Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) →List of founders of major religions: BC/BCE etc. |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:Yes, why are you suddenly messing around with dating systems (with edit summaries implying that there's a dispute when there isn't)? --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
:Yes, why are you suddenly messing around with dating systems (with edit summaries implying that there's a dispute when there isn't)? --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
CIS, I didn't want to bring this up, and won't mind ifyou choose to remove this comment, but please remember you've been blocked under your old username for CE/BCE, AD/BC changes. Please don't make us find the need to block for disruption? [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 10:08 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-05-29]])</small> |
Revision as of 10:08, 29 May 2006
Talk Page Archives: |
---|
Archive 1 (8 January – 31 March 2006) |
Archive 2 (1 April – 30 April 2006} |
Please stop
Your repeated deletion of Arabic language names from various articles is a form of vandalism. Please cease and desist immediately. If you somehow think this information doesn't belong in the articles, take it up on a talk page, or better yet, start a centralized discussion. I've reverted all your edits to restore the information you deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed the reverts between you and User:MarkSweep regarding Arabic names and dates of birth/death. I don't have strong preference either way as I largely stay out of such disputes over semantics. But, I would like to suggest a compromise here that follows the style used for Japanese biographical articles:
- Hani Saleh Hanjour, (Arabic: هاني صالح حنجور , August 13 1972 – September 11 2001)
- I have implemented this at Hani Hanjour and detailed this suggestion some more at User:Kmf164/Arabic names, with some see also links to other naming conventions. This is a slight variation on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic)#Lead_paragraphs, but one I think is okay here, as the proposed guideline also says "Some cases will require variations on this format.". -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Your insistence on deleting information as you've done here leaves me little choice: I've blocked you for one hour initially to stop you from causing further damage. When the block expires, you're free to implement the compromise solution suggested by Kmf164 above. But if you continue to delete Arabic names, you will quickly find yourself blocked again. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was tricky to get it to work in Hani Hanjour, but possible to include both the name, as written in Arabic, along with the DOB/death. The Arabic MOS page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)) along with the Japanese MOS page indicate a preference toward including the name in the native script. I think it's best we stick with this practice, though also include the DOB and death in the parenthesis. I'd rather stay out of this debate, but hope you will consider a compromise. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind the Arabic name being included at all but I just couldn't find a way to evade the technical issue of not being able to include the DOB/D in parentheses along with the Arabic spelling therefore I removed the one of lesser importance. I'd be happy to include both if at all possible. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very good. I'll unblock you now. For future reference, if you run into a technical problem, ask for technical assistance. Technical problems are no reason to delete valid information. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind the Arabic name being included at all but I just couldn't find a way to evade the technical issue of not being able to include the DOB/D in parentheses along with the Arabic spelling therefore I removed the one of lesser importance. I'd be happy to include both if at all possible. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was tricky to get it to work in Hani Hanjour, but possible to include both the name, as written in Arabic, along with the DOB/death. The Arabic MOS page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic)) along with the Japanese MOS page indicate a preference toward including the name in the native script. I think it's best we stick with this practice, though also include the DOB and death in the parenthesis. I'd rather stay out of this debate, but hope you will consider a compromise. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
====Regarding reversions[1] made on May 2 2006 (UTC) to Spring_holiday ====
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Octagon-warning.png/30px-Octagon-warning.png)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Disappointed
I was disappointed to see this. And now that I leave this message on your talk page, I see you've been blocked a couple times in the last couple days. Please don't edit war. I consider you a valuable contributor, and that's why I kept your blocks finite, but if you keep this up you may find that other administrators are not as generous. Perhaps now would be a good time for a brief wikibreak. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- CIS, I know that you're a productive editor. Unfortunately, my work at the hospital is keeping me a bit busier than usual and I lack the time to perform a detailed look at those conflicts right now. My main concern is to prevent you from self-destructing or doing things you'll later regret. I trust that you'll use your judgment in editing and not let your emotions dominate. I doubt that Thumbelina's edits, whether ill-advised or not, would qualify as "simple vandalism" (from WP:3RR) or even vandalism ("any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia"). In all other cases, 3RR applies, regardless of how wrong you feel the other person is. I certainly do make mistakes, though I strive to be as careful as possible, and not to do or say anything I'd later regret. And of course I take responsibility for my errors and try to rectify them when others point them out. (I hope I am open-minded to recognize my errors when I see them or they are pointed out.) Keep up your editing but try not to get too attached to articles or your view of them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello
It was very nice to talk to you last night and I hope we can do it again soon! JamieAdams 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, you bet! I'll be talking to ya the next time you're on MSN! Cya!. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 17:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
CE warning
Regarding this edit... I'd like to note that Wikipedia does generally consider CE to be a valid epoch. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Final_decision: "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." Also from the same decision, "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change".
Ultimately, to prevent edit wars, the rule I've heard of most is that the first use should be the one that stays, and for that article, AD seems to be the first use, so the article should probably stay as you've edited. Nonetheless, I wanted to caution you against changing CE to AD in articles without substantial justification. --Interiot 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't edit my user page
Don't edit my user page; that's what the talk page is for.--Prosfilaes 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not get emotional. Please refrain from being so abruptly rude—I was only trying to offer assistance. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like you vandalising my page. You have been around enough to know that it's inappropriate to edit someone's user page.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have been around long enough to know that it's appropriate to edit someone's user page if it is a well-intentioned edit.
- From User:Jimbo Wales:
- "You may edit this page Really, you can! For instance, this sentence was written by someone other than Jimbo. This is my user page. I like to keep it a certain way. But, the thing is, I trust you"
- Prosfilaes, I know you can get emotionally involved with certain users, especially myself, but I do not believe in getting personal with someone on Wikipedia. Your personal dislike toward me should not affect your professional obligation at Wikipedia to assume good faith and respect other users. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- A minor quibble: Jimbo's message doesn't necessarily encourage people to leave signed discussion on his main page rather than the talk page, but whichever. --Interiot 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not whichever. It is very unusual to permit other people to edit one's user page outside cleaning up vandalism and other mechanical edits. I wrote a short, to the point, message to you, and you responded by attacking me; how is that respecting other users?--Prosfilaes 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- A minor quibble: Jimbo's message doesn't necessarily encourage people to leave signed discussion on his main page rather than the talk page, but whichever. --Interiot 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like you vandalising my page. You have been around enough to know that it's inappropriate to edit someone's user page.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Unusual timing
Uhh... this is quite the unusual timing for you to leave a message, but I haven't returned, I'm still leaving. (Although I'm editing right now). I was just writing a request for my user page to be deleted as I am not returning. Sorry to disappoint you. Moe ε 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Spring holiday
Hi - as you would recall I had a number of difficulties with the article until proper sources were cited. I think the verifiability policy is very important, and the source needs in this case to be precisely relevant. I thought the comments from B.Mearns in response to the RfC were useful and that he acknowledged the issues we had with Thumbelina's edits. The suggestion of using the {{fact}} template was one useful way of de-escalating and which I took up. I have posted a note to Thumbelina's talk page stating that Crayola is not an acceptable ref and I will rollback any further edits that reintroduce that as a reference in that context. The citation needed notes should remain until appropriate (by concensus) sources are provided. As you know from our previous discussions, I am really easily persuaded by the right source :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Theories on religion
I'd be very interested in some of the theories you've developed regarding near-death and the afterlife, especially as applied to your recent renaissance. I'm looking forward to the completion/expansion of User:Darwiner111/Theories. B.Mearns*, KSC 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your interest is greatly appreciated, and I will leave a message at your talk page when the article is complete and online. It currently undergoing major additions to some of the original paragraphs (though I never posted them in the original state), and will be up and online within a few weeks. I'll give a deadline of 31 May 2006— if they're not on by then contact me. Thanks again for your interest ... I see that you're agnostic/an atheist (so was I), and I believe these theories and other websites may influence you otherwise. For now, I reccommend you visit Near-Death.com for further information. Cheers!. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looking forward. For the record I'm absolutely not an atheist. Agnostic is part way there, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Also, the common association between agnoticism and atheism I think is pretty misleading. Being agnostic basically means you don't rely on a higher power to influence your life. Being discordian basically means the same thing, except that you fully reserve the right to do so. And being an accordian basically leaves you open to be the butt of a number of jokes. Anyway, I am looking forward to reading your ideas and maybe discussing them further if you'd like; I'm not particularly looking to change my service right now, but I'm always interested in hearing new ideas. B.Mearns*, KSC 19:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it
Thanks for fixing the ABC WNT template! Thistheman 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
List of founders of major religions
I started the blankety-blank article and I always use BCE and CE. Please don't try to impose your version. Zora 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, why are you suddenly messing around with dating systems (with edit summaries implying that there's a dispute when there isn't)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
CIS, I didn't want to bring this up, and won't mind ifyou choose to remove this comment, but please remember you've been blocked under your old username for CE/BCE, AD/BC changes. Please don't make us find the need to block for disruption? NSLE (T+C) at 10:08 UTC (2006-05-29)