User talk:Yuma/archive
You can find me also on the italian-language side :) --Utente:Yuma 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: NPA & related
[edit]Ciao Yuma, since you have written to me in my English talk, I think it could be better reply to you here. To be an expert in some topic is not a "conditio sine qua non" edit articles about that topic. Moreover, you are far more expert than me in Wikipedia policies and usages, so you can help very preciously pinpointing errors such as POV, uncorrect usage of the references and sources, or if occurs a bad behavior by someone of us, like bullying or personal attacks. Thanks!! --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Arthur Kemp
[edit]FYI, I have opened a ticket at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring on the edits made by the IPs. They look to be the same person at two different IPs, but I want another admin to look at the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Bale
[edit]What don't you get about the edit? "Valle" isn't really an alternative official name for the city (in the English language). Now, I'm very far from a Croatian "nationalist", but anyone from around here would find the POV-pushing of the so-called "esuli" on Wikipedia unacceptable and distasteful (to say the least). Foreign names on settlements of disputed regions should have a very good rationale behind them.
What "conspiracy theories" were you referring to? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I imagine our banned fiends on itWiki are still using it as a forum on the subject of the eevil enWiki Admins that banned them, and the "brutish" Slav barbarians that have conspired to against them? The truth of the matter is, the many accounts that have been banned are indeed mostly confirmed socks that these guys were using. Most famously, User:Brunodam was confirmed by checkuser to have created quite a few "buddies" to agree with him. Others have been banned for a wide variety of causes they are undeniably guilty of: incivility (User:PIO), breaches of privacy policy (User:Ragusino), repeated blatant violations of edit restrictions (User:Giovanni Giove), etc, etc... The admins that placed the bans usually had no idea what the dispute was about in the first place, and the behavior of these 5 or 6 banned editors can only be described as "unintelligent" and "asking for a ban". Another frequent "pattern" is that they usually get blocked or restricted for some stupid thing like 3RR violation or a small insult, and then proceed to avoid the block and continue to edit regardless, thus forcing the admin to extend the block until it reaches "indefinite". No objective observer would conclude that there was actually a "conspiracy" behind all this.
- As for the names of Istrian cities, the discussion took place on Talk:Pula, you'll find all the arguments there. May I also say it is refreshing to find a moderate User to discuss these sort of issues with. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:April 2009
[edit]I'm sorry, but I feel this sort of condescending behavior is completely uncalled-for. I expect you're referring to this edit, which I did in good faith believing that the User who's work I slightly modified was in agreement with it (see his statement to that effect [1], and my response [2]). I simply did not notice his latest statement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. I do not see how you could have made the assumption that I believe I "own" the Vodnjan article considering that I made a grand total of two minor edits there. I also can't see any justification for using Wikipedia articles for "examples" when talkpages are here for that purpose.
In short, I'm a user with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience who thought he was helping, why the warning? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Disappointment
[edit]Yuma, I know how you feel... I've decided to stay away from emotionally charged subjects - simply, I'm not interested in spending my days arguing on Wikipedia. It would not be good for me, and I doubt it would benefit this great project of ours, something I really have a passion for. And I'm not going to change this decision anytime soon...
But here we are anyway. I feel this situation is due to misunderstanding. I've initiated a discussion reset: please join back in and don't take it off your watchlist just yet. :-) GregorB (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yuma, probably you've said nothing wrong and you've been misunderstood. I guess it looked for a moment that you came here as a special agent from Brunodam's blog, with preassumed agenda in your head (banda croata). The point is that there was long battle here, people like Brunodam, Pio or G.G. are not here anymore, but some of us who were fighting their extremism (it truly was/is) are still tired of it (Alas & DIR were/are their direct targets for personal attacks, most often). So just stay cool and contribute. Nothing less and nothing more... Zenanarh (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
la.wiki
[edit]Hi Larry, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I've renamed your account on the Latin Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)