User talk:Dchall1

Lesser jihad false

I have discussed with users. they have told me that i should get references which i have. there is false information on wikiepdia. and people are making it out to be true.

They say our prophet said something he DID not. i am just telling people alternate views. At least help me improve it. what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dchall1 is a disinfo agent

Stay away from the morality page.

You sir work for a diabolical pirate organization which hijacks dictionary definitions and I want you to be permanently removed from the Internet and put in prison, if the Pentagon finds out I work for them then you got a big problem coming in your direction.

The space aliens told me; "Jewish elites are WW-2 German Nazi familes." 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the morality & respect page doesn't work out

Then I see no use of wikipedia, shut it down down and send all wiki editors into unemployment. Either you support the morality & respect page I have created, or there's not going to be a wikipedia.

Put you guys technological back to 100 BC that's what you can expect.

If you want to antagonise me, then you got to continue what you are doing right now. This Internet site is not big enough for the both of us, either you go or I go. But if I go, then I'm coming back and I told you my affiliates. 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

About your comments

As you said I think WIKI must show neutral views and when I read the biography of Mr Rajavi I found it hostile and a little bit in favor of the iranian regime so I didn't found it fair and I tried to help the neutralitiy of this encycolpedia cause if not people will not trust WIKI any more and thanks for respecting this rule. (Mari2008wiki (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC))Mari

Tadic

Thanks I did my best! Hopefully the article can now live with small updates. It didn't pass the GA because the assessor didn't understand the article.--Avala (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When I Grow Up (2008 film)

I was wondering if you could talk me through how I could make my artical When I Grow up more notabel if it is possable of if there is something missing - daryl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 I belive I have added proper reliable notabel sources , I should hope I did anyway.

-daryl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but the newspaper does not have newspaper achives or artical achives on its website since it is a city newspaper but I have tried to clear up the wrinckels as much as I could would this still be okay ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 

Rees Associates

Re your message: They certainly are persistent. I salted a couple of variations. Another admin got the original one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Joerg Haider

I have just seen your recent revert on Dr Haider's article. I have done this revert over and over again but they just never stop. Is there a way to keep the article clean for good? --Oxygen305 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chris,

i have seen you speak very well german, I have a few minutes ago tried, to add the section" Stefan Petzner" in de german version of Haider's article. but before i even finished the second sentence , i was already removed. I don't wish to have the same problems in the german version as I had in the english version. would you please help me to write the article in a proper way, so that nobody can claim, i did some 3rr or vandalism or something like that. I would realy appreciate your help.

Please let me know, if you have time for this project. Thank you for your time.--Oxygen305 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris, thank you for your fast response. can I asume that the same rules apply for de.WP and en.WP ? --Oxygen305 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Allele (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allele (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gulnora Karimova barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work in rewriting the Gulnora Karimova article. Muchness (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Dchall1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/I#Gulnora Karimova article regarding a POV dispute and edit-warring at the Gulnora Karimova article. The discussion is about the topic Gulnora Karimova. Thank you. --Muchness (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFPP

I have a question regarding your request. Please respond there. Regards, لennavecia 16:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

sig

You forgot to sign. Thanks, I do know what you mean btw :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pushtun soapboxer

Re your message: I blocked Redneck12 and 77.241.230.242. 91.75.74.12 last edited a couple of days ago, so I let it be for now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Yup, that's him. I see you also tagged 70.240.177.54 (talk · contribs) as him, too. Same Houston, Texas DSL line. I didn't block the second IP since it hasn't been as active. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Sorry about not getting back to you. Something off-Wikipedia prompted me to be away for the past few weeks. I checked both articles and I see that another admin semi-protected both of them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice!

Please, help.

I have MASSIVE problems with this user!

He is sockpupetting the wikipedia:

User_talk:125.237.132.197

User_talk:222.152.87.30

User_talk:219.89.32.152

He is trying to put tag Republic of Kosovo, and a lot of unproven,

nationalist ideas of Illyrian-Albanian continuity everywhere, even if it is utterly unneeded!

Tell me, can we lock the Visoki Dečani monastery for some time? Until he quits?

Talk to me, about ANY information, i am willing to understand and talk about everything!

Hoping for any news from you!

Tadija (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Monastery again...

Well, i understand that Serbian province is not quite good, but if we write ~disputed province of Kosovo~, then Serbian claims can be fulfilled, without only reference Kosovo.

When you see:

1. Located in Kosovo, you write it like it is a independent state, you never write in Vojvodina, or in the Kornati, you put the name of the State, but if you write it like:

2. Located in disputed province of Kosovo, it is quite different.. Every one is happy...

I would love that it is written like that.

Your opinion?

Tadija (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject banners

Hello there! I made some edits today to an article you'd prodded, Peacemaker (ship). I was wondering if I could convince you to, in the future, add the {{WikiProject Ships}} template to the talk pages of ship articles in these situations, if it's not there already. There are several diligent WP Ships editors (not that I'm one of them) who are great at assessing newly tagged articles, so it's an easy way to call the attention of the Project to an article which may indeed be worth saving. Thanks! --Fullobeans (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

More Darko Trifunović problems

Given your previous involvement with the Darko Trifunović article, I thought you might want to have a look at the comments I've just posted at WP:BLPN#Persistent BLP problems on Darko Trifunović. Your views would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Albanians in Serbia

I didn't know that it was copied just a year ago. I figured that they both started that way or it was copied from Albanians in Serbia and made into a new article. In that case I think we should shorten the section on the Albanians in Serbia article. Maybe just have a couple of paragraphs that summarize and have a See Also link to Albanians in Kosovo. --Tocino 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Radioactive Barnstar
		I Staffwaterboy hereby award Dchall1 for the very hard work that he/she put in when making edits to Indian_Point_Energy_Center and removing non npov. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 08:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 08:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic

Thanks for the heads-up. I've replied on AN/I. I'd be interested to know what you make of it all! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Things really seem to have got out of hand now (check the latest edits). I've raised the issue and presented some diffs at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović blanking / vandalism - your views would be appreciated, as you've been watching the article for a long time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović again

The article has been stubbed by another editor. Please see the comments (and my response) at Talk:Darko Trifunović#Stubbed - your views would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very quick reversal of my edit

I realise that it is a very controversial topic, as explained on the talk page this is a non-proven statement which is written as a fact. How would you propose putting it? Arienh4^(Talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My point here is that while there has been a discussion on the talk page for a while, I have not seen any arguments against this edit. Wouldn't that count as general consensus? I'm just trying to understand why you reversed it, not trying to criticise you. Arienh4^(Talk) 11:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll leave it at that, thanks for the explanation. Arienh4^(Talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks

I understand your argumentation about the "Instrukcije" and won´t change it until I have sources. But regarding the collaboration, the burden of proof should be at the one who states that all chetniks were collaborators.Kanmaur (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about disruptive edits

Hope you have time to check this out. I'm in a ruckus with one KneeJuan. Do the edits in the post linked below look like they are violating wikirules about .... doing something you shouldn't do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KneeJuan&diff=289507550&oldid=288953482

If so, what can I do about it? With the exception of 1953 Iranian coup d'état this just a dispute between him and me, so perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents won't work.

(P.S., Another issue may be that most of his April edits are of articles he had no history of editing but I did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KneeJuan )

I hope this isn't "canvassing" but I need the advise of someone more knowledgable than me. Thanks in advance if you have time to look at this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Persoan attack

This comment about my character [1] is considered a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and comment on the content, not the contributor. I have a given a rational for all my edits. Just because something is "sourced", is doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. There are various policies that deal with these issues, which I have cited here [2]. So I would strongly advise you, to WP:AGF, before jumping to conclusions and pledging to to edit-war on behalf the other editor who has a history of POV-pushing. --KneeJuan (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I do, however, understand how my edits may come across as more problematic than his, to someone like you who is not too familiar with the topics, just because I am "removing stuff", and he is "adding stuff". But you don't have to take my word on BoogaLouie's misuse of "sources", just take a look at what several administrators had say about his "well-sourced" article here[[3]], so that you can realize the extent of the problem for yourself. As you can see, he is a sophisticated ideological editor who takes liberty with the facts, to push a point of view by selective quotation of cherry-picked "sources". --KneeJuan (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are disputing an edit of mine, please go the talk page of the relevant articles and contest the rationals I have provided in my edit summaries. Blind reverting my edits with the customary "rv removal of sourced information" is not good enough. --KneeJuan (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation

Actually, if anyone is enraged in WP:HOUND, it's you sine you have confessed that you are monitoring my editing history [4], and following me around with the explicit intention of blind-reverting my edits. [5] Unlike you, my main interest is contemporary Iranian politics and history, which explains my involvement on these pages. In addition, my involvement on these pages hasn't been limited to reverts. Furthermore, I've given a policy-based rational for each and every one of my edits. --KneeJuan (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Before I see any more reverts from you, KneeJuan, and BoogaLouie, I want to see some serious attempts to discuss the content that is being reverted. Please see WP:DISPUTE to understand what I'm talking about. Users may be blocked for edit warring even without technically violating the 3RR, and I am warning all three of you before this gets out of control. Please discuss your edits as opposed to reverting. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A Reply

Wikihounding is a difficult challenge. It is fully permissible to monitor someones contributions if they have a past history of disruptive activity, or have a high chance of performing disruption.

Wikihounding would involve the intentional reversion of normally good edits in order to specifically create disenjoyment for the other party.

As the one who might be hounded, it's often hard to prove Wikihounding - you end up needing a pretty clean closet of your own, because if Admins find one valid reason for someone to have reverted, it's de facto proof that the monitoring was required.

If a good clear case is ready, I would post it ar WP:ANI. If you're not sure, I would ask a friendly admin (via their e-mail link) to have a glance at any diff's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and

Sorry to have gotten you in this mess. I will try to do the talk page thing as demanded by Khoikhoi. Full disclosure: I have been blocked for edit warring by Khoikhoi twice and I am most definately not his favorite editor, which is why I'm trying to do this by the book .... trouble is, the book can be pretty convoluted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I doubt I would have ever found it otherwise. He's been absolved of wrong doing but it still seems misleading that he can clash with people like me under a different name with those people being none the wiser about who they're dealing with. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear BoogaLouie, all my alternative accounts have been merged and routed to my main account now, I would also encourage you and Dchall1 to do the same with yours. As for my comment on Iran-Iraq war, I didn't "clash" with you, I simply made a comment, and the reason I did so with Sina is because I had already edited that page and its associated talk page with Sina, and did not wish for my alternative accounts to overlap with each other. I don't want to point fingers, but your various accounts actually did overlap on that particular page ([6], [7]), and you have used at least three accounts on Iran-Iraq war, which is certainly inappropriate. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've merged the accounts. In my defense they were sometimes used in the same article but seldom if ever in support of each other. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia article naming

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović problems again

I noticed you had recently reverted some vandalism at Darko Trifunović. Could you please take a look at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović? I think we need to get this issue sorted for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that DT is responsible for the IP vandalism. I've raised the matter at WP:AE#Darko Trifunovic. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Invite to work on the SFK09

Hello We are working on creating a workgroup for wikimedia kosovo http://sfk2009.ning.com/group/wikimediakosova and have an event on august 29/30 in Prishtina. We would like to invite you to come. http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html

Thanks,

mike Mdupont (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks - further discussion

Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of aware about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Most citations are from the press (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.

The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.

I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.

I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.

Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comment:

Thanks for the additional information and the discussion on sanctions. I was not part of the discussion on the use of the word "alleged" in this article. It is a shame because I would have argued strongly that "fact" in this case is highly contested and no article can reasonable be written from a NPOV if it takes for granted claims that are contested. Using words like 'hijackers', 'attack', 'collapse' shows a lack of awareness. I trust you appreciate that I am attempting to remove bias from the article, and I am acting in good faith. You may wish to see my talk page for previous apologies made by Wikipedia editors after they mistook my expertise in subject areas as 'bias' (i.e. the bias was from those with less knowledge in contested subjects). The article as it currently stands brings Wikipedia into disrepute because it states as fact matters that are not only contested, but are also sub-judice.

All the best Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cubic Corporation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cubic Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dchall1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)