User talk:Dsol/Archive 1

Unless you request otherwise, I will respond here

The Quest for Identity

Who are you?

I'm a US citizen living in Germany with too much time on his hands. Dsol 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friend of the eXiles? (69.253.195.228 <--guy from Aston Pennsylvania)

If only. I'm just an admirer. Dsol 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the pronunciation of Russian

Privet. I'm from the Finnish Wiki and I have a question to ask (if you're wondering why I'm asking you - well, I just searched this Wiki for sb who speaks both English and Russian). Anyhow, our dilemma is about the pronunciation of this guy's name, and more accurately, the two final sounds of his last name. How do you pronounce them? Is it just Mogilni (both i's being sth like in the word pit) or is it sth like Mogilnyi (with there being two separate vowels after the n-sound). Thanks in advance! You can reply here or to my userpage. --Lumijaguaari 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit tough to explain in writing, but I'll do my best. The first 'i' is like the 'ee' sound in the English word 'cheese.' The second final vowel doesn't exist in English, but is I think called the 'dark I' in linguistics. It's kind of like the i in milk if the word is pronounced fast and somewhat mumbled, perhaps while someone presses your tongue down with a pencil. It comes from deep in the throat.

As for the consonants, they're pretty much what you'd expect, except that the L is palletized --i.e. pronounced while the tongue is pressed against the roof of the mouth. there should also be a strong stress on the middle syllable, while the last may be barely uttered somtimes. Hope this helps! Dsol 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==AfD admin says...==

This is a FREE encyclopedia and I decide what happens you COMMUNIST!!!! (moved from user page)

Re: 69.253.195.228

I noticed you just blocked him for 3RR. I think this was appropriate, but I feel I should tell you that I just put up a user-conduct RfC for him. I wouldn't want him to be unable to respond due to a block. Thanks, Dsol 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsol,

If both you and Mgreenbe want me to unblock him, I can do so. However, the block is only for 24 hours, so I don't know whether it's necessary. A block often gives users a chance to reassess the situation and potentially come back calmer and less trigger-happy.

I hope the RFC goes smoothly, and I had previously suggested to the user that he could post his own RFC on the article if he truly believed the article was POV as it stood. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Dsol, I'm looking at some of the pages you've created or edited and they're in violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Please do not add any more information to Wikipedia about the exile or any of its columnists unless you can find credible third-party sources for it. You're creating vanity pages, relying on the exile as more or less your sole source, so that the whole thing becomes self-referential. Wikipedia is not be used for advocacy of any kind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. I am not advocating anything or creating vanity pages. These are notable subjects, otherwise feel free to nominate a 3rd AfD. There has been a lot of debate on the talk page, and you are ignoring it. You are not the first user or the first administrator to come to this issue. Please keep complaints specific article content, and make them on the talk page, or else there's nothing I can do. If you had read the talk page, you would have noticed that I have added many sources to statements, taken out unsourced statements and original research, and tried to reduce POV of both the fanboy and the anti-eXile varieties. I want a factual article, that expounds on the notable aspects of this newspaper. Dsol 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing if this continues. Just because a newspaper is marginally notable enough for inclusion doesn't mean our policies don't have to be adhered to. Don't make any more edits about this newspaper or these people that you don't have third-party sources for. You're link spamming your way across the encyclopedia, creating vanity pages and filling them with unverifiable material, and in some cases unencyclopedic nonsense. Then you create an RfC on someone who tries to stop you? Enough. From now on, please make sure all your edits comply with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT. And please read WP:AUTO. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:CITE for how to format embedded links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten me witha block after revert warring with me. That is not appropriate behavior for an admin, and you know it. These pages are not vanity articles or advocacy. They have many edits from dozens of users and several admins, and no one has called them vanity articles until now, except perhaps the anonymous ip who claims to be Peter Ekman and was blocked for blanking. The RfC is not about content but about conduct. Your outside view response is about content, maybe you should reread and actually look at his edits. I will however, read up on citations. I also have some other questions I will leave on your talk page.Dsol 20:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep repeating myself. Edits must have reputable third-party sources if challenged. I am challenging your edits, as did the anon IP. I believe WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS make that clear. In some limited circumstances, sources regarded as not credible may be used as sources about themselves, but always with caution and we don't rely on them. Can you give me the names of the editors you feel agreed with you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't tell me what is, and isn't, appropriate for an admin. I'm approaching this situation entirely from the perspective of an admin, and I'm trying to sort it out with you by referring you to our content policies, and by getting rid of the most inappropriate material. I'm requesting that you to assist me in that, or at the very least, not make things worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you what to do, but it's not fair to simultaneously revert my edits and threaten me with a block. If you are editing the article, which you are doing, you are not "approaching this situation entirely form the perspective of an admin."

As for the issues of sources and policy, please see my questions on your talk page.

As to what users agreed with me, please specify on what issue. It seems you still have not read the article's talk page if you are asking me this question. On the issue of using the eXile as a source in its own article, the following users agreed with me: user:brighterorange(admin),user:mgreenbe,user:Clarence Thomas, and user:Urthogie. Also, user:tregoweth blocked the anon ip for blanking the page, and made none of the objections you are making. there was another admin who left a warning on the anon page, and a third who blocked him briefly for 3RR after looking at the page (though I asked for an unblock so he could respond to the RfC), and none of them made these objections. There were other editors a while back whom I dont' recall. Dsol 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The editors you cite did not all agree with you. Perhaps you should review the talk pages yourself. You're not allowed to simply delete the copyvio tags. I will shortly write them up on the copyvio page and you can argue your case there. Stop reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in going through a case by case history of each editors agreements, but I believe they all did. In any case issue is still being debated, and the future conensus that emerges will be what is important.

It seems I didn't understand the way copyvio tags work, my sense was that once the concern has been adressed, they can be removed. I will check out the copyvio page. Note that I did not "simply delete" them, but adresses your concerns and provided an explanation. You have removed my explanation, so I'll put it back in while leaving the copyvio tag alone. For your part, you should leave the fairuse tag alone as well. Dsol 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Here is a copy of your message:( I am not feeling very well presently and have to have it to refer) noticed that you crosses out your signature with a comment about the article looking encyclopedic now. I'm not sure I get this, since the RfC was a user conduct dispute, not a content dispute. It was specifically about the disputed edits listed under the complaint. Vote (or abstain) however you like, but am I missing something? Dsol 01:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I repeat the article looks encyclopedic. I struck out my vote because I had missed the jist of the rfc at the time. When I read it again I decided to refrain. --Dakota ^t ^e 02:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

You're continuing to write to people to challenge their right to leave what comments they wish on the RfC. You have no right to do this. If people want to comment on content or on the user, that's up to them, because the two are inextricably linked in this case, as in many cases. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reasonable reading of my comments would conclude that I cahllenged the right of anyone to leave comments on the RfC. In fact, I specifically urged her to vote however she wanted, but also asked her to explain her vote and talk page comments that I had not understood. Also, you're continuing to make baseless accusations of all sorts against me. Please stop it. Dsol 17:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exile article

Please do not add the Ekman section again. There has been a complaint about it, which is being dealt with. It should not be re-added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't continue to warn you about this. You could have deleted that paragraph after reverting the rest of the changes you didn't like. Just as you might change your mind at any time and insert the material, I might change my mind at any time and block you. Any admin may block any user who is endangering Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Phosphorous (weapon) entry

Dsol, you seem to have erased my entire subsection on the moral considerations of using white phosphorous as an antipersonnel weapon. You wrote:

I noticed your contributions at white phosphorus (weapon). You should probably read our policy wikipedia:no original research. Basically, this means that no information can be included in wikipedia unless it can be attributed to an outside source. Unfortunately, there are no sources for the info you added to the white phosphorus article. Until you can find them, please don't reinsert the material. Dsol 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that I did not present any "original research." What I did do was to present links to the following sections in Wikipedia: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, and legalism, along with brief explanations of these approaches to the question of using white phosphorus as an antipersonnel weapon.

Why did I do this? Because interest in white phosphorus as a weapon includes the moral questions raised by this munition and its uses. I did not advocate any particular response to these questions. Rather, I pointed out their existence, and briefly discussed the kinds of responses that these questions engender, along with some of the major philosophical figures associated with these responses, such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, R. M. Hare and Alasdair MacIntyre.

You also state that "no information can be included in wikipedia unless it can be attributed to an outside source." This is patently false. Cross-references to other entries in Wikipedia is both common and permissible.

You state "there are no sources for the info you added to the white phosphorus article." Again, this is false. I refer you to the internal links mentioned above.

Sir, what you appear to object to is not that I am doing "original research." Rather, what seems to bother you is that I am discussing these issues AT ALL. What you seem to be doing is imposing censorship on the kinds of topics that can be raised in connection with white phosphorus, apparently with the intent of eliminating any mention whatsoever of the moral questions engendered by this controversial weapon.

--[[66.92.186.130] 11/26/05 13:18 PST

Please read

[1] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can take a look at this

Recently, you appeared to conclude that an article that met basic standards of notability should be included in WP. May I ask you to make your best call here? [[2]] BrandonYusufToropov 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

This is to warn you, so you can't plead ignorance, that the 3RR rule means we are not allowed to undo another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours. This can mean as little as restoring or deleting one word and it need not refer to the same material i.e. 3RR applies even if different material is restored or removed during each revert. You're currently engaged in complex, partial reverts in an effort to disguise the amount of reverting you're doing. Please review Wikipedia:Three revert rule. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood. If you reinsert anything I have removed, it's a revert; or if you delete anything I have added. Had I not wanted to add or remove it, I wouldn't have done so, so I've no idea what you mean by implying that intentions make a difference. This is why I have such a hard time assuming good faith with you. It doesn't seem to matter which policy we're discussing: you always manage to misunderstand them and feel that your situation is a special case and requires an unusual or even unique interpretation. Read the 3RR policy. It is very clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Your editing is becoming disruptive. It's one thing to push your POV on pages you edit, but another to turn up on policy pages you've never edited to change them to advance your cause. Please desist, and do not alter policy without consensus. The change you made would in fact have had a considerable knock-on effect. If you want to become an editor of policy pages, I suggest you familiarize yourself with them first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I advanced Wikipedia's cause when I added that, and the policy's, in trying to clarify what people already do. You are advancing the eXile's. That is the difference. As you've said you will not stop, I'll involve other admins to keep an eye on this situation. It has gone on long enough. I was hoping you would self-regulate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about my tone, and I apologize for it. It's just that I'm getting quite frustrated, though I'm sure you are too. That's why I'm going to try to get some other admins involved so that there are fresh pairs of eyes on the situation. In the meantime, I'll try not to "talk down" to you again, and I'm sorry for having done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note and kind words, which I appreciate very much. I'll be sure to assume good faith from now on, and perhaps we can find a more constructive and pleasant way to disagree. Or even agree, you never know. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

what is vandalism message mean for? i am from poland and not know why i get massage.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.31.211.25 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple explanation - the above message was actually left at 14:58 [3], which is before I blocked him. :) FreplySpang (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RV

Please be more careful with your reverts. For example, you reverted some edits on Vernon Jordan Jr calling them "vanity" which removed a variety of information. I am quite certain that they were not added by the subject. -Willmcw 19:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of Warren Buffett, you commented "rvv", but I can't tell which version you reverted to. Unless you are reverting to a very recent version you should specify what you are reverting to. -Willmcw 20:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I had been reverting a bunch of vandalism and vanity edits by 68.198.19.168, and might have gotten overearger. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Dsol 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lado Enclave References

Hey there. I have added the references you asked for at Lado Enclave. Hope these are sufficient. --Roisterer 09:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

Hey could you help with the Peer Review of my article on Rapping? --Urthogie 12:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:War nerd zoomout.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:War nerd zoomout.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Re: Budapest page arrogance

I have read and responded to your comments at talk:Budapest. You should realize that while NPOV is nonnegotiable, NPOV is not the same as noncontroversial. You might want to read the appropriate policy pages again.

The info about the holocaust is relevant to budapest's demographic history, and is not going anywhere. If you feel this makes the article biased, feel free to add other information, but you will not be able to remove this relevant info. Dsol 11:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV is not the same as noncontroversial" you say? How can you change the meaning of white to mean black? This is delusional thinking. You are not intellectual and do not see the larger picture of the credibility of Wikipedia interest. Your argument is for you, my argument is for Wikipedia. You don't get it.

"...but you will not be able to remove this relevant info" By what authority are you citing? Your arrogance?

You are an American in Germany? Probably under 50 years old too. You only know what you have been told, you have no personal experience.

You are very likely a Zionist shill paid to police the internet media by your ideologic handlers.

You can deny this but your actions speak for you.

You are harming Wikipedia with your behavior over on the talk:Budapest . Bloblaw

Hey Sayanim! Looks like I got a barnstar for that post! Right on!!Bloblaw 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your barnstar won by attacking users and making assumptions.--Urthogie 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mark ames article

I suggest you get it {{sprotect}}'ed, as its blanked almost every sec by anons--Urthogie 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain as to how to respond to a message you left re: the birthday of Mark Ames and the birthyear for Matt Taibbi. It's a matter of public record in the latter case, and in the former, I happen to know MA. I hope that's sufficient for you.

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem Deletion

Hi, I noticed you voted to on the abovementioned article. Initialy I wanted to keep it, but when I compared it to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:

It's a search contest
It has begin/end dates
It has a prize
It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

I'd like to urge you to change your vote to Redirect to SEO Contest where I have created already made a copy of the article. This way they dont have "their own article" but they are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Seems like a compromise to me. Right now w/ all the Delete, Keep, And Redirect votes it will be hard to reach a compromise.This user has left wikipedia 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say to redirect to Contests it's the same exact info, in fact I was the one who copied it over This user has left wikipedia

Brecher Photo

What's your opinion on the remaining Brecher photo that keeps getting deleted? --Ryan Utt 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages, etc.

Mark's birth year was already correctly stated. If you want verification of the specific date, you already have up a link there verifying it.

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.25.00/cover/exile-0021.html

Matt's age is referred to constantly in his articles for the eXile, as well as the Exile book, the RS article which sparked interest in the eXile in the US, and Matt's later articles for the NY Observer. He was born in March of 1970, though I can't remember the exact date. I think it's the twelfth.

your two cents

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futuristic Sex Robotz? Thanks--Urthogie 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]