User talk:Wafulz/Archive 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wafulz I have been diligent and done a good job of editing in information on technocracy movement
Wafulz, this is commentary on an ip address that has made a mess of the Technocracy movement article. This is on Technocrate`s talk page. Please restore my recent edit and if you could prevent this user from messing with this article. It does not make any sense to delete really good information from this article which this user has done. Please please stop this person.
Edits on Technocratic movement (from Technocrates`s talk page.
Please take care when making modifications to the Technocratic movement article. It is currently under heavy dispute with regards to sources and terminology and it is appreciated if you could make suggestions on the Talk:Technocratic_movement page before commencing with edits. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule so that you aren't given a hard time by anyone over policy. Thanks! --77siddhartha 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that this user is not involved in discussion as Siddhartha says. Also I would suggest that this user not repeatedly do the same things over and over, when new information and discussions are making this page take shape.(skip sievert 05:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Well contrary to the above, I'd say good job Technocrate. You've managed to revert Skip's edits quite quickly, takes a bit of stress off me. Although you should probably be a bit more careful in editing and you should always give a reason for reversions in the edit summary, even though it may seem pointless as it's already been talked about endlessly. You should also try to get involved in the discussion page rather than being a bystander. --Hibernian 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well he is working in the team cabal from NET as you are. He is not even a player here but a soldier that reverts any and everything. Your endorsement of him says volumes about you Hibernian (skip sievert 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Wafulz could you please revert my edits back and tell Technocrate to stop messing around on this page. He does not contribute at all. I explained all my edits in the talk page and others left them alone this time. Can you help me to restore my last batch of edits mostly concerning Willard Gibbs. This is important information to the article. skip sievert 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want- Technocrate has one edit since June.-Wafulz 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your not sure what I want ? I just tried to explain that this person went in and deleted good information on this article. I asked you to restore my previous edit. That is what I want. In the mean time I have put the link to the official site back up which Technocrate deleted. I have also put Willard Gibbs back into the article. This is important info. Unfortunately my skills in the references at the bottom are limited. Could you fix the little mistake in the bottom of the site about links ? That would be appreciated. Could you also comment on Technocrate`s users page not to wholesale do reverts without any explanation on the talk page or discussion ? skip sievert 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just revert/comment to him yourself. He has one edit in the last five months.-Wafulz 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. Thanks for repairing the bottom part also.
I made this comment to him - "Please do not tamper with the Technocracy movement article by removing links to the official site, or removing information about Willard Gibbs.
You have not been a part of the discussion of this article. Please refer to this information on the origins of Technocracy by watching this video http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy
Why you think Veblen had much of any thing to do with the origins of Technocracy is not known. He did not. He was a member of the Technical Alliance, yes.
Please, no more wholesale editing and removing vital info from this article. I have reported you to the overseer of this article." skip sievert 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a bit harsh, but whatever. I am not the overseer of the article. Please understand this. Several months ago I mediated a discussion there. I did what I could, and then left. Beyond knowing your user names, I'm really not involved with technocracy-related articles.-Wafulz 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it was just a turn of phrase. If you are not going to mediate in this situation could you refer me to another person that could help ? Could you possibly note, and alert Technocrate that as he has again removed mention of Willard Gibbs in another edit of the article, despite asking him not to in a couple of places (his talk page, and the article talk page), and also pointing out to him that he is not contributing to the discussion on the talk page, that it would appear that he is coming in and damaging the article ? This editor is a member of Network of European Technocrats, a group that formed a cabal earlier in the article history to control the article. Also he predicates all of his edits by mentioning that another editor here is vandalizing the article. Isn`t that accusation unwarranted ? Your forbearance is appreciated. skip sievert 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- If he keeps returning and reverting without discussing anything (usually the cutoff is 3+ reverts in 24 hours, or constant reverts without discussion), you can go to WP:AN/3RR and file a report. If he tries discussing it with you, it may be best to go to requests for comment or seek a third opinion.-Wafulz 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry to get here late, and I'm sure Wafulz is sick to death of this issue, but anyway. I see Skip's up to his old trick again, eh, well I don't know this guy you're talking about (only what I've seen on Wiki), but as far as I can see he's done nothing wrong. He just doesn't quite know how things are done on Wiki yet, I however do know, and can tell you exactly why Skip's edits (and his editing as a whole) are garbage.
- I haven't been monitoring the Technocracy stuff for several months which has once again allowed Skip to get in and do his customary damage, but I've spent the last few hours fixing it and I think I've done ok at that. However that still does not address the bigger issue, I can't be here all the time to revert this vandalism, Skip has got to go, Permanently! His list of offences are as long as your arm, as I'm sure you are well aware by now Wafulz, he simply must be banned now, seriously. --Hibernian (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A cabal of people trying to control an article does not represent consensus. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum - Isenhand of NET who also uses that name as a wiki editor here use`s the Technocrate handle here to control the articles. Is there a reason to use such a demeaning tone here ? Why is it Hibernian that you do wholesale reverts of my edits which I provide information to back up ? I have made commentary on my edits on the talk page. By the way Hibernian I restored one of your edits that Technocrate reverted and called vandalism. I seriously think that you are an advocate of censorship in regard to your attitude Hibernian. Wafulz I do not like being called a vandal. I think that violates policy here. I have added breath and dimension as much as possible, and not ideology. skip sievert (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Skip, quit edit warring and bringing personal vendettas into everything. Every article you touch ends up being a battleground, and any time a discussion starts, you start harping on about a cabal or providing links to discussions that are marginally relevant.-Wafulz (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are wrong. skip sievert (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Query
Hey there, I picked your name randomly among the list of Wikipedia administrators. I am an administrator in Malay Wikipedia, fresh from a contentious debate. So I would just like to seek clarification on the "principles" of Wikipedia.
Here was the situation:
A new Wikipedian started an article on the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan. He translated the name as "Provinsi Sempadan Barat Laut". The issue of our debate was the use of the word "provinsi". "Provinsi" is a borrowed word used in Indonesian (a highly mutually intelligible dialect of Malay). Due to the close relationship between Malay and Indonesian, most Malay dictionaries include the word "provinsi". However, among common Malay speakers, the word is almost not used at all.
Another user did a check on what the common media used, and all Malay newspapers and websites (that were checked) translated the title as "Wilayah Sempadan Barat Laut". "Wilayah" (a seasoned Malay word which has its roots in the Arabic language) is commonly translated as "territorry" or "region", and if necessary, as seen with the media example above, "province".
The Wikipedian who started the article had this stand:
- "Provinsi" should be used instead of "wilayah" order to accurately differentiate between a "province" and a "territory"
My argument was:
- The word "provinsi" is an almost non-existent term in the Malay language, and the media all used the word "wilayah"
- There is no point separating between a "province" and a "territory" as they are both subnational entities. The name is less important than the meaning. [Situation: If I was a Malay speaker looking for information on the NWFP, who cares what the name is called in English, as long as I understand it is a subnational entity.]
Which brings me to my question: Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia which presents information based on what is technically accurate (such as using the term "provinsi"), or what is (not incorrectly, just not so accurately) used by the general public and the common media (such as using the term "wilayah")?
Can you tell me other experienced Wikipedia users, or users who often deal with such issues whom can I consult on this question I have? Which Wikipedia guideline page can I refer to? -Yk Yk Yk 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think in this case you could use the common name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is the relevant guideline.-Wafulz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. -Yk Yk Yk (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Captain Obvious
An article that you have been involved in editing, Captain Obvious, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination). Thank you. lk (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Edition
yes, I am sorry, I did not see that windspeed was in m/s. - Thanks - jabserrano
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Inselkampf
Hello.
I am writing to protest your deletion of Inselkampf. I realize you are likely to say that this was procedural. Fine. What I am saying is, as someone who obviously cares a great deal about Wiki, you should attempt to change the procedures when the rule is eliminating info about something that plainly exists, even if there is no printed literature about it. This type of work is not scholarly behavior, it is lockstep thinking. You are denying people who want info on something the ability to get it from a (reasonably) reputable source. You and your fulltime Wiki buddies should talk about this. Thanks! Count von sheesh (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the rules are pretty good. If people want to post information about games that don't have independent coverage, they can put it on one of the many gaming wikis- it doesn't have to be on Wikipedia.-Wafulz (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Nik Antropov
Antropovs All Star campaign has been on Leafs TV, Q107 FM Toronto, Fan590 Toronto, Talk 640 AM Toronto, in the Toronto Sun, Edmonton Sun, London Free Press, Calgary Sun, Ottawa Sun, do you need me to name any more? We've sourced it and continue to help in its promotion, even with zero involvement. Get off your high horse and leave it there
I do not understand why this is such a big deal to you? Why do you care? Do you have nothing better to do? It's been mentioned in over 7 newspapers, on numerous radio stations, let it go. I don't understand why this is such a big deal to you...
Sorry Officer. I completely forgot you have zero life except to police an internet site. Good day sir.
Unlocking ANN
Hey there, I was wondering if you could unlock this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angry_Nintendo_Nerd&action=edit page and have it redirect to Angry Video Game Nerd? Thanks! -ZFGokuSSJ1 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hockey?
Wafuz
I am curious as to whose interests you are serving by completely deleting the VERY ACCURATE and DEFENDABLE statistics and information regarding "ice hockey" -- to whit, one wonders:
Are you Canadian?
What is your personal experience, or in depth research, of ice hockey OUTSIDE of Canada, North America and North America -- what SPECIFICALLY entitles you to continue to re-post erroneous and CLEARLY unsupported, biased information?
The "ice hockey" 'information' has been re-edited by you BACK to a CLEARLY Canadian-centric, North American point of view, full of numerous glaring, inaccuracies and grossly out of date information.
For example -- on what grounds and with waht statistics is the absolutely absurd and completely inaccurate claim that Canadian players outnumber American pucksters of "four to one"?
I can cite numerous reliable sources, including the EXACT records of -- and numbers from -- the NHL and the NHLPA -- WITH SPECIFICITY (actual numbers of ALL players form 34 countries represented in the NHL and NHL Draft for the last 3-years -- what are your unimpeachable sources and proof?
You cite the National Women's Hockey League (NWHL) as having the best female ice hockey players -- yet it is a league that has "officially" suspended operations for 2007-08, more accurately. the NWHL is effectively defunct.
Looking forward to a response -- and that VERIFIABLE proof backibng up the claim of Canadians outnumbering Americans "four to one"...
- What are you talking about? If you're talking about ice hockey, you should note that I haven't edited the article- I just pointed out some mistakes.-Wafulz (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Protected templates
The same issue with Template:Hockeydb is happening with Template:Legendsofhockey. The bullets aren't working. See Andre Lacroix (ice hockey) for an example. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Maravilla
An article that you have been involved in editing, Maravilla, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Lysedxia, again
Hi there. I see that you've banned 69.233.198.234 on that grounds that he was actually Lysdexia and has been going around making all sorts of pointless changes and adding archaic language. Just to point out that since then he's reinvented himself as 69.108.165.97, and has gone around unreverting some of his earlier edits. Ta. Chris (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And now 69.225.254.157. Sigh. Chris (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Too many line breaks
It's not my editor, I simply did a hasty copy and paste. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
