Off2riorob (talk | contribs) →Tylman: add |
Pantherskin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
::: If that is all you can say. I note that you are not willing to discuss the content, and the lack of verifiability. I am wondering why you take this extreme personal interest in this article? You claim you are uninvolved, but for an uninvolved editor you comment quite excessively on the deletion review and here. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin#top|talk]]) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
::: If that is all you can say. I note that you are not willing to discuss the content, and the lack of verifiability. I am wondering why you take this extreme personal interest in this article? You claim you are uninvolved, but for an uninvolved editor you comment quite excessively on the deletion review and here. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin#top|talk]]) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::I talked at length about the content on the BLPN board with you very recently, a compromise was reached to trim the excessive flowery content and keep what was left, nothing excessive at all. I am related to this article from that only, and as I have said from my position as a neutral imo the article is harmless and not excessive in any way and yet I found a few people, apparently desperate to delete it, I don't see any reason at all for that and I have simply been resisting that. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
::I talked at length about the content on the BLPN board with you very recently, a compromise was reached to trim the excessive flowery content and keep what was left, nothing excessive at all. I am related to this article from that only, and as I have said from my position as a neutral imo the article is harmless and not excessive in any way and yet I found a few people, apparently desperate to delete it, I don't see any reason at all for that and I have simply been resisting that. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: And I found out only recently that not only the anon ip, but also [[User:Victoriagirl]] were unable to verify this bit (and a few more) by checking the provided sources. That makes this whole article and its sourcing rather dubious, as all sources are in the end leading back to the subject, if not directly then through the convenience links provided. Is anyone really in the position to actually verify obscure sources such as Glos. I do not think so, what means that we have to rely on self-published sources that in the past have been shown to be wrong and misleading. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin#top|talk]]) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:11, 24 January 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Pantherskin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like List of companies of Georgia (Country) , may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shinerunner (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
sockpuppet investigation
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marbehraglaim . Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, how low can one sink. Pantherskin (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
SPA
Clearly you are yet another SPA set up to harass me. You are one sick puppy. ► RATEL ◄ 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
SPI proved nothing, so this would be a PA.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Its only a puppet!
I would sugest that you stop deleting the accusation of sockpuppetry on [[1]] or you might get a ban foor 3RR violation. I think it would be better for you to raise questions about it being harresment elsewere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Raised at ANI, but I will continue to remove it. Let them block me, at least then an admin will look at the harassment by Noloop. I really dont care anymore, I am probably done with Wikipedia for the time being after being called a cockroach, a psychopath, a sockpuppet, a sick puppy and whatever else here. Pantherskin (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I will miss you. And I don't see why people make unnessecary accusations.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is why. Whilst others seem to enjoy virtual immunity.16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
- I will miss you. And I don't see why people make unnessecary accusations.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Your Stalking, Trolling
Courtesy notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolls_of_Anti-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back'Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, couldnt believe what Noloop posted here. Noloop accusing others of stalking, trolling? Seriously? Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you believe this? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, couldnt believe what Noloop posted here. Noloop accusing others of stalking, trolling? Seriously? Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Noloop RFC
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoloopAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration case (Noloop)
An arbitration case involving User:Noloop has been opened. I noticed that you placed a sockpuppet tag on his userpage on 12 August. The sockpuppet investigation page is here. Would you be able to present evidence at the case pages about this? I am asking the checkusers and clerks to add evidence as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hey Pantherskin, I believe from your comments in the EEML case pages that you are Georgian? Not that there's anything wrong with that :) If the answer is affirmative, would you mind translating something into Georgian for me? It's a few sentences only. Would appreciate help with this. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming bad faith on your part would probably be the most flattering option. Pantherskin (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, actually, we extend good faith to all editors. I'm assuming your disputing this content and source and have asked for others to help see the best way forward. The results of which should stay with the article for future editors to see why some decisions were made. I was restoring sourced content that had been removed without explanation and you accused me of purposely damaging the encyclopedia by perpetuating a hoax with no evidence the information is untrue or that I was purposely hoaxing anything. As a suggestion, make it clear next time why you are removing something and make a path for dialog. -- Banjeboi 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- As a suggestion to you, think before you edit an article. Pantherskin (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom clerk warning
You have recently engaged in a series of posts on ArbCom pages which were deliberately inflammatory and breached the specific guidelines on user conduct handed down by ArbCom concerning the EEML case. You are thus receiving a first and final warning. Any further misconduct will result in a ban from the relevant ArbCom pages until the conclusion of the EEML case. Violation of that ban will result in blocking. Manning (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, your comments are actually helpful and I appreciate them. Can you help with editing the article? I think I understand what you're saying so I could do it myself but I know that any edits by me will be attacked by some people.radek (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I split up the Moeller ref into page citations to make it easier to find the relevant info. I also added info on the commission's conclusions (including from other sources). I also expended the methodology section to incorporate some of the issues you raised at talk.
I would really appreciate it if you could comment on these issues further (and edit the article accordingly) - I think it's a good article and even if it has some issues these can be fixed with a bit of work.radek (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I appreciate your comments, but please be specific. As in what the problem is and how it should be addressed. The sources are there, in English, a click away, so please go ahead and incorporate what needs to be in there.10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't vote, hence my closure. Also, it is withdrawn, so it makes it even more easily closed and it was a snow keep long before it was withdrawn. I would ask that you re-revert my closure (poor form there) and let this AfD die. - Neutralhomer (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- It says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest"...nowhere does it say that if I created the article. If it does, please show me where. - Neutralhomer (talk)
- I didn't say that I hadn't edited it, but you said it stated that if I created the article, it was COI....it doesn't say that. If you are going to cite policy, you really need to cite it correctly. I personally wasn't aware of the "you edit the page alot, you can't close the AfD" policy, but now I know. - Neutralhomer (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources on WBQK
I responded to your post on Talk:WBQK. You might want to watchlist the page if you are going to have a long conversation there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep looking, more has been added. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Just thought I'd let you know that Noloop has started editing again. Hope we don't get off on the wrong foot again.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
you have reply at talkpage
[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Revert war
Hi, Pantherskin, I see no reason to have you as an enemy because of our negative interaction from the past which wasn’t even serious. There are ample proofs of your positive contributions to Wikipedia that’s why I know it is only a phase that can pass,[3] allowing us to edit on good terms. Please, don’t take revenge on me as a person because of EEML, Schieder commission, and so on. The bio is well referenced – we both know it. Poeticbent talk 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits at this article's talk page. Before such a large section of the article is removed, consensus must be obtained at the article's talk page, especially if another editor raises an objection. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Complete nonsense. Please do not make up any policies to support you re-addition of unsourced sensationalist rumors into an article. It is edits such as yours that are responsible for the bad reputation Wikipedia has. Pantherskin (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have substantially reworked this section of the Beria article. Upon reflection I think you were right that there was some stuff there that sounded very much like urban legends, and some refs to the British newspaper articles discussing these urban legends as such. I removed that part, and replaced it with a, hopefully, more neutral and balanced presentation, with references to books specifically dealing with the subject. I also removed, for now, the Antonov-Ovseyenko quote, since it was fairly radical but not explicitly sourced. You may want to take another look at this section and see if you want to work further on it (I am basically done with it myself as I am not really an expert on Beria and am not all that interested in the topic). Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Pantherskin. You are technically over WP:3RR on this article. (Four reverts in 24 hours beginning at 11:02 on 18 December). You may be able to avoid a block if you will respond to the complaint at WP:AN3 and agree not to edit the article for a week. To solve the actual dispute, it would help if you would propose an additional forum whose conclusion you would accept. If you can't think of anything, ask me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you able to propose a compromise on the wording which you think fully accords with the sources? I perceive that sources show she worked for the German government during WWII, and her work had something to do with radio. The dispute appears to be whether she was involved in propaganda. I don't see why the wording can't be tweaked to show only what is known for sure. Your response at AN3 was critical of many people, but I still don't know what you think should be said in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- You may wish to comment at the OR noticeboard.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Tylman
Hi, I don't think it is a good move to start removing content like that now, we discussed that content at length at the BLPN and there was no agreement or support for its removal and that was quite recently, challenging it again now seems a bit excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given that two uninvolved editors were not able to verify this information it seems a bit strange to keep it in the article. Pantherskin (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have replaced it, please do not edit war over this content, it was well discussed at the BLPN and is fine, take it to a noticeboard if you don't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- You please do not edit war over it - and use the talk page to discuss your edits. You say it was well discussed, but if two uninvolved editors are unable to verify a claim it is a strong indication that something is dubious about it. Provide evicence that the claims is true and can be verified, or otherwise I will remove it again. Pantherskin (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I suggested, with your frame of mind as regards this article I would if I was you simply take it off your watchlist and then it won't bother you anymore. Please don't turn what is a silly little article into a battlefield, I assure you it is not worth it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- If that is all you can say. I note that you are not willing to discuss the content, and the lack of verifiability. I am wondering why you take this extreme personal interest in this article? You claim you are uninvolved, but for an uninvolved editor you comment quite excessively on the deletion review and here. Pantherskin (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I talked at length about the content on the BLPN board with you very recently, a compromise was reached to trim the excessive flowery content and keep what was left, nothing excessive at all. I am related to this article from that only, and as I have said from my position as a neutral imo the article is harmless and not excessive in any way and yet I found a few people, apparently desperate to delete it, I don't see any reason at all for that and I have simply been resisting that. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- And I found out only recently that not only the anon ip, but also User:Victoriagirl were unable to verify this bit (and a few more) by checking the provided sources. That makes this whole article and its sourcing rather dubious, as all sources are in the end leading back to the subject, if not directly then through the convenience links provided. Is anyone really in the position to actually verify obscure sources such as Glos. I do not think so, what means that we have to rely on self-published sources that in the past have been shown to be wrong and misleading. Pantherskin (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have replaced it, please do not edit war over this content, it was well discussed at the BLPN and is fine, take it to a noticeboard if you don't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)