User talk:Sukiari

Welcome!

Hello, Sukiari, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 23:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I have read a lot of the articles, but haven't contributed that much yet. I have a few ideas in mind, especially for camera and photography related articles. I hope I don't screw anything up! :-)

Sukiari 07:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from userpage

Sockpuppet? What are you talking about? Are you asking me if im an Internet sock puppet? Because I ain't. I'm not the one reverting your edits on the North Korea page. Pierpontpaul2351 21:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

moved from userpage. ∞Who ?¿? 04:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Moved your request for rename Category:Japanese World War II people

I have moved your rename request of Category:Japanese World War II people from Requested moves to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, as that is the proper place to request renames of categories. —jiy (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz anwar article

You are correct, in that the previous content was mostly a bunch of hooey, and that I didn't read through the entire thing to get a full sense of the context - I apologize for the confusion. I am generally wary of edits that remove very large sections of existing text without providing an edit summary, which was the reasoning for my revert. And while I didn't mention anything on the talk page, I did mention it in my own edit summary; my only concern was that such a large portion of text was removed with justification. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. All the old information remains in the revert history, so anybody who would like to comb through that tripe and extract the few bits of useful information is welcome to do so.

Thanks for responding. Sukiari 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD nomination

Step 1 for How to list pages for deletion states:

Please include the word "AfD" in the edit summary and please do not mark the edit as minor.

Remember that when making future nominations. Royboycrashfan 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwoods

There's nothing in the document cited about flying a passenger jet into a tall building. What's your source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Zoeller

Please do not add your personal opinions to talk pages. It is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Thanks! Jokestress 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you implying?

That The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be not a hoax/forgery? Is there any serious reliable source backing up your claims [1] [2] [3]? Please see WP:UNDUE. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the original 'protocols' which the printed versions descend from are you talking about? A number of authoritative investigations in the course of the last 100 years proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the text is a "literary forgery", "hoax", "plagiarism" and "fraud". Your wording "widely regarded as" suggests that there is a real possibility that the Protocols is a factual document. Please review our policies concerning original research, undue weight and verifiability. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you asked the question

"Are you really a Legend?" The correct answer is YES. Lugnuts 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lens materials

I'd love to see a good bit on exotic lens materials, but it needs to be sourced. I'm wondering what basis you are using for the materials you are listing; if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to edit up the reference. Is there something relevant in the Italian doc? Looks like, but it's hard to tell if it supports what it's attached to. Dicklyon 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uglor

You appeared to have nominated Uglor for deletion and added a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 20, but didn't actually open a deletion debate. I hope I haven't been too bold in correcting your mistake. Next time follow the directions on the AFD template.
I will also reiterate a previous point on this page, to include "AFD" in your edit summary when placing {{subst:afd}} on a page. shoy (^words _words) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Please be aware that the material you have recently added to your userpage about Durova and the secret mailing list might bring unwanted attention to you and bring accusations, which I am not making, of harassment. I would recommend that you remove it to avoid trouble. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this possibility. If indeed I am subjected to harassment because I have publicly disapproved of these dishonorable and gestapoesque tactics then I will probably have to start editing the WP anonymously, or write the project off altogether as a lost cause.

Sukiari 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, I don't know you or what you stand for, but good for you! This atmosphere of wikichill is really awful, and just more fodder for the press. Stifle (apt name), how will you feel if the next story includes people running around warning people to shut up or be banned? Do you think that will help Wikipedia? I'm not meaning this personally, but you really need to consider this. It doesn't look good, at least to me. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom might as well stand for Arbitrary Coordinated Maneuvering. Sukiari (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using loaded terminology such as Gestapo. The only effect of that language is to poison discussion. If you want to discuss the Durova matter, do so with civility. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good tip Carl. I wonder if anybody on the secret list ever used offensive terminology? I guess we'll never know, as there are claims that there is no archive of the list (although I know this to be false). Sukiari 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ArbCom list

Hi - I saw your post vote against Raul654 about that. What is it? --David Shankbone 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sukiari. In response to your oppose of Raul654, I think you're confusing two different mailing lists. Raul founded the arbcom-l list, a list that, while private, is accountable, has a known list of members (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list), and is not at all a secret. I don't think he had anything to do with the cyberstalking mailing list you're concerned about, and there's a big difference between the two. Hope that helps. Picaroon (t) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic

I happened upon your note on BillCJ's talk page, and wanted to let you know that edit-warring will not help you get your way. Please do not threaten one, or engage in one. If you have a legitimate problem, bring it to the wider community, but saying "I can revert more than you" is no way to win an argument. --Golbez (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is irrelevant. My problem was only with the tactics you were threatening to use. --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that editwarring gets nowhere, as does threatening it. Discuss first, instead of having some contest over who has more free time. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion. That's always the option. If that goes nowhere, then there are other avenues; see WP:DR. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor form

I appreciate your right to "defend" articles but it appears to be very poor form to accept and continue to promenade a barnstar on your user page from a user who has "rewarded" you for being uncivil on that articles talk page.--VS ^talk 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:MaxHeadroom copy.svg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:MaxHeadroom copy.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for your persistence in defending the truth of the Dana Jacobson article. You are a gentleman and a scholar.--Esprit de corps (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sock puppet of Seancarlin84, and has been blocked indefinitely.

Please refer to Checkuser for evidence. Enigma ^message Evidence is not proof, and many a user has been accused of being a sockpuppet just to shut them up and ban them.Sukiari (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Dana Jacobson. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have left a courteous message on this page previously regarding your propensity to attack the editor Enigmaman, and towards that point you are obviously continuing with such an attack when you detail that he is a troll - when in fact (as others have noted) his edits were constructive. You should cease such attacks immediately. --VS ^talk 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Montanan

Sukiari, thank you for making the effort to improve SS Montanan. Regrettably, I have had to undo your contributions. First, the consensus method of handling the possessive of a ship name is for the ship name to be in italic text and the "'s" to be in Roman (that is, non-italic) text. Because the straight quote used as an apostrophe is also used as a formatting code on Wikipedia it requires the use of the <nowiki> tags. Second, allide is, in fact, a real word and in its nautical sense refers to the impact of a moving ship into a stationary object, such as Montanan into the stationary pier. Collide in nautical usage is the impact of two moving objects, such as two ships, or a ship and a whale, for example. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Astronauts Gone Wild, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Verbal chat 08:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Husounde. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It's already been noted that your edits of this user page are unwelcome. —User:Husounde (talk)

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR. Even better, please actually read what you're being told about inappropriate links William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what I'm told is not really of much value, expect a fair return on the investment. Sukiari (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice: I have reported you to WP:AN3. Verbal chat 10:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am sure I would be reported. To me the truth of the matter is important enough to risk being reported. If you get enough people to revert the same exact stuff, while making weak arguments disputing the use of wikileaks which is a major source of high import, I'm sure you can get me in some serious trouble! Sukiari (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you admit you knowingly and intentionally broke 3RR? Do you intent to continue reverting? Verbal chat 10:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit nothing other than trying my hardest to improve the wikipedia. So people come out of the woodwork to make the *exact* same reverts, despite cites. I'm just one person here. How many folks have come out of nowhere to make the exact same revert (nominally against the first cite, but also reverting the second)? Call in the mods. Lock the article. Ban me for trying to keep the Wikipedia useful! But it looks pretty bad either way. Sukiari (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I try to improve the Wikipedia, and despite some of my edits being controversial to some degree, they are all in good faith. The majority of them are simple cleanup, but some attract swarms of people all of a single mind. This seems to violate the good faith tenet of the WP. Sukiari (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an ANI report to try to resolve this immediate problem. Verbal chat

Why not take a keen interest in the truth instead? This seems like an abuse of Wikipedia's administrative process than a search for useful material.

I will be researching the links the 4 or 5 editors who all made the same reverts have to each other. Let's hope this isn't damning to the WP in general - there have been more than a few incidents like this lately. Shades of Megaphone and the Cyberstalking list. Sukiari (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to promote one editor's version of The Truth. Further, adding a link to a ZIP file on a random server is not a reliable source. We have no idea if the contents of that ZIP file have been altered, or ever were the original ZIP file. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The zip file is from wikileaks. Verify the IP address yourself. Sukiari (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. You repeatedly violated the 3 revert rule despite being told to stop. What's more, the thing you were edit-warring over was a link to an undisputed copyright violation. You knowingly and repeatedly added this link which, as WP:LINKVIO makes clear, is a form of contributory infringement that puts Wikipedia at legal risk. Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, this is grounds for being blocked by an administrator. You were lucky not to have been permanently blocked for this episode and if there is any repeat I will ensure that you will be blocked for Wikipedia's own protection. Your behaviour was completely unacceptable and you appear to have no regrets for what you did, so I wanted to make you aware in advance of the consequences of any repeat. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who says they have the original? Face it, this is not verifiable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 10:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, each of these folks come in, and revert twice, then desist. So, I am only reverting twice at the most. for each revert of my revert. My question is, how many people will come revert my reverts of another person't revert? Note that in the talk page there are attempts to deliberately paint my cites as bad faith, where this is absolutely not true and it becomes obvious if one reads the citations. Sukiari (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be two times the number of people, and if there is more than one person that leads to more than three reverts. Have a look at the 3RR. Verbal chat 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As another aside, they are mostly Germans. What's up with that? Sukiari (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

We have several people, all active on the same topics, coming out of the woodwork to rv me. I edit in good faith and think this is inappropriate. I will leave the article alone for the time being, but both cites are apropos to the topic and Wikileaks is a very useful and apropos source for citation all over the Wikipedia, despite it being constructed of nothing but supposed copyright violations!

Decline reason:

The 3RR rule is generally considered a bright line rule and it's clear that you violated it. Anytime your edits are reverted, the best idea is to arrive at a consensus on the talk page before any more reversions are done. TN X Man 12:51, 24 November 2009 (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.

Sukiari (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

This year you have marked all of your edits as minor edits, when they clearly do not meet the criteria. Please read HELP:Minor edit or better yet, just don't mark any of your edits as minor. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, I'm Mutt Lunker. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sausage because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but don't dispair!

I agree with your main page comment, but don't despair!

I saw your comment here back in 2009 and had to comment and ask whether you think I did a good enough job on the article? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still 1984-esque?

2019 now Husounde (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]