User talk:Lomcevak

Welcome Info

Welcome!

Hello, Lomcevak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Unblocking Stuff

{{unblock|I (Lomcevak) am not a "sock-puppet" of "Tile join" but a legitimate and constructive (I hope) Wikipedian. Thanks.}}

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Raul unblocked him an hour ago. Procedurally closing the unblock request Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomcevak (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who blocked you, Raul654, is a checkuser and is very likely to have evidence that you and Tile join edited from the same or similar IPs. I have asked him to come and check over it but I will not unblock you myself. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite possibly the same IP. I work from my local library, right now, being 'between' personal kit and, of course, the facilities are public. Best I can say is look at the (few) contributions I (Lomcevak) have made. Again, thanks.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Raul should be able to verify that and will probably unblock you when he responds. Mango juice^talk 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomcevak has edited from only one IP, and it's *riddled* with Tilejoin socks (I caught a half-dozen more while I was looking into this unblock request). Moreover, there is no way to distinguish this user from Tilejoin based on the technical evidence - he looks, in every technical way, like a Tilejoin sock. The IP evidence does suggest that it's a public computer though. I will hesitantly unblock, on the assumption that he is being honest in what he says. Raul654 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I (Lomcevak) am not a "sock-puppet" of "Tile join" but a legitimate and constructive Wikipedian. Raul654, you've done this once before. See above.}}

Lomcevak (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lomcevak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Second request on this unblock. As before, I (Lomcevak) am not a "sock-puppet" of "Tile join" but a legitimate and constructive (I hope) Wikipedian. Raul 654 has done this blocking action once before. (See above) As I've said before, I'm working from a public facility which means it's possible that some other user on these facilities has become associated with the IP as the 'sockpuppet' of 'Tilejoin.' I'm sorry about that, but there's nothing I can do. However I don't see why that should prevent me (Lomcevak) from making my legitimate contributions. Maybe this is pointing towards the need for a more sophisticated way for a checkuser (like Raul 654) to 'sort wheat from chaff ?' Thanks for early cooperation with unblocking. I have items I wish to contribute. (Oh, yes, see my contributions list (again): see it's fairly selectively channelled and all legit.) PS. I have logged-in and no Raul 654 I don't seem to be caught in just an anon-only range-block. Thanks TigerShark for trying to move this on.

Decline reason:

You haven't been blocked directly, rather you are caught in an autoblock, or IP block. Can you follow the instructions on the block page and post a specific IP unblock request — Step hen 10:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock|Again ! Yes, and with respect Stephen ... sigh ... I understand I'm caught in an autoblock and Raul 654 asserts he knows this and that simply by logging-in the anon-range should be overcome. Read above ! Clearly this is not the case so somebody has a technical misunderstanding. Again, as I said above, I'm working from public resources so how can I associate myself with a specific IP. The public council facilities that I work from/ can work from have hundreds of IPs ! I'm very wary of all this because clearly Raul 654 and 'sock blocking' of users have some very recent history history from what I can see.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've made you exempt from the IP block for now

Request handled by: Step hen 10:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomcevak (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel

Why do you keep reverting my edits of the Natascha Engel page? I merely corrected iffy information. The page you revert to contains citations which are against Wikipedia rules (they advertise commercial institutions and do not link to anything which contain's Natascha's name or achievements).

I'm only trying to help make the page better, not worse. Please desist reverting other people's edits back to your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetler (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel

Regarding coming from an anonymous IP at the University of Central Lancashire, it's a pretty big place. There's in the order of 25,000+ students and 3,000+ members of staff, and Wikipedia edits are very common from them, myself included (I was the anonymous you are referring to, I didn't think to log in when I made the original edit).

It is against Wikipedia rules to link to any commercial institution when citing a source if it does not contain information about the person in question. By all means mention her husband owns a business but AFAIK it is not within the rules of name the business or link to it unless it directly contains information about Natascha. That's advertising.

The same goes for linking to the KCL departments. If the departmental pages actually contain information about Natascha then that is permissible, but as they do not then it is not permissible.

Please don't disregard someone's edit because you don't agree with it. All I'm doing it attempting to get the page to adhere to the rules. You do not personally own the page, and anyone is open to edit it as they see fit. Please bear that in mind in the future.

Regards Fetler

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Engel MP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Engel MP.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Engel UKMP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Engel UKMP.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release Added

I have complied with the (bot) requests for copyright release.

Lomcevak (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Derbyshire

Welcome to the project, I see your interested in politics (Natasha Engle mainly) and note you added her page to the category Politics of Derbyshire. I've not seen (there may be one) a category for all the Derbyshire MPs (and past ones) which should be a sub category to the category:Politics of Derbyshire page.

It would be great help to the project if you could add other Derbyshire MPs (current and past) as well as to the category or sub cat. And add the project banner {{WikiProject Derbyshire|class=|importance=|ibox=|photo=}} by copy & pasting on to the talk page below existing banners (but above the the discusions), we can then assess the pages and assign an importance (To Derbyshire project) rating. The project is trying to systematically find all Derbyshire related articles, and ultimately improve them. We have done the Constituency ones. Any Help would be appreciated in collecting up these missing articles. The project tagging also helps in knowing about articles that can be wiki linked to from others. Any queriers leave a message on my talk page or the Derbyshire project one. Thanks, hope you can assist - BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Just adding a few items each session to missing categories, and wiki-linking them in other articles (were relevant) all helps to spread the web of wiki links out from . I started when looking at articles think why isent that part of this project or that and am now systematically adding articles to a string of projects. I'll look the articles over when go through the assessment lists. - Thanks BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Greg Knight was a former Derby North MP, according to 2nd paragraph of his bio. Till I find out how other areas are Categorising them (to standardise Cats) I just added him to the general Politics in Derbyshire cat but really needs a Former MP category and a MPs of Derbyshire (for current ones) as sub categories of Politics Category. But there's a general attempt to not create to many categories randomly but in a structured format, so when the main category starts to fill up we can just move them to a suitable sub cat. (it makes searching easier for users) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm BD = Bulldozer = El Dozer. Derby MPs are getting to look very much improved. Victuallers (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort splitting them into sub cats as well, ever bit helps tidy things up and make navigation easier.

Hand Hints: I wouldent bother adding {{tl:talk}} to a page unless the page has non-constructive discussions, or editors not signing comments and following guide lines etc. TOC's genearly create themselves when theres 3 section headings (i often force creation on article pages were the main text is one big block above the see also,refs & ex links sections, by placing a heading after the lead paragraph WP:MOS gives more details on layout, but i just follow general format for basic articles. (same on talks with old discussions prior to project banner tagging, just add a heading to tidy up). Infoboxes should generally have all the parameters as its hard to update them if missing all missing as you have to generally go and get the lot as trying to remember the correct parameters for seldom used ones is a pain) as if missing when more info available its unlikely to get added (a few odd parameters that will never be used can be deleted but most should stay IMO ) Thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fetler/Levret/Lancashire University/Samuel Ellis and Natascha Engel

Hello Lomcevak. I'm writing to let you know that User:Fetler is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry and you may have further evidence to add to the page, judging from your previous interactions with the user. Thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 03:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered from Fetler's attempt to suppress

Lomcevak (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel

I have reverted edits that have appear to, principally, have come from a pair of anonymous IP's, one, specifically at the University of Central Lancashire.

A warning has been posted there.

Such edits reduce enclopaedic information, such as the full name of Engel's husband from David (Newton) Salisbury-Jones to 'David' (in the text of the entry). Is that supposed to convey some idea of 'intimacy' between Wikipedia and Engel/Salisbury-Jones.

Which commercial institutions referred to, do you have a problem with (?) ... perhaps it's Vale Vet's that refers to David (Newton) Salisbury-Jones' wife as the (MP) Natascha ... as Engel refers to her husband in her (official) website as Dave 'the (mere) vet ?'

Please list your disagreements and then we can discuss the ins and outs.

May I suggest, kindly, that before you make (possibly controversial) changes you add (at least cotemporarily, at least) to the discussion (you may see that this page has been full of controversy, if you take the time to read) page of the article. See the notes on modifications made to the main entry on residential information, for example.

Oh, and please sign your contributions to other's talk pages ... I think that is the usual Wikipedia convention ... like I have done on your talk page, to this.

Regards.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, yes, I meant to add that if your non-anonymous contributions got caught-up in reverting the anonymous ones, then my apologies ... please try again from the (non-anonymous) base ... with the provisos above in mind. Give reasoning for the changes you want to make - with evidence and examples. Expect reasoning and debate in return.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel (Again)

I think the 'commecial institution' that you must be referring to is Vale Vets. I have to hypothesise because you don't make it clear and so prevent people from responding, specifically, to whatever you're objecting about. However, if you examine the site carefully you'll find that Engel is named albeit tangentially (... Natascha, who is a member of parliament.)[Emphasis added.]

If you wish to remove KCL specific information, then feel free ... just provide your reasoning. I came on to this with Kings links already established and I think all I did was harmonise what I found to be 'in main text' external links (xlinks) to footnotes (see the second article History ref. dated 11 September 2008).

Your principal edit appeared to engage in whole sale surgery, in the process of which you removed completely encyclopaedic, and possibly very important (to one of her constituents), information about her residential arrangements, among other things, which I pointed out to you had been the result of much careful research, documented in the discussion pages.

Along the way you managed to introduce a completely unsourced reference, for example, to her policy on the 'smacking of children.' Now if you look, once again carefully, in the Publications section, you'll see I've added, on a stooge through the daily Google, a publicly available reference to her purported policy. If you want to add Hansard, then fill your boots. But at least get the reference.

Whole sale surgery is not a very good idea. If you want to change things, especially to an established article, do it bit-by-bit and along the way explain why you're making the change.

You 'exhort me' with:

- Please don't disregard someone's edit because you don't agree with it. All I'm doing it attempting to get the page to adhere to the rules. You do not personally own the page, and anyone is open to edit it as they see fit. Please bear that in mind in the future.

A very good 'exhortation' which I will always be sure to 'bear in mind' as I'm sure you will too !

And good ways to avoid future confusion is not to use anonymous IPLs and, again, sign you 'contributions' to the talk pages of other editors.

Be well.

Lomcevak (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit made on ideas at anon. IP contribs

You see, we try to be clean and honest here at Wiki ... see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natascha_Engel#Work_with_Youth

and then the discussion pages, before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natascha_Engel#Notice_of_a_Breakout_on_Youth

That's how we do it ! :-)

Lomcevak (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Samuel Colin Ellis

A tag has been placed on Samuel Colin Ellis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pretzels^Talk! 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Sam Ellis

Your 'promotion' of Sam Ellis is noted ... I've brought your Wiki entry of 'Sam Ellis' up to boilerplate/stub standard and created a discussion page where, first, the 'intimate' relations ('thinking-wise' that is) between you (Fetler), one Levret and Ellis are brought to public attention.

Cheers ;-)

Lomcevak (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Natascha Engel. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Pretzels^Talk! 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again recovered from Fetler's would be Memory Hole

Lomcevak (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you (ACCOUNTABILITY that is): ? Sockpuppetry

To restore my own contributions to your talk page can hardly be called vandalism. It is you that wishes to suppress inconvenient information that has been supplied and linked in to other sections of Wiki.

All Wiki contribs. are, by agreement, in the public domain. Such being, I have recovered the sections that you wish to be suppressed (I note that you have done this before [suppression], from studying your past editing history) and have taken them over to my own talk page. After all, I made the remarks, didn't I ?

Thereby, the argument links are re-established, for all to see.

The re-establishments are important, in document history, for disclosing that you are yet another 'New Labour' clone (along with Engel and Ellis) who bears a nodding acquaintance with the 'actualite' (as Alan Clark expressed his admission of his lies to Parliament during Tory times ... the difference being that New Labour has done far much more damage than Thatcher could ever have done ... that's why New Labour and everything to do with it is so despised ... you are intelligent, I take it, enough to read the blogs ... like Comment is Free, or Guido for ex.).

Oh, and by the way, when you excise this, it too will be taken over to my talk page.

I stand by everything I say and leave all criticism of me in place for others to study at their leisure. Not like 'self-censoring cowards' that prefer to forget what has gone before: that is down the Memory Hole.

But no, that's not Mandelsonian postmodernism (we make up the truth) style, is it ? And that's now why we are in such a mess in this country !!!

Lomcevak (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Taking a 'shine' to you doesn't even come on to the scale. Personally, I get the impression that I would loath you. You are, New Labour, these days akin, and I include you in this set, to a pestilence upon the land that we need (as the UK people) to put out of our misery. I've expressed just as much to Engel on-line and off (far more virulently - you can trust me on this).

My dealing with her is about ACCOUNTABILITY which we don't get through this abysmal government. That's my democratic right !! To hold the government to account through my supposed democratic representative (excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing) ... while the rest of the slaves to New Labour remain spineless and supine.

Again, as I said before, have a good life ... (and I'm restraining myself for what I could say, for the sake of Wiki standards).

Lomcevak (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Fetler. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pretzels^Talk! 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzels

Pretzels, who are you referring to there? Lomcevak vandalised my talk page and was attempting to get an angry response from me, so I deleted it. Then he added another comment, which I deleted again. I will not have anyone doing that on my talk page to provoke me. If he wishes to apologise, then so be it. If not, then I will continue to delete his comments as I see fit. Fetler (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to you, Fetler - it's generally a bad idea to edit or remove other's talk page comments. You are free to do what you please on your own talk page, however deleting accusations instead of replying gives the impression to others you have something to hide. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more explanation. If you feel you are being attacked or victimised by another user, I strongly suggest explaining the situation at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Pretzels^Talk! 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd from Lomcevak

I think this was meant for you:

I'm referring to you, Fetler - it's generally a bad idea to edit or remove other's talk page comments. You are free to do what you please on your own talk page, however deleting accusations instead of replying gives the impression to others you have something to hide. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more explanation. If you feel you are being attacked or victimised by another user, I strongly suggest explaining the situation at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Pretzels^Talk! 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lomcevak (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Pretzels

Bad idea or not I'm not having comments on my talk page which have the sole intention of provoking an angry response from me. Lomcevak's responses were neither constructive nor appropriate and dealing with such a rude and belligerent user only serves to be counterproductive to what Wikipedia is about. Such users cannot be reasoned with and therefore must only be ignored by the Wikipedia community.

I have no problem with Lomcevak striving for accountability in British politics, but harassing other users is just downright nasty and unnecessary when they either edit articles he has edited or if they take offence to his actions.

Fetler (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Lomcevak's Responses

When you were told to leave requests on my talk page (they are still there BTW) on why I kept reverting your changes to Engel's entry I replied to you in civil terms twice explaining my reasoning (reply1, reply2).

I summarized my findings for the Wiki community as 'circumstantial' but appeared to be worthy of continued scrutiny. I made no personal allegations against you and I left it at that.

Others, such as Pretzels have engaged in such scrutiny and have discerned the appearance of sockpuppetry or near sockpuppetry, i.e. a 'glee club' approach to Wikipediatry. Interested parties should examine Exhibit A.

The case was raised and, it seems to me, right now, closed ... but with many question marks around it. Pretzels asked me if I could add anything more and I said, 'No ... but ...' I really wasn't remotely interested in you, least of all to engage in 'harassment.'

However, now in your response to the case, it is you who bandies around with words like 'infant' etc. etc.

So, it is you who is the first to reach for abuse as a way of replying to perfectly reasonable probes, under the available evidence!

And it is you that is 'economical with the actualite' when you assert that I was only protesting about 'minor edits'. I think my use of the words 'whole sale surgery' in my earlier replies to you gives the lie to that nonsense.

As it was, I kept silence. That is until you started redacting the trail of evidence as to why we had reached such an impasse noting this is all about ACCOUNTABILTY ... and not just in British politics.

In the meantime, you may note, I've improved your original stub of Sam Ellis and also noted the 'orphan' tag and ilinked between UKYP and Ellis.

Now ... who is it again who cannot be reasoned with ... ?

And will you have the guts not to redact this from your talk page ... ?

Lomcevak (talk)

Fetler's reaction: Mandelsonian postmodernist to the death

Info

To those who persist in vandalising my talk page - I will delete whatever you write. You will keep on adding your drivel, and I will keep on deleting it.

Fetler (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think you would have ...

Lomcevak (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA 20090228

This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Please see the discussion at WP:WQA#User:Lomcevak, User:Fetler, and Natascha Engel for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion;

A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

Edit Centric (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Centric (ref.:WQA 20090228 ) 'retires' for a while (no voice)

Edit Centric gets 'pissed-off' because other admins says he has no voice.

Thought you might find this interesting, especially after recent transactions.

I have found, by simple Googling, additional evidence of the Ellis/Newman 'mutual appreciation society' and will place that evidence on the discussion page of the Ellis article.

Done (blowing doors off)

Personally, if I never hear from Ellis, Fetler (Matthew Newman) and Levret (?) again, it will be too soon.

But they do need watching ... especially in the run-up to the next General Election (May 2010) when the New Labor 'spin-troops' will be deployed at their 'fullest.'

It's been real ;-)

Lomcevak (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to Fetler's page preserved

Edit Centric (ref.:WQA 20090228 ) 'retires' for a while (no voice)

Just FYI (in case you hadn't studied background) ...

Nothing is quite as simple as it seems, is it ? Least of all on Wiki ...

... 'n yes I know you're going to redact this 'drivel' too ...

Lomcevak (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm now also aware of this previous 'contribution' from you to the Ellis discussion page:

==Love==

Lomcevak, are you in love with Natascha Engel, Sam Ellis and myself? You seem to devote an awful lot of your time rambling on about them and myself, and the death of New Mandelsonianithicanispianonian Labour of New Old Republicanmandelsonianblairismism or whatever you call it. Seriously, it's disturbing. Then again, I love watching it... it's like a highly comical nervous breakdown in slow motion. Where would we be without your rambles, rants, tirades and general buffoonery?

Fetler (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Postmodernism is a 'big word,' I know, but instead of ridiculing people who want to formulate and exchange ideas in language somewhat more expressive than New Labour verb free wordwooze ('Action - Modernization - Forward - Together'), why not try to engage in good faith. I may not agree will all Peter Oborne says, but here's a start to help you along ...

No, I don't love you, Levret, Ellis or Engel. You have come to be examples of a (political) way of being that I find 'empty' and that has resulted in much that is destructive in our society. That is my opinion, it belongs to me and that is my prerogative. You clearly have problems with my way of being. That is your prerogative.

However it is just as much my world as it is yours ...

Sorry we don't get along ...

Be well ...

Lomcevak (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we met outside the so called "meeting" on the 12th of June, (you mentioned that you have undertaken some work here). This is my best effort to track you down, if not sorry for bothering you. (Give me an email I should come up from an internet search of my name, if not we can talk in "here" if you wish!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.178.159 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the person I think you are then you should find that I've emailed you

Lomcevak (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel

Please don't just blindly revert. The article was in a terrible mess with undue weight being given to the expenses section, with some information not accurately sourced and much completely irrelevant to a biography of one individual MP. It is not, for instance, appropriate to include a summary of the Legg inquiry here, nor to say much about the Kelly inquiry save that Natascha Engel has submitted evidence to it. The fact that someone was quoted in the local press commenting about Engel's public meetings does not mean it is relevant to give a potted biography of them together with external links to their home page; this person is only a member of the public. The section also had excessive headings and subheadings. I made sure to preserve all useful and useable information. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Politico-media complex

Would you put your statement in its own section? They're new, and I don't want to confuse them as to what a GA review is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've reverted your comment there per WP:BITE. Students have been procrastinating and cutting corners since school was invented; that's nothing new. I prefer to focus on those who do want to learn, and as for the rest - well, their grades will reflect their attitude. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hello Lomcevak. I've blocked you indefinitely for the time being for disruptive editing to Natasha Engel and Politico-media complex, unhelpful, disruptive and biting comments at Talk:Politico-media complex, and attempting to evade a block issued to User:Dsmith1usa by creating a new sock puppet account. I have posted this block for review at WP:ANI. Hiding T 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Nothing to do with me. I'm using a public resource - IPs all over the place - terminals are left open all the time in our libraries, here, not good, and I have said and so ... I advocated a 'Red Ticket' design as you may say - they are a bit inconvenient since they often conceal the scroll bar advising people to close off their allotted time. I have gone through this exercise before - sockpuppetry as you name it (see earlier in this History). And there are reasons that I really don't much care about any of this, right now ... best Lomcevak (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you can't deal with this right now. Just to be clear though, you're not the same person who created the account User:Dsmith1usa? Hiding T 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wikiproject UK Politics Newsletter

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at WP:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy message from WikiProject Derbyshire

Hi there Lomcevak. You are registered with WikiProject Derbyshire and we are cleaning out our list of members. As you have not contributed to any page for over a year we have removed you as inactive. If you still want to participate in the project, just go back and add yourself again. Thank you. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]