![]() Archives |
---|
/2005 - 2006 |
Contents
Barnstar
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For the classic line: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?!" That po-faced debate seriously needed lightening up. Keep up the good work. JonCTalk 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
List of Islamist terrorist attacks2
hey there is no reason to delete the entry! your point is absolutely nonsense. it is actually even against your original intend to have a ground to delete this entry. it doesnt matter at all if there was one attack or even a series attack, --> fact is there WAS an attack , especially in the given entry i put on. The source has nothing to do with it. either you stop with deleting this entry, since there is foundation to do so, or i will get an admin involved. if there is any reason to argue about entries im open, but this is simply ridiculous. Joobo (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
RE: Irish Nationality
Hi. Sorry! But you can edit any that aren't....Sorry for the confusion. I was reading on citizens information that you must be a Irish national to serve in government. Gary. GaryFG8125 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joobo is harassing other editors and making personal attacks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see it's sorted - thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
![]() |
I think that people with a COI should edit Wikipedia articles so long as their contributions are reverted immediately. When they make a request, they should do their own labor. Showing a WP:DIFF is the most clear way to make any proposal.
At Talk:Iona Institute you suggested otherwise. Can you say more about why, or what could go wrong? I fail to understand. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
- Mmm, coffee... thanks! Personally, I favour Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing_strongly_discouraged as a policy. No problem with people putting the proposed edit on the talk page, though. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I also favor what you linked as a policy, so I am glad we are in agreement. How should anyone put the proposed edit on a talk page? Is there any method that is better than a diff? In the case of Iona Institute, right now they have made no proposal whatsoever, right? If not a diff, then how could you communicate to an organization how to make a proposal? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Requesting_diffs_for_proposals Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are right and I am wrong here. Still - I do see a brick wall for the Iona person. I feel they are unable to articulate a request, have not yet done so in a way that is likely to get a response, and am not sure how to direct them to do anything that is likely to have a positive outcome. I wish that Wikipedia had a process to close requests. It seems that in this case, there will perpetually be an open request and it seems like they are being directed to wait for a Wikipedia community response. Hmm... thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016
Hi. You seem to be keen on removing the opinion polling graph from the Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 article, on a rare basis of it "being illegible" or it being "small". It's perfectly legible, and it's actually not small (it's currently sized at 900px; that's surely not small) so I don't know where your issue comes from. You say "no one asked for it", but actually it was asked for here. You also seem to ignore the fact that opinion polling graphs are pretty common in Wikipedia. See some examples:
- Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015
- Opinion polling for the next Polish general election
- Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
- Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015
- Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2014
- Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013
- Swedish general election, 2018#Opinion polls
Just a few examples, but I could spend the entire day showing you examples like those. They are there because they're actually useful in showing trends in a quick and easy way that tables alone can't (just think how, otherwise, people wouldn't lose their times in asking for them or making them out, since it's not an easy job to do). If you're having issues with it on your mobile phone, it's only a particular problem (why are you using your phone as a main browser for Wikipedia, anyway? Wikipedia is mostly computer-oriented right now), but understand that we can't just make this to fit the purposes of a single person in opposition to a whole many (see how you are the only one that keeps removing the graph despite the article being frequently edited by others. You're the only one experiencing issues with it, it seems). And we can't just put it in the bottom, because no one is going to notice the graph there unless they actually go to the bottom, and because that wouldn't solve the issue you seem to be having anyway. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever graphical representation that user was looking for is not the same as the one that you included. There is nothing similar or as ugly on the British election article. While I appreciate you may have spent time and energy on it, it really imparts very little relevant information (no key, and what are the dots? What are you doing when multiple polls fall on the same day?) and it simply isn't legible for any of the smaller parties or recent polls. That's on a Samsung Galaxy S4 and Nexus 9 tablet, because I'm travelling at present. When I return, I'll remove or edit it, and if detaining it, will certainly will move it to the bottom where it doesn't interfere with readers being able to easily access perfectly clear, legible data. And we write WP for readers, not editors. Interested readers will scroll to the bottom. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- The user in question publicly thanked me for the graphical representation (check it herr). So yes, one can say that he obtained what he was looking for. It's only you the one having an issue with it.
- Again, I don't know what issue you may be having, but so far you seem to be the only one experiencing it. The key is included within the graph itself (you could try to notice it if you looked at it, it's just in the above side of the chart). Dots are opinion polls. Trend lines represent twenty-poll moving averages. It's all explained in the image's description. So, I can't see any reason for your current behaviour, which can potentially be disruptive editing by engaging in meaningless edit warring without any actual justification, as all your issues are either unsourced or are already explained. No other user has complained on the graph on either this or other opinion polling articles. Just don't use Wikipedia on your phone if that's what's troubling you, but this can't be made so that it can fit only your desires in detriment of others. Impru20 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Why do you keep posting here? Keep it on the article's talk page. Try also reading for comprehension. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
-
Reported
I've just reported you here, for vandalic behaviour including the violation of the WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:INSULTS and going as far as to threaten me personally in my talk page. Warnings are not for personal use to intimidate other users. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Threaten you personally"?! Um... I take it English isn't your first language. I have not threatened you, I gave you a templated warning, as you've breached 3RR. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, a templated warning because you weren't able to engage in a peaceful discussion. You used a Wikipedia warning to threaten me instead of engaging in the discussion. And most seriously, you did it despite having violated the 3RR yourself. Your behaviour is highly disruptive, and as such it has been reported. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't vandalism, from either party. Could you both please stop edit-warring over your comments. --John (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Polite warning
I'm kindly asking you to stop your continuous ranting and to stop breaching Wikipedia policies.
You complain that the chart is not verified. Ok, show me a single opinion polling chart of any opinion polling article of your wish that does include the spreadsheet, or that even does fulfill what you demand here. You say that's a policy. Show me where that alledged "policy" of yours is applied. Another user, VG31-irl, reverted your edit in the Irish general election, 2016 article, and agreed to the common established view that charts are already verified as the opinion polls are verified. I used the same reason as him to revert your edits. But somehow, you still insist on your claim to remove the chart by using a Wikipedia guideline (WP:V) to try to breach already established consensus.
You keep on your behaviour of not stopping such discussion, and resort to false statements to try to press on your claim. It was agreed for a second chart to be created with other users, so what you say that "other users requested to amend the charse" is inexact. First, it is false because, aside from you, only Wikimucker suggested that one time. Second, it is false because it was agreed with Wikimucker to create a second chart. So what you say is not defended by anyone actually, save for you. I asked you both to give me a date to create the second chart, and to justify the reasoning behind that date, but you yourself just said that I had to decide on it myself and didn't bother to answer. Now you claim that I don't want to. What're you doing? Stop your current manners.
If you keep on this behaviour, I'll have no option but to call for admin intervention or even reporting you for disruptive editing if needed, as you're even starting to revert other users' edits just to prove your (false) facts right to me, which you won't do. Be mature and assume that this is going nowhere.
Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- 1) I am not ranting. If I or Wikimucker post on that page, we are replied to with a wall of text, though.
- 2) WP:V is a Wikipedia-wide policy (not a guideline). I'm not looking at any other opinion polls except the forthcoming Irish general election.
- 3) VG31-irl is in error, as they removed the template from a page where there are no citations. (They had been there previously before the article split).
- 4) I've really no idea what you're saying there.
- 5) The local elections makes a perfectly reasonable start date without any NPOV issue, as the Irish electorate voted on that day, which is more relevant than any opinion poll.
- 6) Please address the points I raised about OR and Synthesis, on the article talk page.
- 7) Please share your spreadsheet, after redacting your "personal data" (whatever that might be contaminating the poll data).
- 8) Kindly stay away from my talk page - anything you wish to raise can be raised on the article talk pages, that's what they're for.
- 9) You are perfectly within your rights to call an admin.
- 10) You are not within your rights to remove a 'citation needed' template without providing the requested verification - please either do so, or restore the template. Good night, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- 1. If I answer you is because you keep answering me, at many times even with absurd complains of issues that are either already solved or non-existant. If you don't like my walls of text, just don't complain on issues that don't exist, such as the "polling agency sorting issue", which was already solved with the "sortable" function of the table.
- 2 and 7. Ok, I'll do it once you show me where that's done in Wikipedia. Show me an opinion polling chart, of any other user from whatever opinion polling article you wish, that does what you ask for. You say it's policy. Then you shouldn't have issues finding one... right? Show me an example of how and when that policy is applied (so that I can know how to proceed) and I'll upload the spreadsheet.
- 3. Or maybe the one in error is you, as per the previous point.
- 4. Where?
- 5. So, why you weren't able to say that from the beginning instead of going into a frenzy ranting accusing me of something that wasn't true? I just asked for a date and a justification. I wasn't given any specific date, so that's why I didn't make the second chart.
- 6. That's done for smoothing. That's not WP:OR. If you see other users' charts, you'll see that they also have their own proceedings to show trend lines. A 20-poll moving average keeps the trend smooth. However, as you may learn, an average enters the scope of WP:CALC, which is not original research, as it's just a number calculation. However, if you insist than this is a breach of WP:OR or WP:NPOV, I kindly (please) ask you to show us an example of another chart where what you say is considered as WP:OR or a violation of WP:NPOV.
- 8. I'm issuing a warning to you. Just in case this has to end in a report of you, that there's proof that you were formally warned. Btw, it's hilarious you say I "must keep away from your talk page" but you keep on harassing and pursuing me through the Talk:Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 article. If you maintain such a behaviour, it's obvious that I must address you.
- 9. Yes, I am. But since the admin notification procedure requires for the proper warnings to be issued and for the discussion to try to be solved first between themselves, I'm just trying for the issue to be solved naturally without having to reach those ends. Because I can't understand how after your continuing disruptive behaviour you're still willing to press on this issue.
- 10. Yes, I am, since you're just abusing of a 'citation needed' template just to skip established consensus because you're not able to accept the result of it. It has been already two users against you that have removed such a template and considered it as a misuse. You are not within your rights to abuse of Wikipedia templates (a warning template with me the other day, the abuse of the WP:V policy and now the 'citation needed' template). Doing that violates WP:GAME. Impru20 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good Lord!. I have never posted this sort of personal attack, along with a soup of policy links (probably entirely irrelevant ones I'll wager) on ANY users talk page and nor would I ever.
- You have my sympathies Bastun. Thank you very much for flagging this peculiar issue across to me. Wikimucker (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, can you say where the personal attack exactly is? That's a serious accusation. So far, I've only seen you putting adjectives to everything everyone else is doing. I'll never say your use of policies is irrelevant. Rather, I'll say they're wrong and explain you why they are.
- It was you the one pressing the WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies on me on this issue. I kindly ask you to prove where those are broken by putting actual examples from other charts where those were regarded as being broken. If you want me to upload the spreadsheet, do show me a real example of that happening so that I can check that policy you claim as so important, based on WP:V and that led you to use a 'citation template' several times, is actually real. You also claim a breach of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, yet you did not consider that WP:CALC does allow for simple calculus to being considered outside the sphere of OR (and subsequently out of NPOV, at least with the connection you made).
- You actually demanded me several times to answer you, both here and in the article's talk page. I'm just doing that. Impru20 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The chart does not need a citation. It would be impossible to provide one citation for all the polls that have been conducted over the past few years. The data is taken from the polls listed on the same page, all of which have a citation. All you could do would be to put all of those citations under the graph which is ridiculous and unnecessary. The WP Verifiability policy should not be taken that far; especially considering it's on the same page! I mostly edit airport pages and am normally quite tough on requiring citations but there is absolutely no need here. There already are citations. VG31-irl 23:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Monarch in FM infobox
Hi you previously got involved wit the disscussion and a similar issue has been raise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Scottish_.26_Welsh_First_Ministers_.26_Deputy_First_Ministers_infoboxes your input is appreciated Ouime23 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)