeard 1nce gets an article. Leyla also. And her middle name is Antonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.243.29 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Alright. But I finally got the info. I'm giving it to Wikipedia. It's not called vandalism if it's better when I edit it. But I have to respect that. So I'm beging my own Encyclopedia. Well... That's it. Farewell. --76.69.243.29 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Please respect the community's wishes and stop editing. You have been blocked more times that I can easily count and continue to come back. Please, just stop. None of the articles you claim to care about will be improved as long as you continue to edit here. A ni Mate 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's back

Would you please review this and also what happened after I deleted the "statutory rapists" category on the Gerry Studds page? David in DC (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frtizl case

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fritzl_incest_case/Archive_1#Similar_cases_section_could_get_out_of_hand

I am reverting again. We need to be very careful re WP:BLPnot to suggest that there are aspects of other cases (e.g. murder) which have not been proven in this case. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citations

I am making mistake or... RFC question is:"Are eye witness accounts from a controversial work, Magnum crimen, considered reliable sources ?". Dispute about me and DIREKTOR is:"can we put eye witness accounts in any article because of POV pushing and NPOV rules ?" (and many other things). In my thinking this are 2 different problems ?!--Rjecina (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will not solve dispute between me and DIREKTOR because for example this RFC can end with decision that Magnum Crimen is not good enough, but few days latter we will have new book and new citations. Because all reasons which I have writen earlier on talk page citation can't be used !

Can you please explain me why we do not use victims citations in article about Rudolf Höß and other Nazi criminals but we must use citations about Ustaše criminals. Please do not write me that this is not important because in my thinking we are having 2 editorial styles for 1 similar crime ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me this is dispute about editorial style nothing more nothing less.

During last 12 months I am reverting puppets of banned user Velebit (and now User:PaxEquilibrium) which are trying to put this citations in all WWII Croatia related articles and we are now having respected editor which is supporting position of banned editors ???

If we are having right RFC question I will let go (if others disagree with me) but not with today RFC question. In today situation I will ask for mediations.--Rjecina (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you truth I am ulmost always winner in discussions. You know why ? I choose only discussions in which my arguments are stronger of another person. If this person show evidence that I have made mistake he is winner but in this situation we are having POV pushing, NPOV, way in which other similar articles are edited and Quotations policy and I can't imagine that my conclusions are wrong. On talk page of article Miroslav Filipović I have asked DIREKTOR to stop destroying his reputation but ...... We will have new discussion about this edits when he will be nominated for administrator. I will be very interested to hear answers--Rjecina (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

He apparently thinks that the RfC is inappropriate if it deals with the reliability of the book. However, it does not, as we've both pointed out. He also said that "citations and not book are problems". For some reason, he believes the addition of these citations is a violation of WP:NPOV (not WP:V, though he' mentioned that as well), since most WW2 war criminals articles do not have citations. I think he believes that's Serb propaganda and demonization of Croats. Also, an RfC might bring in the Serbian guys that he's been having a problem with.
Yup, I failed the objectivity test :). I'll remove the tag. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Warning

Maybe you would "refactor" (whatever that means). But the words I used pretty much express what I was trying to say. I get involved here only because I get pissed off by the rubbish I see on Wikipedia on subjects about which I know something. So being blocked or banned holds no terrors for me. Regards Kirker (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If, in the end, Wikipedia finishes up banning a good-faith editor in order to protect a gossip-merchant, then I'll wear the expulsion as a badge of honour. But thanks for replying and explaining.Kirker (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for th edit re: General Hospital Night Shift

ihave a feeling that the "slut" comment was considered encylcopedic but I wanst sure if it was okay to just delete it since I didnt want this eo end up trodding on some hypersenstivie toes and I would end up on WP:ANI. Thanks for being bold! :D Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI question =

The COI page says it is "strongly discouraged". It does not prohibit it.

Am I reading this wrong? If so, state to me the following sentence... "Editing a page which you have a relationship to the article's entity is strictly prohibited and will result in an indefinite block". Please confirm this and state it and get an administrator to also state this. I want proof. I will comply with proof. I want to follow Wikipedia rules to the letter. Presumptive (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Should we write in the COI Noticeboard that the COI guideline should be policy and that the policy should be modified so that COI editing will result in indefinite block? If you are willing to make such proposal, let me know the exact language and I will let you know if I can support it. Let's move forward with this idea! Presumptive (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Talk message

He sent me an email asking to use my account. I declined. What's the problem? —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. Sorry - I didn't mean to sound so aggressive in my post. Yeah - the email went as follows.

Hi Mr. Power,

You are an administrator but don't edit much at all. May I edit for you? If so, I'm willing to change your user name to Celestianpower Jr. so as not to confuse others with you.

If you don't want to, just e-mail me or write a hint on my user talk page (such as saying "Hello! From Celestianpower")

Regards,

Presumptive

If you need anything else, just ask :). Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your msg

It had to be said. Rjecina does not, as far as I can tell, do very much to improve articles. See you around :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AniMate&action=edit[reply]

In article Rudolf Höß (or others) you will never find witness quotations. This is my problem with article Miroslav Filipović.--Rjecina (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.If you look persons in category Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel you will never find witness quotations. For me demands that we must have witness quotations is example of Balkan POV editing (1 rule for Balkan articles another for all others)--Rjecina (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FOX censorship

I never, ever, thought I would be defending Fox News either. I just told my roommate the same thing. My feelings are the same as yours concerning this network. But I do respect Shepard Smith, and have always enjoyed his programs for years. I can't believe Shepard Smith (the only anchor on FOX, in my opinion, who has ethics) is being held up to the world as "The Poster Boy of U.S. Censorship". After The Fox Report it's a race to change the channel before O'Reilly's show comes on. And you are correct, there are no NPOV news articles out there concerning this; it's all propaganda. What to do? C'est la guerre. Jason3777 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed the YouTube link

I copied this link from 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Cyberattacks_and_censorship (last paragraph), under your correct copyright justification it should also be removed from this location to be consistent. Jason3777 (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the YouTube link. I guess I'll be taking the flak. Jason3777 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the full video back up using a link to Fox on 2008_South_Ossetia_war#Cyberattacks_and_censorship. Check it out. Jason3777 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

http://www.gaywired.com/

Furthermore while I can understand this article is emotionaly charged it's lack of a NPOV makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to work with Wikipedia. --Mrmcuker (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I think I'm going to leave that article alone so long as the {{NPOV}} sign is up.

Attacks in the article Robert M. Carter

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Robert M. Carter. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World War II persecution of Serbs

My thinking is never important in deletings of or revert. Kirker has writen:

"I would suggest that the edit-warring on this subject be suspended while consensus is sought. In my view "genocide" is justified"

Because banned use is not allowed to edit in article there is no edit warring and Kirker comments are false and misleading. He is looking for consensus in article where we are having consensus about name. Even Pax has accepted this name until his ban !--Rjecina (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrators [1]--Rjecina (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) "The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia"
2) "The standard invitation Wikipedia extends with the statement "edit this page" does not apply to banned users"

About other things maybe it will be OK to ask administrators ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

The kind of stuff he states on a daily basis is bordering on the outright comical... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

I read about the law online. Wikipedias version is incorrect my friend also agrees. how was i disrupting. --jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.137.146 (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back

Hey, I commented back on your remarks on your input for my RfA. I am specifically not asking you to change your vote -- you have a right to your opinion and I am just weighing in on what transpired. The whole Gp75 thing left me with a bitter taste, since I hoped I could make a serious reform effort. But if I lose faith in people, I lose my purpose in life. Oh well, life wobbles on... Ecoleetage (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted more rationale on your nomination page. Sorry, but I just cannot support. A ni Mate 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly respect that you would stand up for what you believe. Stick to your convictions and present your opinions with a clear, cogent voice -- that is the sign of leadership. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

}

User:Presumptive

Just to let you know that his user page still has a copy of the Murder of Joseph Didier article. It's down at the bottom, after a bunch of white space and some absurd message about "end of page, don't scroll down any further" rubbish. It is rather obvious that this user is trying to game the system. Frankly, I think he should be blocked. Since you removed the material from his talk page, I thought you might want to check this out too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

That's ok I only just woke up lol and headed for ANI before my own talk page. You were under no obligation or anything to message me- you messaged her, so you did your bit. She has to learn for herself. Let's just say it wasn't an emotion I was particularly familiar with in the past, but now I suffer frequently from dismay:) Sticky Parkin 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Medellín

No problem. I agree it's been long enough, so I unprotected. Superm401 - Talk 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Thanks

1) for the Barnstar. Thank You. 2) For the warning. I had no idea. I've taken it down.

Best David in DC (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirker blocked

I would like to call your urgent attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. Outrageous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This time I do hear you (re your "cool it" proposal on Alasdair's page). I don't yet understand that procedure you mentioned, but I'm learning, slowly. But as long as my "send" button works I will describe conduct as "pathetic" if that's how I see it, and regardless of how many do-gooders implore me to call it "sweet reason." If it gets me banned, well it will have proved that Wikipedia wasn't worth my efforts. (A reckless attitude that on its own should be enough to set me apart from my fellow meatpuppets, LOL.) Kirker (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Crimen

Be advised to avoid vandalizing further this article!

--J. A. Comment (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA; it was unsuccessful, but I appreciate your feedback nonetheless. I'll do all I can to gather more experience - and hopefully (if there is a) next time, I can sway you ;). Thanks again, and I hope to see you around!--daniel folsom 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

checkuser case --Rjecina (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my informations J. A. Comment will "survive" your checkuser case.--Rjecina (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial history of 147.91.1.45 and 147.91.1.41 is wrong--Rjecina (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I will block J. A. Comment --Rjecina (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having Balkan working group (in my thinking it is only for administrators but...)!--Rjecina (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop meetpuptry

From my sekrect police sources, your wrong edits as meetpupteter will not "survive" anoter day. Today Rijeka river flows uphill becaus of your pupptetry. Please stop this is your last only warnig. Blok yourself now or you will be bloked immediately by Thatcher. He and other admins say Rijeka citizns are very NPOV accounts who never are wrong. I file report Tusday and then you see! Rjecka-budala (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]