User talk:FFMG/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:FFMG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Improper accusation of vandalism
sorry but re-reversing your improper reversal on the Robert Mugabe page is not "vandalism."
So, in review: I made a constructive and accurate edit. You then came along and reversed it because apparently you are a squatter on this page. Instead of writing something else, you just reversed a perfectly good edit. I then reversed your reversal, and you reversed it back again but added an accusation of "vandalism" in with your reason. Sorry, but reversing your improper decision is not "vandalism" and I am going to report you for the accusation. I do not vandalize wiki and I will not stand for being accused of doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.70.201 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- He is not an autocratic leader, I don't care if you like the guy or not, this is just not true.
- As an aside, please try and remain civil and keep ypu accusations, (of squatting or otherwise), to yourself. Thanks FFMG (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry but A. you accused me of vandalism, the most serious charge on wikipedia. B. I didn't accuse you of squatting. I identified you as a squatter. It's not an accusation; it's a fact. I have reviewed your history from this and other pages and you are a wiki squatter. You write and edit very little original material, instead you keep watch over certain pet pages and when people dare to edit them in ways you don't approve, you roll back the edits back to where you think they should be. This is squatting. You aren't coming across things by accident and editing hem as you see fit; you are watching a few pet pages and whenever an edit is made you review it as if you are the "editor" (noun, not verb) of that page. I'm sorry but who elected you the "editor" of these pages? I'm not sure if you can be reported for that (I'll look into it though) but as I said I am certainly going to report you or the permanent vandalism comment that is indelibly in the history of that page for all to see. I am still outraged that on top of the squatting edits you would accuse me of vandalism for reversing one of your decisions!!! It is as if you are a king and a serf in your kingdom dared to question your authority. So when you roll back pages it is constructive, and when others roll your edits back it is "vandalism." Thank you sire, I think I understand now.
I would like an apology written just under this line of text and I will consider the matter settled, otherwise I am going to have to make an issue out of this and take it where it goes sanction-wise.
Oh--and grab a dictionary and look up autocratic. Not even going to argue about that one when the dictionary does the job for me just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.5.75 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 November 2008
- 1) Look up autocratic.
- 2) I am not going to waste my time replying to an IP address. FFMG (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
NIU shooting
The shooting is not notable only in the U.S., otherwise international sources wouldn't continue to talk about it for months and almanacs of a global view which briefly summarize the year's events wouldn't include it. Your blatant denial of this event's notability is truly shocking, and it is clear that no matter what sources are found, you will continue to remove this entry and deny its notability based on your own opinions rather than go with the general consenus of the international media. And that is why I called your edit vandalism, because you continue to remove this entry without any decent explanation, other than its not notable from your perspective, even though it is from the media. It doesn't matter if it was the first school shooting of the year or not. It matters how severe the incident was and how much coverage it got. With 24 casualties (6 dead and 18 injured), it was the most severe school shooting of 2008. And it received, far and away, the most news coverage of any school shooting this year as well. Go back through the year articles and you will see less severe and less covered school shootings mentioned, yet this is not? Is there some double standard at play here? Abog (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I started a discussion about it on the 2008 talk page hopefully we will sort out what to add an not add. If we add this event then we will need to add more notable events as well.
- As mentioned before, I still think you are confusing the 2008 article and the 2008 in the United States article, the shooting simply did not make worldwide headlines. FFMG (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I could find much worse things to say about Mugabi, the vicious dictator. I fail to understand how comments repeatedly stated by the broadsheet papers and world's democraticly elected leaders can be "unverifiable". You must belong to Mugabi's Nazi party. Goodbye. Fuquit (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. What you and I think of the guy does not really matter, the encyclopedia must remain neutral. Otherwise we are no better than he is and, like him, people will start to ignore what we say.
- BTW, sorry to see your account has been blocked. FFMG (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Joking
Just to make sure you know, I was joking. I also made a similar accusation on the talk page of world war I because they claimed an indie rock band was involved in the war's outbreak (Franz Ferdinand (band)).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- And it is funny because ... ? FFMG (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The idea that one would be so much more familiar with relatively obscure bands than the subjects that they were named after. I was bored.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abahlali baseMjondolo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
close to 3rr on Abahlali baseMjondolo
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abahlali baseMjondolo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Please do not make further reverts to the same version, I suggest trying to talk to the other person, asking for a 3rd opinion or something else... sitting and reverting to keep tags on however is not productive. —— nixeagle 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am obviously missing something here, but I am not reverting anything.
- The only thing I am adding are the POV tags that the user keeps removing without going to the talk page. Is that not what is supposed to happen? FFMG (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You keep committing the same action, over and over again, in the article space. That is the definition of an edit war. It is unproductive to do the same thing over and over again, while someone else does likewise. It is disruptive. The war ends when one party stops and seeks dispute resolution. There are many options, and nixeagle above has directed you to one, third opinion. May I suggest that you be the one who ends the edit war by seeking the third opinion. Good day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
False accusations
This user has falsly accused me of being a "sock puppet" of Skwanele. I would like him to detract that accusation and apologize. Users should not be allowed to accuse people without evidence (the only evidence FFMG has is that we edited the same page and took similar sides in the argument. FFMG seems to be abusing his authority. Jaredsacks (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- What authority are you talking about? I have none at here.
- All I did was ask for someone with authority to check users. So, it goes without saying that I will not retract anything. FFMG (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"2008"
I WILL continue to distrupt this page (I can have a new IP address whenever I want one) until one of you explains and (more importantly) properly discusses the rules that you apply to this page. It seems to me that this page is full of Americocentric sh*t (such as baseball, American football and "nobody" American actors that no one has heard of outside the USA) that the rest of the world doesn't know or care about but whenever anyone adds anything of significance to the rest of the world (but not America) it gets deleted.
I have asked repetetively about the rules for deaths but nowhere has anyone explained where the "10 foreign languages rule" comes from. Even you (on the discussion page) stated that the rule was flawed. I have checked every page I can find on this discussion and this rule simply seems to have appeared without any consensus.
I am not trying to be stubborn but I do object to the fact that a highly noted muscician such as Davey Graham (referenced in many languages in the normal press but not on WP - he was even responsible for one of the major hits of Simon and Garfunkle) gets continually deleted yet the entire page is full of American actresses, American actors and baseball games and players that have ZERO references or interest outside American Wiki editors.
This disruption of the page will not stop until I get a satisfactory answer to this question because it seems to me that the subject is simply ignored until the "sh*t hits the fan".
Wiki is a worlwide effort. It is NOT American.
Look at the other stuff on this page. Do Americans really think that anyone outside of the USA gives a cr*p about American football or baseball? Most people outside USA don't even know what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.102.183 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Having this discussion on my talk page does not help.
- You should continue it on the 2008 talk page rather. FFMG (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.
Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.
Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If I came across as grumpy, I apologize for it. I just don't understand, why you haven't been calling for the deletion of George W. Bush's Inaugurations from 2001 & 2005; Bill Clinton's from 1993 & 1997 etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2009
49 dead is non-notable? There seems to be plenty of precedent for this sort of event in the other year articles. It seems a little off to suggest that this crash is only relevant to the United States. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly there has been many crashes before so it is not a notable international event.
- The number of dead does not come into account, there has already been a couple of crashes around the world, none are listed.
- This one is no different. FFMG (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then why isn't this logic being applied to 2008, which currently has seven crashes listed, 2007 (five), 2006 (five), 2005 (ten), and so on. I understand that we need to avoid WP:RECENTism on these sorts of pages, and that crashes happen all the time, but relatively large crashes are rare enough—and attract enough international interest—that adding them appears to be justified, and it appears to be a commonly accepted practice. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I replied on the 2009 talk page, where others can add their input rather than limiting it to the two of us. FFMG (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Jaredsacks
- I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jaredsacks (2nd) Wizzy…☎ 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
6 Nations Rugby
I am happy to go through dispurte resolution, but what is the state os the article to be - while the matter is arbitrated? I stronlgy believe that an image of 10x13 pixels can not be copyrighted - if you have evidence to the contrary, please set me straight. Also for the IRFU to come to a decision they need to be able to see the image - so removing it prevents them giving their sanction on it's use (if it is really required).Bloodholds (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)