User talk:146.115.58.152

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Note

This anon editor may also be editing from the shared IP as User:67.98.206.2

[edit] Successful AFC

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Some People Push Back was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account. Thank you.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users, and you will be able to:

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). SefringleTalk 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yossi Paritzky

No problem. Thank everyone at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Articles_for_creation instead of just me, especially as I only just got involved in that project. They (and me in terms of 2 articles) went through and clear a whole year worth of backlogs. KTC 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP67

Are you IP67 etc as suggested on your talk page ?
Thank you,
Regards, Alithien 09:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not he, for there is no he there to be, but when there is a he there, he is most often me. -- 146.115.58.152 04:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you.
Alithien 10:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I explained why I put the flag on the talk page.
You are aware of that.
I am sorry but your attitude is vandalism. If you think "allegation of apartheid" is neutral or pertinent, we can discuss this BUT the discussion on the different talk page proves it is not for users. So until this matter is once for all solved, the flag is justified.
Alithien 10:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houston

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Houston, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the Greater Houston area.

Thanks, Postoak 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-and-paste moving

Please don't attempt to move articles by copying and pasting their contents, as you tried to do with Tourist segregation in Cuba. This is a violation of Wikipedia's license terms, which require article histories to be preserved. -- ChrisO 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

you've already made three separate edits on the article of Battle of Jenin, and i note to you that these edits are under dispute. please avoid breaching the wikipedia policy regarding more than 3 edits within' 24 hours and use the talk page in order to resolve the disputes. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can ignore this cat, since only one of your edits seems to have been a revert. You probably knew that already. Do read WP:3RR if you haven't already; it's important. Also get an account so you don't look like some random schmuck. Thanks. Eleland 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

i hope you're aware that personal attacks by anon. editors (or registered ones) are very much frowned upon and that you avoid similar activity in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spam your talk page, mate, but I just wanted to add that yet again Jaakobou is advancing a rather unusual view of Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure whether he was upset by your statement that G-Dett is "getting batted around" or your allusion to "the sausage factory of wikipedia", but neither qualifies as a personal attack in any way that I can discern. Eleland 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article naming

considering your last reply on here, i'm asking if you wish to re-factor this discussion from the archive so that we can adress the issue properly. p.s. you can reply here, i'm watching your page. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm much too lazy to re-factor anything, though you may do as you please. I'm perfectly content with the name of the article, it's simply too brisk to say "previously known as" while, in fact the battle is still known as such. Please consider the compromise I offered on the talk page. -- 146.115.58.152 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
in case it was not clear, i am unable to follow that conversation due to a few combative "helpers". JaakobouChalk Talk 23:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I have an amazing tolerance for randomness and disorganization, but I still don't really enjoy talk pages most days. Less talk, more work. I've made some further edits which reflect where I'd want the lead to go, by again, trying to represent a balance of facts here. -- 146.115.58.152 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to create a user account

Please take a few minutes to create a user account for yourself. You have been making a lot of changes to the Battle of Jenin article recently, and participating in the Talk discussions. It would be much easier to follow your edits and commentary if you had an account name. Sanguinalis 02:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this user making some sensible edits, but I'm ignoring him until he takes a UserName. PRtalk 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing

Generally edit warriors should consider dispute resolution. Third parties might request help from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you will be requesting help from the corps of Administrators, it would be helpful for you to register an account. / edg ☺ ★ 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

on User:HG/workshop/AoIA restructured editing looked plausible, at first glance. Thanks very much for your involvement. But please honor my request to place all proposed textual edits in the Talk page, not the draft article? I'm glad to see you dealing with headings and the rearrangement of text, but textual emendations I would like to put only in Talk. So, would you mind self-reverting and moving your textual suggestions to Talk there? It would be helpful. Thanks again, HG | Talk 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help w/categories, template, etc. I did some selected reverts and listed your ideas on the workshop Talk. Other feedback welcome. Take care. HG | Talk 08:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, I wanted to ask you, any suggestion on how to make it more obvious that I welcome rearrangements and subheadings for existing text, but not textual emendations? Thanks. HG | Talk 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block for disruption at Jewish_Defense_League

Please use the talk page rather then reverting. Continuing to revert is disruptive and will merit longer blocks of both IP addresses (other IP 67.98.206.2). In addition comments such as User_talk:Armon#Jewish_Defense_League are not productive, and continued offers to "help make edits stick" will merit blocks for disruption. Instead, please use the talk page of the various articles that you have editorial concerns with. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

unblock|1=I did use the talk page from the very beginning (see Talk:Jewish_Defense_League#Soapboxing), the discussion was productive, and the WP:SOAP and WP:SELFPUB issues I had with the sourcing of that article have now been resolved to my satisfaction.[1] This block is a day late if anything, if Eagle101 is talking about this edit; just look at all the edits I've made since then, which weren't reverted.[2] I don't believe WP:BRD counts as "disruption." Eagle has completely misread and misconstrued my comments on User_talk:Armon. I didn't make any offer to do anything, so I have no idea what this admin is talking about. My comments to Armon were an olive branch regarding an edit war at Southern California InFocus, the essential point of which was that I wasn't applying a double standard regarding WP:SOAP and I was perfectly happy to try and apply the same standard to the article he suggested,[3] even though at that particular moment in time my edits were being reverted and other editors were the ones not engaging on Talk:Jewish Defense League, having (understandably) mistaken me for a drive-by vandal. I understand how a third party completely unfamiliar with the context could read my comments to Armon some other way, which is why I don't find Eagle's decision to find cause for a block out of the blue based on one comment on a personal talk page (which he apparently just stumbled upon while blocking Armon), and some two day old edit on Jewish_Defense_League, particularly enlightened. The accusation that I wasn't engaging in the talk page are clearly false,[4] and by the time of Eagle's block the entire issue had been resolved, happily, by everyone in the discussion and the referencing of the article had been vastly improved by myself and other editors working together perfectly harmoniously.[5] This block is entirely bizarre. What's next, I'll be blocked for an edit I made a month ago?
Oh well, block expired -- 146.115.58.152 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please rework this

Regarding this edit, please insert your new information without deleting existing references. If you think that other material shouldn't be there then the appropriate route is to gain consensus on the talk page. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to restore my edit to one sentence. Armon's edit history was a little misleading. -- 146.115.58.152 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of the honourable visitors from us unworthy natives

hi, i'm logging off now, so don't expect an answer from me for a while. c u.--Victor falk 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another successful AFC

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Vladas Zajanckauskas was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Melsaran (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You should really create an account by now :)

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Skilo was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Melsaran (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

please note that your comment that didn't we go thru this on talk? (and revert) were disregarding the actual subsection on talk and avoid such reverts if you're not watching (and/or participating) in the actual discussion. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of apartheid

Macedonians in Greece. See this and this — and many more. --AimLook 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Battle of Jenin

Please do not undo others without attempting to state your rational on the talk page, and be prepared to back up where it has been discussed before. Failure to do this only will lead to a revert war. See your edits at this diff. Reverting here is ok, and I really don't care who is right or wrong, but this kind of revert without stating where on the talk page this has been discussed does not help matters. Thank you. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then when you revert you need to link to that section. Reverting without discussing is frowned upon, and is only going to lead to an edit war. I expect at a minimum a link to the prior section. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding, saying something has already been discussed and not saying where is kind of irksome, and leads to more confusion then there need be on a hot topic like this. —— Eagle101Need help? 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have new messages

Hello 146.115.58.152. You have new messages from ArielGold at User_talk:ArielGold#Random_edit_break.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

[edit] Your recent edits

I reverted, while I don't really agree that the link should be removed, it isn't nice to say admins edits are vandalism. Jbeach sup 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)