User talk:Accurizer/Archive05

This is an Archive of my talk page from January – May 2007. Please do not modify it. Please post new messages at the bottom of my current talk page, here. Thanks! —Accurizer

India MainPage

Hi Accurizer, Many thanks for the message. I understand your concern. However, this argument with Fowler has been persistent, as despite discussions he sneakily inserts GB influences in the India page regardless of other's factually correct contributions. He simply follows local history as is taught in his locality. Whereas global perception and documented history says something else. However, his intentions immediately become clear in his writings! Please advice further... Himalayanashoka 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Accurizer, Thanks for the advice on my TP. But what do we do with this user. He simply refuses to remove GB influences from his sneaky insertions & local perceptions without an appreciation of how things evolved. He simply fails to understand that India's history & unchanged culture stretches back 3000yrs. No one writes in the Germany page lead that this was a country which murdered 6 million Jews in any poetic way or the main country responsible for both WW (I myself would not do that even though its a fact).

I am now just waiting to change back his insertions again with editing in the India page. Pls do update me if there is any other way out to handle this user Fowler&fowler. Himalayanashoka 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Will take your advice. Himalayanashoka 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

~~Inserting "nothing" to make the sentence read "The name India /'ɪndiə/ is derived from nothing" seems like vandalism to me. How else would you describe it? Corto 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Just saw your new message. All clear then, thanks. Corto 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India lead

Despite your 3RR warning, user:Himalayanashoka is indirectly reverting edits but attempting to disguise them in the name of new language etc. He has a long history of vandalism, he was recently blocked for three weeks. He is wasting the time of many well-meaning editors. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made 3RR report: [1]

Wikiporn

I recently re-posted the article Wikiporn because I believe that it is notable and deserves an article. Because I wasn't involved in the previous article and I am not an admin, I have no idea what the original article looked like or why it was deleted initially. I restarted it as a stub with the idea that it could be expanded as a legitimate article that would not need to be deleted. If you have access to the original deletion logs it might help clear things up for me. Thank you Olleicua 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [2]

Scott

Might I draw your attention to this, a re-deletion in which you were involved, and to Wayne William Scott, which appears to be a re-re-creation of Wayne Scott? Regards -- roundhouse 09:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne William Scott

Many thanks -- roundhouse 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Hi, I am writing about the user, Himalayanashoka, who was blocked for 48 hours last night for a 3RR violation as a result of your report (see discussion above). This user has a long history of vandalism and sockpuppetry on the India page. Well, this morning I noticed that 3 new users had appeared who seemed to be making the same kind of edits and writing in the same quaint style. These are: HomzUmrigar , Shyamasundara Vetrivel and MazharUbaid. Two of these user pages were created this morning and the third on December 30 (perhaps in anticipation of the battle). They are all making the kind of bold edits that beginners seldom make. Thought I'd let you know. I have also written to admin William Connolly who blocked him last night. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biparentalness

I disagree on deletion of biparentalness. I had nota chance to debate the proposal of deletion. I ask to restore it.--Dejudicibus 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an administrator (User:Angela) to restore it. Anyway I cannot find in which day it was proposed for deletion. I would like to see the reasonss for deletion to have a chance to explain why it should be restored. Can you provide me witha link to discussion? Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the record but I cannot find any rationale, since the article has been deleted. There was no discussion? I expected to find it in a deletion log, but I scanned logs from December 28th to January 5th: there is not. Can you help me? Biparentalness is a very important recent principle that is affecting millions of people, especially in Europe. --Dejudicibus 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see... ok, here is my reply.

About «Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood,...» I agree that neologisms have to be avoided inside articles, but I did not used a neologism in an article, but I wrote an article about a principle whose name is a neologism.
About «The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.» I agreee, but my article was not about the neologism itself, but about the principle which is the result of more than 10 years of social fight and that finally was recognized by law in Italy and other European countries, and it is known in USA too.
About «The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet...» it is not my case. The neologism was included in the Italian law and it was included since 2005 also in official dictionaries. It is a well recognized term since 2002. 4 years are not few for a new concept.

Thank you for explanation. I requested to restore the article AND I added in the article's discussion area a text that explains why it should be restored: Talk:Biparentalness.

Well, I cited a source in article, which is the National Federation for Biparentalness, but please, note that the site is in Italian language. I have other reliable sources, but they are not in English.--Dejudicibus 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

«Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.» It's my case. --Dejudicibus 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotry, double standards, and incorrectly reverting

Zero trivia articles were sourced in the Bush trivia section, yet you single out mine. The fact that you think homosexuality is "negative" shows your disgusting right-wing bigotry and bias. You reverted "drink-sodden former Trotskyist poppinjay" with a blatantly obvious lack of knowledge of Christopher Hitchens, as this was a name given to him by George Galloway, and is a valid link to the Hitchens page. Please, get a life, you right-wing troll. --User:Popinjay21 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poppinjay21 (talk · contribs) If you had signed your name properly, you would have gotten at least one thing right. Accurizer 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Gonzales political views

Thanks for your concern over Wikipedia neutrality. A synthesis of persons statements does not make an article "biased". Particularly, what do you call a person who believes state should become before people, who advocate use of torture and forms of government terror? Around here we call those people fascists. Maybe where you come from its not politically acceptable to use the word, but that IS what the word was meant for originally. I hope you will soon understand what neutrality is, and embrace the concept, instead of using Wikipedia for advocating hypocrite politically correct biased view of the world. --EndurinFreedom 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see where you come from your perspective is understandable. But still, Wikipedia neutrality is a much more broad concept than you seem to be able to embrace. If all evidence points to Gonzales being a fascist, why would we call him something else? --EndurinFreedom 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [3]

Racak incident

Hello. I am referring to article Racak incident. I am 100 % convinced based on what I have read of international and EU sponsored reports that the article is very biased. The article is very pro-Serb and we know that the Serbs committed several massacres during the Yugoslav wars. Dr Helena Rantas reports are being abused and ignored while Serbian report is highlighted and we know that such reports are not reliable. I have made some edits using sources like BBC but all this edits was reverted by Asterion which indeed is hunting me. Once again I ask for your help in making this article more NPOV. I have a lot of facts and I hope you can help me. Thank you very much in advance. Remember that the arbitration comity has not said anything about my edits. --Noah30 07:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [4] --Noah30 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [5]

Thanks for your answer, but tell me what I should do. Do you know of anyone that can help me to make the article more NPOV. Even if I am using BBC as a source some of the older users threaten me with blocking. I hope I am not disturbing you.--Noah30 13:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I had no involvement with this article before reverting an unexplained removal of content by this user (she may not agree with the text but as far as I am concerned it was verifiable and referenced). I merely reminded her that Kosovo and related articles are under Wikipedia:Article Probation and that disruptive editors may be banned from articles as per the ArbCom ruling. I do not intend to enforce any block on her myself but nonetheless I am not prepared to be subjected to insults from anyone as those left on my talk page. Regards and happy new year, Asterion^talk 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asterion is destroying everything I do. He is hunting. Something must be done. --Noah30 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Mother Teresa

January 2007

Why did you delete what I wrote about Mother Teresa and converting people to Catholicism and the importance of baptism? Quaker24 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [6]

Catechims of the Catholic Church, 1257 "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation..." Quaker24 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [7]

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I have been very busy, anyway, the Church teaches that you MUST be baptisted in order to recieve salvation, now how you go about baptism is different, I have taken catechism classes, there are three types of Baptism, Baptism by water, baptism by blood (dyeing for the sake of Jesus [aka martyr]) and baptism of desire (wanting to be baptised by are not able to attain a water bapitism before you die) Without baptism the person will have original sin, the Church teaches you must be baptised in order to wash it away. There are no excptions, in the way it is done yes there are, but go to www.ewtn.com and go to q and a ask if baptism is nessecary, I have asked it and they said it is a misleading thing to believe that baptism is not nessecary. Thank you Quaker24 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

The text was not mine. I merely made a grammatical correction.IronLance532 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [8]

Diobesity

Thanks, a two pronged attack and a sharp admin got that persistent vandalism. Keep up the good work. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYC edits

Hello Accurizer - Thanks for your polite comments about my edits to the History section of the NYC article (under the IP address 69.22.240.119; I'd mistakenly thought I was signed in, so my edits aren't attributed to wv235 as they should be). I did point out in my edit summary that my changes were made in an effort to achieve more concision in that section of the article. Before removing the two sentances discussing detailed historical facts I first verified that they were included in the main daughter article on the History of New York City. The challenge in the main NYC article is to strike a balance between brevity and detail and provide a good overview of all dimensions of the subject, New York City. This article, which I edit regularly, tends to accrue many details over time that better belong in the major topical sub-articles. The main article must be kept to a reasonable length. Ocassionally this requires the pruning of secondary issues and moving them to daughter articles. At least one of my deletions referenced in your comment was only recently added and is already discussed in more depth in daughter article. I hope you'd understand the rationale behind my changes. Wv235 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [9]

Have a Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you with this barnstar for your astounding number of anti-vandal reverts. Keep up the great work. *¤~Persian Poet Gal* ^(talk) 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my user page when it was vandalized. Paxsimius 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The vandal at rat I thought would have had a dubious user name, only conducted vandalism with diversionary summaries and so i put it up at AIV and nothing. disappointing. Satu Suro 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [10]

Thanks for that, appreciate that Satu Suro 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Judy Garland

That IP actually placed Garland in the bisexual category accurately. She is widely reported (in several respected biographies) as being bisexual. I'm not going to revert you, since I don't feel like sourcing the assertion, but just wanted to let you know it was a good faith edit on the IP's part. Jeffpw 10:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [11]

sorry

Well, I am sorry for the Rio de Janeiro page inconvenience; I had not thought of the consequences, regarding Wikipedia's policies, of an apparently petty intervention like mine was. Anyway, thank you for calling my attention. Daniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.72.64.252 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Back in Action

I'm back in action editing on the wiki. I recently came upon Causal dynamical triangulation, another topic with a scant description and the need for more content. This time; I've already reviewed some of the important papers on the subject, and I have a promise of answers to questions and a content review from one of the theory's framers, Jan Ambjorn. There is little chance that someone clever will want to challenge my views on the subject, and I can be useful and informative once again. JonathanD 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt tjstrf

Tjstrf and me were having a conversation. It was the user 69.112.24.241.(he posted where me and tjstrf left off.) He has been harassing me because I warned him about his comments on Oblivion and Cannibas.

Oh also I was looking at your user page and your an anti-vandalist. Please help me because i want to be an anti-vandalist just like you, too. Thnx CzarNick 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Heights High School wrongly edited as Vandalism

Please explain how my edits to the Franklin Heights High School page are considered 'vandalism'? All edits are facts. Can you prove them to be otherwise incorrect? If so please do. But don't just delete them under the guise of vandalism. I'm attempting to add information about a topic that is clearly lacking and you just with one flick of the wrist label my work vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.20.173 (talk • contribs)

Reply: [12]

Archdiocese of Newark wrongly edited as Vandalism

I have been making "creative changes" to the Archdiocese of Newark Wikipedia listing. I have been doing this because somebody kept deleting legitimate references from the listing. Both Archbishop Myers and his predecessor Archbishop McCarrick have been surrounded by controversy with regard to the church scandal of hiding pedophile priets. The items deleted from their Wikipedia listings were legitimate, documented and cited. Somebody kept taking them out and I kept putting them back in. Those references were under "controversies". Removing those references is as much vandalism as what I have done. If the refrences are put back in I'll leave the site alone.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.20.173 (talk • contribs)

Reply: The edits I reverted were certainly vandalism, see [13] Accurizer 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.209.62.227

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:72.209.62.227 You warned this person that they would be "banned" the next time they vandalized something. Well they just did. They removed *everything* from the article "Solar System" and replaced it with an insult. I do not know how to block or remove someone. So I am asking you to take action if you can. Nwbeeson 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [14]

Christina Aguilera

Message moved from your userpage Gwernol 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should not remove information from Wikipedia without explaining my actions???? And you should not put nonsense on wikipedia!!!

Just look what someone did with the "Number-one singles" singles section!!! This section is only for nr. one singles and Tilt Ya Head Back Ain't No Other Man Hurt Tell Me Candyman And Sill Dirrty aren't nr-one singles!!!

And it is not confirmed that there will be a "Back to Basics re-release"...these all are rumors and wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. This is against wikipedias policy and it is "Vandalism"!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.224.20.51 (talk • contribs).

Reply: Here is the diff we're discussing: [15] Didn't mean to offend you. But, the information that you added was unsourced, which means it could be original research (which is not allowed) or your point of view, which is also not allowed. The information that you deleted appeared on its face to be legitimate. If it is necessary to delete information like this, you should explain why in the edit summary or, better yet, on the talk page so other editors can discern whether or not they agree with your actions. Accurizer 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i admit it: i edited a post that had already been vandalized(unnoticed and uncorrected) and quoted my friend's comical response to the original vandal. For this, i recieved a correction from accurizer, and when i checked the original post, both the original vandal and my response were removed. knowing that accurizer checks previous 'vandals'(like me now, i suppose) history for new possible vandalisms, should i take this to mean that if i find other articles to be vandalized, that my parodies of the vandal will result in original vandals' work being removed? Personally I find the actual vandalization to be a problematic, if not comical, and inevitable result of the wiki. to quote my original friend, "wikipedia is like that dictionary in the public library that everyone writes their thoughts in." this is the same friend that suggests we put fake encyclopedias in the library just to confuse everyone... maybe i should stop listening to my friend. good job accurizer, for correcting that other guy, but not me. :) =D everyone should get a good laugh in, at least once day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.156.114 (talk • contribs)

BARR

Hey, I added some stuff to the page for BARR (Brendan Fowler) and tried to mention most of his important contributions to the musical world. He's toured nationally Xiu Xiu and Marnie Stern, both of whom have are fairly notable artists, and his band is currently touring Europe. I'll go back in and fill in the pages for his albums later (both were received by P4k, although not entirely favorably), but I think this guy deserves to stick around. Let me know what you think.

By the way, what were you searching for on Google to only get 798 hits? When searching for "Beyond Reinforced Jewel Case" (a BARR album), I get nearly 4k hits, and similar searches get plenty of results as well. I dunno. DemanusFlint 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [16]

Thanks

Hi Raerth, thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. Regards, Accurizer 10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Raerth 10:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

888 is not a spam

Hello, I work at 888 and know the amount of efforts we are putting to make it the best blackjack game on the net. The link to the site should appear at blackjack. Return it ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.32.167 (talk • contribs)

Reply: The quality of the website does not mean that it is an appropriate external link for Wikipedia; please read Wikipedia:External links for more information. In regard to writing an article about the place where you work, please take a look at Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Accurizer 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]