User talk:Mootros/Archives/2012/April

Zhirinovsky's ass

Could you explain why have you placed "recentism" tag on the article? The events in the article are fairly recent (two months old), what is the point in it? GreyHood ^Talk 09:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It questions the point of the article. That is a few month time it might be irrelevant that someone made a video with a donkey, regardless whether they are a well-know politician or not. Best to have this discussion over there. I'll copy it over. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mootros, nice to meet you - new name to me - kudos to you for a sensible grown up approach to this nonsense and for trying to remove the childish pun. But please check whether you have gone over WP:3RR while doing the right thing. Take care and best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. With best wishes, Mootros (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tea

Thanks. And nice work today on that article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) Mootros (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately an editor has reported one of the users in the edit conflict over this article to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. As you are just as much edit-warring as the other editor, your name has had to be mentioned as well. Sorry.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Mootros (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce edit warring

I have made a proposal to reduce edit warring on the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video. See Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video#Proposal to reduce edit warring. Are you willing to agree to this?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! See reply over there. Mootros (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your edits

[1] I have again to ask you not to blindly revert the article to the less improved state, not to place irrelevant tags or tags relevant only thanks to the results of actions by youself. I really want to hear some reasonable explanation to what is most certainly confusing and what is looking like on purpose disruptive editing. Explain it on the talk page of the article please, and leave a note here. GreyHood ^Talk 19:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like you are not listening, but give the impression to perform some monologue. Judge for yourself by the average length of your replies on that talk page. They are excessively long, rather wordy, and highly tangential. This is not a real dialogue. Mootros (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: You mentioned somewhere over there that you have tons of edits. Please keep in mind that neither the number of edits on Wikipedia are indicative of the quality of your contributions, nor of your diplomatic ability. Learn to be a good editor by learning to listen. Mootros (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered to my concrete points, including the questions why you blindly reverted to the revision which held points contested by other users and which I had removed ("To me it looks like you are not listening" to the discussion between me and other users), why you removed additional references to the already established things, why you removed attempts to make the section coherent and restored your own "incoherent" tag. All this looks just like you reverted for the sake of revert, for making a point, for edit-warring, and not for the sake of improving the article. Please do not make such actions anymore. The only thing which one should bear in mind when editing articles is improving them - otherwise one's actions are called disruption or vandalism. GreyHood ^Talk 16:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note this is my personal talk page. Discussions about the article happen over there. Mootros (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Oksana Makar

I have reverted your move of this article. The reason for reverting the move is that it was a controversial move, and controversial moves should be done after a move request. You are welcome to make a move request if you still think that the article should be renamed.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know. Mootros (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Jane Bashara

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Murder of Jane Bashara, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good articles

If you don't believe that an article that has been promoted to GA status should be a good article, you need to use the WP:GAR process to have it delisted. You can't just remove the icon from the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Why did you pass it, despite my objections, for my to ask for de-listing it? Mootros (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How about doing some minor tweaks instead for delisting it? As I said it's quite good and a lot of good work has gone into. Mootros (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I passed it because I didn't think that your objections were relevant to the WP:WIAGA criteria. Changes to the article are Ok, but please propose them on the talk page first so that interested editors can weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather incredulous this edit of yours [2]. I don't think this is controversial adding more context and removing ambiguity. It looks like your not interested in improving the article. Mootros (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever my interests may be, please don't edit war and please do discuss proposed changes on the talk page. Also, feel free to follow the dispute resolution process. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I step back and will revisit this. All I ask for is a "sophisticated" account that give lots of context and don't use legal terminology is a way that could easily be misconstrued. As I said it takes only a few tweaks, I think. The rest is worthy of the GA status. 06:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)