| Revision as of 21:56, 28 December 2014 view sourceJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015!: enough here← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 28 December 2014 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Apologizes: WP:DENY likely OperahomeNext edit → | ||
| Line 368: | Line 368: | ||
| :::Seriously, please, stop harassing me.] (]) 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | :::Seriously, please, stop harassing me.] (]) 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It takes two. If you walk away, I will make sure he doesn't follow you. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ::::It takes two. If you walk away, I will make sure he doesn't follow you. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::It was not intention that someone harass anyone. J am truly sorry if any one fill harassed. My goal was only to find the truth and facts about the above mentioned case. The I.J. is more popular in Macedonia than most of the people on the List of Macedonia. According to standards applied to others he is sufficiently well covered with references. I can only thank ] for understanding. As for ] he/she is here victim more than anything else, since almost all socks were reaction to constant activity to ban answers for serious accusations by blocking created (new) user(s). The right to block someone was in many cases misused to block someone's opinion. Anyway, Sorry for any misunderstanding. ] (]) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == WMF makes peace in Ukraine == | == WMF makes peace in Ukraine == | ||
Revision as of 22:02, 28 December 2014
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis. |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
| (Manual archive list) |
Check Your Fireplace
| WP:DENY |
|---|
|
(link removed) is clearly continuing his campaign of harassment against Jimbo. He has gotten permission and has uploaded this comic to Commons. First he asks an artist to paint a painting of Jimbo with his unspeakables, and now he is uploading comics where Jimbo is being shat upon. Will he ever stop! 90.191.5.205 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)]]
I've removed the link as harassment and I strongly recommend that a Commons administrator delete the file on Commons for the same reason. I also recommend that Russavia be dealt with appropriately on other projects as he has been here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Mele Kalikimaka
Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now, there's a phrase I learned fom writing Christmas in Hawaii. Rcsprinter123 (remark) @ 22:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Christmas in Hawaii is a unique experience for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015!
| Way, way off topic thread instigated by a globally locked user. Jehochman 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Dear Jimbo, Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015! Now sorry again that I have a difficult question for you. It is about Draft:Igor Janev. Igor Janev should be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia in 2002. See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source:"Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи" in eng. Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs) in Macedonian lang. . In any country Special Advisor to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Misplaced Pages. See Special Adviser status.183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I feel sufficiently strongly about the issue that I've made this account, I'll wait 4 days and copy it over to a live article (WADR to the wiki's perceived acceptable practices of links to prior publication). Maybe Mr. Wales can think about how to fix this for all case, instead of some random annoyed person butting in. The way new people get their intro to make new articles is really fucked up. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly: I made this account so that, in 4 days, I can copy the article live. Not to really make a point, but because - having discussed the specific case - I feel a need to give it a fair try. The specific article isn't really the reason I'm intervening here; it's because of the blatant way that new articles are treated very differently from drafts. In an ideal world, Misplaced Pages users would help all new users with their early articles. Real world: there are not enough good editors to do so. That's fine; that's just the way things are. OK, so, given that...we should at least treat everyone the same way. Currently there are two very disparate systems; A) DRAFTS - wait 2 or 3 weeks, get a review. Likely get rejected for 'lack of sources' with spam-template messages. At least you get some idea how to fix it. B) Make live article. If it's complete crap, it gets speedy-deleted. Fair enough. The problem I have is, a large number of good users spend their time trying to help A. But sadly, A is snowed-under, and full of spam. A great many good-potential new users use B and get no real help at all, just spammed warnings (CSD, etc). Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to the point; Would it be "disruptive" if someone just moved the 2700 articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions to live articles? Why shouldn't they be treated the same as the other articles that are being created (and deleted) every few minutes? (*) Maybe if I move 10 of them. Or 100. Or 1000. Perhaps nobody will notice; after all, I have just as much au-thor-i-teh to move them as anyone else, right? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from that conclusion, he will not get his BLP (by the way Second time, few months ago his Draft was not rejected, but removed probably by Igor Janev himself, after series of page blanking).183.86.209.149 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages - it's full of ammeters. Fortunately. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Where does the "four days" come in? Using the just creates NE Ent new user 2 it appears I could create an article with it -- got as far as preview, at least. NE Ent 12:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Going back to the start of this thread, just having the title "Special Adviser" does not automatically give notability under WP:NPOL. Even when autoconfirmed, the facetious but helpful Bunny will not be able to move the draft to the mainspace without the agreement of an administrator, because the title has been salted - protected against re-creation - following a sustained and continuing campaign of sockpuppetry, described at m:Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-08#Igor Janev and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome/Archive. Last time a draft was created, an IP repeatedly blanked it and asked for it to be deleted, claiming in this edit that they were acting "under request and authority of Igor Janev" and that he "does not want to be in Eng. Misplaced Pages." Perhaps his friends should respect his wishes and spare him further embarrassment. JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See more stuff: LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF A PROVISIONAL NAME FOR MACEDONIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM , p.77-78 , When we say US, p. 845, note 28. G. Ivanov, "Recalling that the International Court of Justice 1948 advisory opinion had determined that placing additional criteria on United Nations membership contravened the United Nations Charter", Thomas D. Grant, Admission to the United Nations, Martinus pub. , pp. 203-212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably best source is Macedonian Agency (government source). Than would be the First. 1. source, than independent , Radio Free Europe, Der Standard 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) maybe MINA also. 79.101.88.30 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
support of presidential candidate for I. J. 79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC) OK well, that's 5, but close enough. The 3rd seems to be the same as the first, and the last two are 2 pages of the same. Looking at them; 1. Independent.mk "Experts: Macedonia's Name Cannot be Isolated from Its Identity" - is not an article about Janev Igor; it just mentions him in one sentence. It is about the name of the country. It does not give any significant information about Igor that we can use in a biography. 2. MIA Time has come to put an end to name issue is similar; about the name of the country. It makes a passing mention of Igor. 3. Same link as 1? 4. and 5 novamakedonija Трета варијанта за решавање на проблемот за името (2 pages of the same article?) are in Macedonian (I guess). Google translate tells me the title is "A third option for solving the problem of name". Again, these seem to be articles about the name of the country and not articles about Igor. None of these are what I was looking for, so it looks like he does not meet the requirements. Those articles are not about Igor Janev - they are about the name of the country, and mention him. As I said earlier - WP:VRS. I wish you the best of luck, but I do not see that this person meets the notability requirements. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. You added more while I was replying; I've not checked those. I really wanted only 3 good references about the person, and I'm not seeing them, sorry. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 1. Independent, 2. DerStandard. 3. Radio Free Europe, are 3 good sources. I hope it is enough. As well as New Macedonia and Makfaks.79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Still the fact is that he was/is Senior diplomat. That is the Fact! Again, Igor Janev must be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was/is Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia . See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source:"Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи" in eng. Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs) in Macedonian lang. . In any country Special Adviser to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Misplaced Pages. These are rules of Misplaced Pages! And the source is National base. Sorry, that I am not experience with Misplaced Pages, but instead of myself these job should work somebody else. Here we should only establish the fact that he is relevant. Nothing else matter.79.101.88.30 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually his son had removed picture/photo of the User:Cú Faoil favorite dog, than vice versa. User:Cú Faoil wanted revenge and started case on Igor Janev at META.79.101.88.30 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Question: What you defined as Credible sources? On the List of Macedonian mention above 90 percent of articles do not have more credible sources than Janev sources. In Macedonia, credible sources are Macedonian Emigration Agency (as a government source), MIA, MINA, New Macedonia, Dnevnik, Večer, Makedonsko sonce, Makfaks. In each of them you have credible information on Igor Janev. I don't see why should he be treated with different standards than others? Again it is story about different or double standards.77.46.216.73 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
|
When even Arbcom can't be trusted, who else can I turn to?
Dear Mr. Wales,
I am not posting from my usual account - or even my usual Internet connection - because I fear the wrath of those I criticize.
It has been brought to my attention that there have been several very suspicious goings-on recently related to the ongoing Arbcom case about Gamergate. Most recently, a new user was indefinitely blocked, and appeal denied, as a result of participation in the case. The crime? A single edit to the Workshop page (nothing else pertinent shows up in the user's contribution history) attempting to introduce evidence that that user thought had been missed. The evidence in question is a simple breakdown of number of edits to the Gamergate controversy, by editor, intended to support claims of WP:TAGTEAM.
Now, that would be bad enough on its own, as a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. But then I looked up some of the surrounding discussion between admins about the decision. User:HJ Mitchell is involved in the Arbcom case in question, having proposed multiple findings of fact and not just doing janitorial duties there. User:5 albert square came into the discussion assuming that it must be a sock puppet account, and deciding that it must otherwise be a "troll" with the sole intention of causing trouble for Ryulong
. Which, er, really makes no sense to me; the entire point of Arbcom proceedings, surely, is to establish the case that certain of the involved parties should be sanctioned; and it's only to be expected that everyone involved takes sides. That's no different from how anyone else has been conducting themselves, anyway. 5 albert square also personally thanks User:Ryulong (who, as is often noted in these sorts of discussions, has a very long history of Misplaced Pages infamy) in that exchange, which frankly looks incredibly suspicious.
I have to ask, how can any Wikipedian - or any outside viewer - have any confidence in the system after witnessing such a blatant display of apparent cronyism? How are we supposed to believe that there is anything fair or equitable about the treatment of Wikipedians, when we witness Ryulong get off the hook for everything (including, for just one example, casting aspersions and using profanity in front of Arbcom), even as he brazenly flouts the system (per his own account of events, when he worried about a possible conflict of interest and appearance of paid editing after having raised funds via Reddit, he chose to ask them if contributing to that page was okay
, rather than anyone on Misplaced Pages), while new users are immediately and indefinitely blocked for trying to point it out?
I knew things were bad, but I never realized they were this bad.
69.159.80.46 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- An accurate version of the data had always been available for anyone to add as evidence to ArbCom. What a random new (or 'new') contributor expected to happen as the result of an unverifiable uploaded image being posted after the evidence stage closed, I have no idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- When you say that "an accurate version of the data had always been available", and then call the image "unverifiable", you contradict yourself. Further, it looks to me like the data matches up just fine - when I run the tool, it shows Ryulong as having 18.4% of the edits, NorthBySouthBaranof at 16.2% etc. And anyway, the fact that the data is "available" isn't a reason not to present it. The entire point of Arbcom is to make a case about the parties. The user would not have been allowed to come in and say "WP:TAGTEAM is going on" without providing some kind of evidence. Everyone is allowed to participate in Arbcom cases, per my understanding, and the new user in question presumably couldn't find something to point to on the Evidence page, and perhaps didn't know about the WMF tools.
- But more importantly - are you seriously going to ignore every point about the ridiculously unfair application of rules and policy to focus on that? Here we have someone doing what they're supposed to, to the best of their ability, given a presumed good-faith desire to participate in a process they're entitled to participate in, and getting indeffed for it. And you want to defend that on the basis of how they chose to present information? 69.159.80.46 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that ArbCom don't need anonymously-uploaded data when they can look at the raw data themselves - all of it, not just evidence picked by one side or the other. Nobody was prevented from entering it as evidence. At the appropriate time. Not after the evidence stage had closed. Though I'm quite sure this alleged tag-teaming has been discussed in the evidence submitted anyway. As for the rights and wrongs of the block, personally, I don't think it was justified - but I don't think that it proves anything much beyond the fact that people are getting heartily sick of new (and 'new') accounts turning up and complaining that the world is conspiring against them. It is all getting rather tedious, and frankly indicates just how warped some people's priorities are. If some poor downtrodden Gamergater got blocked unjustly, it rates about 0.0001 on a scale of 1 to 10 measuring the injustices of the world today. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if AndyTheGrump may side-track this discussion, as he has in the one above.
- Arbcom needs to show exemplary openness, and there's certainly reason for concern in the above case. I hope it won't be side-tracked, but this is Jim's page, so it'll probably disperse into unrelated pointless argument and be archived before you can blink. Seasonal best, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- This section is mistitled -- arbcom can be trusted -- an arbcom clerk reverted the removal of the evidence NE Ent 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see that, but if an Arbcom clerk doesn't think it should have been removed, then surely that's more evidence for the unjustness of the block? To be clear, I'm more concerned about Arbcom the process than Arbcom the individuals, here. (I'm also concerned, of course, about the named editors; but they aren't part of the committee, as far as I can tell.) It looks really bad when participation in the process seems to put non-parties at unusually high risk of scrutiny, to the apparent benefit of actual parties to the case. 69.159.80.46 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- The parties are more at risk, actually, and a fairly strong hint was dropped here. While the arbcom process, like all things wiki and all things human, tends to produce reasonable results. The place to watch is Proposed decision. (Note the dates at top are estimates / goals and actual decisions are frequently posted later than indicated). NE Ent 19:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see that, but if an Arbcom clerk doesn't think it should have been removed, then surely that's more evidence for the unjustness of the block? To be clear, I'm more concerned about Arbcom the process than Arbcom the individuals, here. (I'm also concerned, of course, about the named editors; but they aren't part of the committee, as far as I can tell.) It looks really bad when participation in the process seems to put non-parties at unusually high risk of scrutiny, to the apparent benefit of actual parties to the case. 69.159.80.46 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologizes
My apologizes for the thread above and how it spiraled out of control. I thought it was a funny comic (which I follow online) and was my way of wishing you a Merry Christmas...with a smile. :) There wasn't anything malicious about it, it was just funny. :) An editor obviously took it as a way to insult you, which I never intended and it exploded from there. I, again, apologize to you and to the editors who had to clean up the mess. It was never my intention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to stop discussing it? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny would you like to stop WP:TROLL Neutralhomer? @Neutralhomer it only really happened because of the commons uploading. Your intent was clearly in good faith. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- it wasn't trolling, but regardless, yes, I've dropped the stick. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Mrjulesd: I know, but I always apologize when things get out of hand (and it did here). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @the bunny if you really are acting in good faith could you please explain what previous accounts you have edited under? --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have already confirmed my identity in confidence to GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) - who is an administrator, checkuser, oversighter and arbitrator. I hope that's good enough for you; check with her if you need to confirm I'm in 'good standing', no blocks/bans, etc. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- See also "Sure, and people could demonstrate AGF by not demanding them." -GorillaWarfare NE Ent 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict): Explain your use of an IP sock to game the system, then. If you are a user in good standing, then you should have no problems explaining that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @the bunny. Well I'm glad that you've done all that. But why not explain here? Surely if you've only been acting in good faith you have nothing to hide? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Call it "on principle", if you like. I really would rather not say more, because if I do, people will guess who I am. I really don't think there is any need for me to tell the world, when I've told an arb, and she can confirm I've done nothing wrong? I honestly don't know any more; my mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages means people are shouting 'sock' at me constantly, and accusing me of all kinds of nefarious things. Maybe I'll just give up on editing altogether; it's kinda offensive to keep being accused of things. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can't say admit you were another user at one time and then in the next sentence say you have "mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages". That's clear BS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You really are clutching at non-existent straws. In the sentence, "my mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages means people are shouting 'sock' at me constantly" I meant that my merely knowing about Misplaced Pages stuff means people accuse me; not that my knowledge of it was 'mere'. Sheesh. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't explain your previous accounts then, lets face it, people are going to be concerned. Just saying you've told someone else doesn't cut much ice. And your behaviour so far has done nothing to lessen concerns, with numerous complaints against you, including umpteen admins. And you've been here 14 hours? Can you see the problem? WP:DUCK?--Mrjulesd (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You really are clutching at non-existent straws. In the sentence, "my mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages means people are shouting 'sock' at me constantly" I meant that my merely knowing about Misplaced Pages stuff means people accuse me; not that my knowledge of it was 'mere'. Sheesh. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can't say admit you were another user at one time and then in the next sentence say you have "mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages". That's clear BS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Call it "on principle", if you like. I really would rather not say more, because if I do, people will guess who I am. I really don't think there is any need for me to tell the world, when I've told an arb, and she can confirm I've done nothing wrong? I honestly don't know any more; my mere knowledge of Misplaced Pages means people are shouting 'sock' at me constantly, and accusing me of all kinds of nefarious things. Maybe I'll just give up on editing altogether; it's kinda offensive to keep being accused of things. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @the bunny. Well I'm glad that you've done all that. But why not explain here? Surely if you've only been acting in good faith you have nothing to hide? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have already confirmed my identity in confidence to GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) - who is an administrator, checkuser, oversighter and arbitrator. I hope that's good enough for you; check with her if you need to confirm I'm in 'good standing', no blocks/bans, etc. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @the bunny if you really are acting in good faith could you please explain what previous accounts you have edited under? --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny would you like to stop WP:TROLL Neutralhomer? @Neutralhomer it only really happened because of the commons uploading. Your intent was clearly in good faith. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- That may be true, but a real man apologizes for a problem, even if it isn't 100% his fault. The entire situation began with my post, so apologizes are due. Now whether NYBrad or whoever put the picture on Commons will apologize, I don't know...that's not my department. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I notified Newyorkbrad of this discussion Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- That may be true, but a real man apologizes for a problem, even if it isn't 100% his fault. The entire situation began with my post, so apologizes are due. Now whether NYBrad or whoever put the picture on Commons will apologize, I don't know...that's not my department. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Igor has been very clearly id'd by behavior to a globally banned and editing pattern to User:Operahome but he now says he just stumbled across the article... total garbage.Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: if you believe that a user is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, please file a case at WP:SPI with your evidence. Do not post unsubstantiated allegations elsewhere on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am utterly sick of Legacypac constantly casting aspersions on my character, to the point where I am considering just giving up. Is there really nothing that can be done to prevent such harassment? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See here. He's been editing for 1 day and causing nothing but trouble. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Whereas you've been doing it for years?
- Seriously, please, stop harassing me.Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- It takes two. If you walk away, I will make sure he doesn't follow you. Jehochman 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
WMF makes peace in Ukraine
WMF still rocks - I was impressed to see that representatives of countries from Russia to the Czech Republic successfully met in Kiev to discuss the nuts and bolts of freedom of panorama legislation. (I can only make as much sense of the ru.wikinews report as Google can, but it appears no shots were fired!) If these people can travel into the middle of an authentic global crisis to have a productive meeting, they should be an inspiration to the rest of us. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)