User talk:Kolokol

Welcome from Brian0918

"Welcome to Wikipedia!"

Hello, Kolokol, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 23:59

Úbeda

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)... there was a survey at the talk page, and there was a majority in favor of diacritics. This also reflects current actual practice, if you look at names of other European cities for instance, most have the diacritics, so it's best to be consistent. On an unrelated note, if you make page moves you should check for double redirects. -- Curps 01:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:RM to request a page be moved. Doing so by repeatedly adding a CSD notice, when the article does not fit the speedy deletion criteria, is not allowed. Ral 315 W_S 14:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RM is for controversial moves that still need to be discussed. This isn't the case here - the matter is clearly decided by Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Proposal_and_straw_poll_regarding_place_names_with_diacritical_marks. Philip Baird Shearer's move request especially for Úbeda is invalid, as he has not explained what is special about this case that it should override the broader decision. So, I'm free to move it back like I could do any other move without getting admins' permission first. It's just a technical reason preventing me from doing so, and I'm therefore legitimately adding a speedy tag to allow me to make that move. Kolokol 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you've broken 3RR and although I am in disagreement with Philip Baird Shearer and have been discussing with him, marking the page for deletion is not legitimate. Also it is not legitimate to edit a redirect to intentionally prevent moves over it, as Philip Baird Shearer has done but as you also did previous (since you seem to be a newbie, I thought at first you had done this inadvertentely). -- Curps 15:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously no amount of discussion with Philip is going to bring him to reason, so how do you propose to settle this matter? Editing a redirect to prevent moves is, I think, legitimate if someone is moving the article against consensus, but of course it doesn't work against an admin. Philip abused his admin position by deleting the redirect to win this move war, which would be inappropriate even if it were an open controversy. But it is even worse when the matter has clearly been decided against him, as the poll cited above shows. K010k01 16:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip is not an admin. I fully support diacritics and this will be settled, but not by disruptive tactics. Please don't do that. See User talk:Curps#Ubeda for the discussion I've been having with him... -- Curps 16:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. The speedy delete notice aren't appropriate, they don't fall under any Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There is a discussion at the talk page, why not join that. -- Curps 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

I've just blocked you for 24 hours for a three-revert-rule violation on the above article. This is your second violaion in quick succession. If you continue in this manner, the blocks will get longer. -Splash^talk 16:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated it again, with 5 reverts. So this time, we'll try a 36 hour block as it's your third in little more than a week. -Splash^talk 16:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is not helpful. Instead of repeatedly violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, why don't you just vote at Talk:Ubeda#Requested move October 2005: Ubeda to .C3.9Abeda (under your real name after your block expires, not under a fake name or sockpuppet). If you repeatedly break the 3RR rule you may be blocked for longer than 24 hours in the future. -- Curps 17:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ubeda

Please don't change the article until a decision has been reached on its title.
Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop insisting on your edit, you are likely to be blocked from editing again. Leave the article alone until a decision has been reached at the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of diacritics in general has long been decided; there's nothing special about this case, so those move votes are invalid. Kolokol 11:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion doesn't override Wikipedia customs; there's a current discussion, which you're ignoring. Moreover, you're altering the article so that the text doesn't match the title. If you revert again I shall block you from editing for violation of 3RR. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without logging in doesn't help your case. I've blocked you for three hours in the first instance. If you continue to be disruptive, the block length will be the normal 24 hours, increasing if the behaviour continues. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked from editing for 24 hours. If on your return you continue with the same behaviour, the block will be 48 hours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked from editing for 48 hours for creating multiple sockpuppets to evade 3RR while vandalising Ubeda, and forcing the article to be protected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra-Germany treaty

What is your source of the Germany-Andorra treaty date? Most websites (that aren't wikiclones) seem to indicate that the date was in fact, Sept 1939. If it was in 1958, do you have a more specific date? It would make sense that the treaty was signed in 1939, immediately before the German expansion, so that Andorra wouldn't be at war with Germany. If overrulling that other guy's date, please indicate your sources.Taco325i 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, September 25, 1958, p. 66. Kolokol 20:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

For the record...

Americans don't spell it archeology, but Britons don't always spell it encyclopaedia. What I said was a little opinionated, but in the future, it will be fact. :P Jibbajabba 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]