Misplaced Pages

User talk:Errabee/Archive June 2006 - December 2006: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Errabee Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:32, 18 October 2006 editSosomk (talk | contribs)2,558 edits NPA← Previous edit Revision as of 19:03, 18 October 2006 edit undoSosomk (talk | contribs)2,558 edits NPANext edit →
Line 755: Line 755:


:::::I get what you're saying, I will sign my name next time, thanks] 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) :::::I get what you're saying, I will sign my name next time, thanks] 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::I don't have enough time to do a research about Russian ''NeoNazi'' or ''NeoBolshevik'' skinheads. In addition, why do I have to cite something on the talk page. It is just a talk page of something that is not even a wiki article. So, take it easy, dude. ] 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:03, 18 October 2006

Archive August 2005 - May 2006


Armking

I checked the contribs before I went to AIV. His only contributions were circular redirects. Let me ask you this, if someone posts twelve to fourteen *different* instances where a page redirects to another as their *only conributions*, is that vandalism or not? KC9CQJ 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that his behaviour was not contributing to the encyclopedia. But a little communication could do wonders in some cases. You don't know the reason why he acted the way he did, and you made no attempt to find out. It indeed looks like vandalism, but only a mild form of it. He now is blocked indefinitely for 12 to 14 incorrect redirects, which seems a bit overdone to me. Errabee 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And then promptly created a sockpuppet named Armking2, evaded the block, and started doing the same thing all over again. The redirected articles had absolutely nothing to do with one another at all and were creating circular references all over the place. One redirect, maybe....but twenty over two different user accounts? I call that disruption, not a general error. KC9CQJ 00:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and he created a second sockpuppet named Armhead as well. Just because you're proven right in this case, does not mean that WP:AGF should be disregarded; maybe a beginning vandal could be persuaded to do some constructive editing instead. Errabee 00:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, but to me, WP:AGF does not apply when the supposed new user himself is in violation of WP:POINT or being a general disruption and is doing things that most new users don't do, like create circular redirects and spawn sockpuppets every three minutes. (he's up to nine right now) That's what this one has been doing, that's why he was reported to AIV in the manner he was rather than more constructive or progressive warnings. Sorry for the confusion. KC9CQJ 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. We're all working towards the same goal in our own way. Errabee 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion at WP:AID

That was an accident. I had no idea it even happened. Thanks for fixing it. Maurreen 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I already surmised it was a mistake upon seeing your edit history. Errabee 10:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sterrenstad/Star City

Weet jij toevallig ook of Sterrenstad nog steeds zwaar beveiligd ('highly restricted') is, zoals in het artikel Star City, Moscow staat vermeld? (ik vroeg me dit af omdat er blijkbaar wel foto's kunnen worden gemaakt) Alvast bedankt. --Hardscarf 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ik ben er 4 jaar geleden geweest, en het wordt inderdaad nog steeds zwaar beveiligd. Je moet speciale toestemming hebben om er te komen, je moet bij de slagboom niet met je fototoestel zwaaien, maar verderop is het geen probleem, zoals ook uit mijn foto's blijkt. Uiteraard is de beveiliging niet meer zo strikt als ten tijde van de Sovjetunie, toen het bestaan van Sterrenstad gewoon werd ontkend. Errabee 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha, bedankt! (komt me trouwens bekend voor van mijn reizen naar Rusland) Kom je trouwens ook nog eens langs op de Nederlandse wikipedia om iets te schrijven over Rusland, of hou je het (nog steeds) definitief voor gezien? Ik zou het persoonlijk wel leuk vinden als je weer eens langs kwam (en met mij vele anderen vermoed ik), maar de keuze is natuurlijk aan jou. --Hardscarf 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Graag gedaan. De Nederlandse wiki heb ik echter definitief vaarwel gezegd, hoe spijtig ik dat ook vind om geen contact meer te hebben met sommige gebruikers. Errabee 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Jammer, ik zou persoonlijk graag hebben gezien dat je terug zou komen, maar in elk geval veel plezier en succes hier gewenst dan :) --Hardscarf 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Nog steeds teveel oud zeer daar. Ik lees nog af en toe bij, en bepaalde gebruikers halen me zelfs dan nog het bloed onder de nagels. Hier is het allemaal veel relaxter, aardiger tegen elkaar, en als er conflicten zijn is er een uitstekende arbcom. Errabee 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Tja er is sprake van een proces denk ik, langzamerhand wordt het wel wat professioneler (meer bronvermeldingen, schrijfwedstrijden, mensen die reviews geven, een proces rond etalageartikelen en een Arbcom die nog in de 'kinderschoenen' staat), maar voorlopig is het inderdaad nog een andere wereld dan hier op de Engelse wikipedia, waar, waarschijnlijk door het veel grotere aantal gebruikers (meer mensen betekent ook een grotere kans op mensen die dingen op een nuchtere wijze kunnen en willen bezien en daarmee ook op een normale vriendelijke manier), ook een professionelere sfeer is ontstaan met meer mogelijkheden tot het oplossen van een conflict. Dat neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat er altijd gebruikers blijven die de sfeer verpesten of ontwikkelingen die gewenst zijn door een groot deel van de gemeenschap proberen tegen te gaan (ego's nog even buiten beschouwing gelaten). En helaas hebben dergelijke gebruikers een te groot effect op de sfeer, zeker als ze te lang vrij worden gelaten, wat helaas nog erg vaak gebeurt. Ik hoop dan ook dat er snel een arbcom komt, want ik heb het gevoel dat hier echt behoefte aan is. Daarvoor zijn denk ik echter een aantal mensen nodig die worden geaccepteerd als mediators om werkelijk als autoriteit te worden gezien. --Hardscarf 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Star City cat

Hmm, good point. We have Category:Closed cities, but it would not apply for the same reason—Star City is not a city; it's a facility. Placing this article directly to Category:Moscow Oblast, however, should solve the problem. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also moved the article to Star City, Russia, because the facility is located outside of Moscow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That was long overdue. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Olonets

No bother at all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will probably have to re-do the article altogether; you are right, there are quite a few inaccuracies, especially in the modern section. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kholuy

Well, the website says the school of icon painting was established in 1882 or 1883, if I'm not mistaken. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives 1932 as the year the school of miniature painting was founded. I'm not sure who's right, but you are free to correct the dates. Didn't mean to ruin your article. Keep up the good work! KNewman 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean the second one? Errabee 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert :), but see for yourself .
If you ask me, I tend to believe the GSE :). KNewman 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

commenting out LoPbN rdlks

_ _ Thanks for your attention to two Nic... rd lks. LoPbN, even more than the average WP area, is work in progress, and there is nothing inherantly wrong with rd lks there: they are solicitations to start the bio article. When they went over to comments, that process was pretty much pre-empted, so i looked into whether they were good or bad rdlks. It turns out both people are n-n, so they needed to go, rather than emerge from their comment markups.
_ _ I do sometimes put new entries in comments, not so much bcz they are re-lk'd, but bcz they've been recently active & the contributor might be watching & offer missing info to change my (occasionally wrong) impression that they are n-n.
_ _ It looks to me like your LoPbN insights are pretty accurate. (I didn't follow your logic re Tesla -- my std statement rests on most people being better alphabetizable by their surnames, and there being no value and substantial burden in listing anyone by given name unless they either have no surname, or are so well known by given name without surname (Madonna, Elvis) as to be likely to be looked up by given name -- but you were dead on as to the action needed on Tesla's "Nic..." entry.) So i hope you'll find it worth your attention to continue working on the list. Thanks!
--Jerzyt 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I commented out several other red links as well, but in general I feel that if a page does not already exist about a person, the chance is high the person is n-n. In these cases I got that impression as well, but was reluctant to remove them entirely for the same reasons you state in your second point. My logic re Tesla is the same as yours but somewhat shorter stated (and therefore perhaps not explicit enough). Errabee 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

_ _ After stating it my way, i looked again at yours, and decided we probably agreed after all. Explicit enuf, IMO, bcz anyone who's confused can ask, can't they?
_ _ I'm catching up on my normal review of LoPbN changes (after having been mostly off-line for two weeks), and i'll keep an eye open for those, to check a little more thoroughly. Ya know, maybe i was too negative: if you're labeling them as you did in the summaries i already saw, and if your impressions continue as accurate as those two, commenting them out is more like what i do with speediable deletions: i tag articles for speedy, and delete many that others have tagged, but never delete for n-n w/ a second opinion. Maybe your commenting them should be seen as an effective way of leaving the opportunity for a similar double check!
--Jerzyt 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to fiction books often refered to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some questions response

How long should a story be before it is considered a novel?

I can't answer that. It is like most things in wikipedia down to other authorities in the field. i.e does the general literary world consider something a novel (or novella) or not. References and citations are always the key. Does that help. Probably not! :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do think your assessment of Low-importance for Heart of a Dog is too low.

Good spot that was a slip of the wrist, correcting now! :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pelagiya

Sorry about that, you are right. I believe I was trying to take out the novelinfoboxneeded template but deleted them both by mistake. Thank you for catching this; the novelswikiproject template has been replaced. -- Gizzakk 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise

It's no problem. I was reading the line after the request for an eval. of The Grapes of Wrath and the response was "already had one - project banners go on talk pages.!" I disliked the exclaimation mark as to me it denotes anger (in this case indignation) and well, I was in a ... not so great mood. It was only directed to that person. I posted it on the main page (the project box) because I saw it like that somewhere else. When I saw how big of a deal this mistake was I thought you guys were too 'hardcore' for me. I was mistaken I see, and probably caught someone else in a bad mood, and well, c'est la vie, n'est-ce pa?

Severus Snape

I noticed that you just put a tag on the Severus Snape talk page, saying ot was an ungraded part of wikiproject novels. Interesting, but from the tag I cannot for the life of me see what anyone is supposed to do now. Sandpiper 11:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. As a non-member of the wiki harry Potter project, who nonetheless is one of the major contributors to it, I may also like to contribute to this assessment process. Putting on a tag which does not explain anything about this process doesn't help me to do so. The alternative seems to be that I shall now need to do several hours reading to find out how this works. Regards. Incidentally, I have read a lot more novels than most people. I recognise most of your listed books, how many people do nowadays?Sandpiper 11:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, that doesn't mean I remember them all. Some were terrible and most not exactly unique. I am just reading the discussion about 'Starship troopers'. When I saw the film I recognised the plot as from 'Enders game', which I do recall as a very interesting book. It is hard to comment, because I don't think I read starship trooper, though I may have. I just checked the articles again but could not find any reference to the similarity between the two (Enders game was written later). But I do remember finding such a reference in the articles in the past, appears to been deleted. I had the suspicion that Enders game was arguably a better version of the same theme. Sandpiper

Erast Fandorin

Re: User talk:Grey Shadow#Erast Fandorin

The article looks good. I think it's missing something, but I'm not sure what exactly. Apart from adding some more to the novel descriptions, and perhaps a picture in to go in the Physical description section I'm not sure what to add. Have you had a look at the other main fictional detectives (Nancy Drew, Hercule Poirot, and Sherlock Holmes) for ideas? You could list it at Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates and see what happens. Grey Shadow 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the novels in German translation, with the advantage of having 10 out of 11 available (I only have the first one in print in Russian, but thankfully, six of them are available online). thanks for building the article, dab () 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In-universe

It doesn't need much to change it - if you look at Padmé Amidala you will see it breaks up mentions of her life story with references to the films and outside sources. You can do the same by mentioning the books or the author ("Boris Akunin has described him as having.." or "He first appears in the White Queen as..."). You could also add references to the adaptations: "In the novels he has a stammer but the portrayal by...did not feature this" etc. (assuming there are some differences). Another good example of an out of universe approach is Sherlock Holmes which is peppered with references to the novels when establishing the background and characteristics. Good luck. Yomangani 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of novels

I've responded to your comment etc. on the Assessment talk page.

Image:JoopWijn.jpg

Greetings. Did you read the copyright information (in Dutch) on the image description page? This indicates to me that the image may be used, so long as the original source is credited, which is the same restriction as the cc-by license. All the best, – Quadell 19:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How do you think it should be tagged? – Quadell 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AID Votes

Thanks for letting me know about that. I was a bit tired when I was doing my voting, so I didn't realize I'd put the vote in the wrong section. TransNique 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Canvasing

Hi, Errabee! As per the dictionary, canvasing is the act of "going through (a district) or go to (persons) in order to solicit orders or political support; to seek or solicit orders or votes", support, in other words. The problem lies not in the act of solicitation, I fear, but in its repurcussions. For example, after 90 individuals were notified of the Queen's College vote, four votes were added in its support. My own submission, coffee, then fell behind the article when it had lead it only a couple of hours before. Should I have decided to do so, I could have then requested an even larger number of editors to support coffee's nomination. A third editor feels that he is the disadvantaged, and does the same. How long until all of our user_talk pages are fuller of unsolicited advertisements for support than our email inboxes are with advertisements for penis growing potions and penny stock tips? – ClockworkSoul 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I don't hand out my e-mail address to just anyone, I don't receive a whole lot of those unwanted e-mails :) Errabee 23:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're smarter than me then. :) On the other hand, I know a fantastic product to burn fat while you sleep, and I have recently been told that "right now precious metal st0cks are one of the hottest things going!" (Yes, I just copied and pasted that one - I'm going to be rich!) Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have two email addresses. One that I use very cautiously, and another free email address that I use whenever a web page needs my email address. The first one has only been discovered b the Nigerian fraud spammers, claiming I have won 25 million USD in the Canadian Internet Lottery or someone has died and left several million USD in a bank account which they need me to empty. The second one, I don't really care what comes in. Errabee 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah sure you can put the Queen's University nomination back up for AID. Thanks for all the help :) Speedystickd 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:ARCAID and userpage

Hi there, Thanks for your note on my talk page. I agree with your idea of a vote, and would certainly favour a ban on mass solicitation on user talk pages, while allowing portal pages, although I personally think that the links posted on such pages should merely advertise that ARCAID has a relevant nomination, and suggest that users visit ARCAID.

Regarding my userpage, I use Firefox too, and the buttons work fine on Firefox under Windows and Mac... Have you checked whether you've disabled javascript?

Regards, Draicone 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray / Pijlstaartrog

Hallo Errabee, je hebt gelijk met het verwijderen van die interwikilink. Ik had de interwiki toegevoegd omdat het Nederlandse artikel verwijst naar het Engelse Stingray, dus ik ging er van uit dat het omgekeerd dan ook kan. Daarnaast wordt bij de dood van Steve Irwin in de Engelse nieuwsartikelen gezegd dat hij werd doorboord door een Stingray en in de Nederlandse artikelen dat hij werd doorboord door een pijlstaartrog. Het Nederlandse artikel gaat alleen over de gewone pijlstaartrog (common Stingray) en heeft dus eigenlijk de verkeerde titel. Ik denk dat het het beste is als we de Nederlandse versie uitbreiden met andere soorten pijlstaartroggen, zoals dat ook op andere wikipedia's gebeurd. Maartenvdbent 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

intussen de boel op NL veranderd. Een nieuw artikele nl:pijlstaartroggen krijgt nu wel de interwiki's. Maartenvdbent 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 36 5 September 2006 About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Misplaced Pages The English Misplaced Pages reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections Misplaced Pages in the news
News and notes Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

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 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Quiet Flows the Don

Knowing your interest in all thing Russian - I wondered if you had spotted that the novel "And Quiet Flows the Don" was up for Novels WikiProject "Collaboration of the Month". Regards :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 10:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fandorin

oh no, I am very happy with your work on the Fandorin articles! I was just suggesting that there could be a quick overview list of novels. regards, dab () 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Priority

I think you understand the situation quite well. Two other points, firstly there doesn't appear to be too many people taking an interest in the assessments yet to really warrant work to acheve concensus. Concensus between two or three it not that much better than one using his best judgement. One being bold and another making some corrections appear to be working reasonably so far. Secondly, priority is meant only as an admin guide to assist the project in preparing the most signification subject articles for WP:1.0 but I suspect you knew that. I agree with your approach of getting the majority assessed and maybe then changing to work differently frmo then on. :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 08:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just in case Keven is wondering, I am not stalking him. I'm just asking all the members of the Novels wikiproject if there is something I can do to help. So...can you please tell me what I can do like...on my talk page? I'm new and I've just joined. Lady Nimue of the Lake 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Bearly541

Please take a look at this user. On the Alpha Phi Alpha and the kappa alpha psi pages, he has a history of reverting documented edits such as here for no valid reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75056898&oldid=75050135 He claims vandalism when it is a spelling error and does reverts rather than revises. References were provided. In a section where other fraternities were discussed thoroughly a reference and thorough sentence was provided. User did a wholesale revert back 5 major edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75056228&oldid=75056120 . He has made personal attacks in talk pages and invalid arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAlpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=74012643&oldid=73612624 . So far 3 reverts have been made within 24 hours on 2 pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&diff=75102453&oldid=75060124 Please take a look at this. NinjaNubian 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Errabee, how can you block CCSon, if he created the Alpha Phi Alpha page? In addition, why are you going to block me if I am trying to PREVENT a person is clearly vandalizing pages, harrassing users, AND changing information (on a FEATURED article)? Bearly541 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You also posted this on RfC:

Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

With no "prev version" I think a warning is probably appropriate William M. Connolley 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(My response:)


Bearly541 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CCson

Has already made 3 major reverts without valid reason or mediation. All references have been provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75081404&oldid=75067094 , http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75039650&oldid=74944082 , and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&diff=75050202&oldid=75048460 . NinjaNubian 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

the real vandal is NinjaNubian, pls see talk page of article.
I welcome the opportunity to have this resolved. I am the contributor mostly responsible for bringing this article to FA status, and want to be certain that is not being jeopardized. Ccson 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I welcome discussion and would like items and knowledge to be read thoroughly not for the purpose of whitewashing. I welcome the opportunity for talk and mediation. not reverting wars. NinjaNubian 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were going to file the RFC, but I will do this if this will create an avenue for solving problem. Now, I'll have to see how to do this. thanks for your advice. Ccson 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


i think the article should be placed under review. this is getting extremely ridiculous. NinjaNubian 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created the RFC. I understand that the editors must be neutral, however; I'm hopeful that the evidence will be resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks for the wise and much needed advice on how to resolve this. Ccson 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NinjaNubian has reverted the article again, this time using a sockpuppet ID. Ccson 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

For the benefit of all (especially with a RfC), the history pages of Kappa Alpha Psi, Sigma Pi Phi, and Alpha Phi Alpha. Oh yes, and the website for former Alpha Historian and author, Rev. H. Mason, through which he may be contacted via email. The historian for Kappa Alpha Psi is Dr. Ralph J. Bryson, and he may be contacted through their respective website as may Sigma Pi Phi Historian William H. Harris through theirs. 64.241.29.196 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


why was sigma pi phi even brought up? i am the only person who works on the article! skip mason sometimes presents a non biased opinion. Alpha Kappa Nu has been researched and it shows that "black collegiate fraternity movement might well have had its start in 1903 at Indiana University. In that year, black men registered at Indiana University, in the city of Bloomington, formed a local fraternity called Alpha Kappa Nu with the purpose of strengthening the Blacks' voice at the university and in the city." NinjaNubian 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NinjaNubian, the information that you are citing as research is a college newspaper that misquotes the official history book of the Kappa Alpha Psi, which clearly defines Alpha Kappa Nu as an club that was attempted, not a "formed fraternity." Kappa Alpha Psi's official history says instead: Black-sponsored Greek letter organizations on the Indiana University campus might well have begun in 1903, but there were too few registrants to assure continuing organization. I'm puzzled by your question about Sigma Pi Phi, when you have been editing Sigma Pi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi into a wiki entry on Alpha Phi Alpha? I gather that links to the official history pages were included since there is an RfC, and anyone serious about accurate information will have easy email, etc. access to the historians of the "disputed" organizations. The reason that you are the only person working on your newly-created entries for Sigma pi phi and Alpha kappa nu may be that your entries are heavily biased (a neutral observer might say retaliatory) against Alpha Phi Alpha and the author of the wiki entry for Alpha Phi Alpha. Robotam 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

sigma pi phi is an illustrious organization with a long and distinguised history. everything there is documented and non biased. various article links for references are there as well as the fraternity website as well as chapter website. if there is any problems with the page simply go to it and revise it, go to the talk section. Sigma pi phi was added to the alpha phi alpha article way before i came along as can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=69947100

Wiki does have a policy of no original research! Anything inserted has to be referenced an email by the historians would be considered to be original research.

Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
alpha kappa nu . although kappa alpha psi was named in honor of alpha kappa nu, they are 2 distinct organizations. kappa alpha psi has just as much authority as jimmy carter does in stating the type of organization alpha kappa nu is. Kappa Alpha Psi is an organization while MSU Statesmen is a Newspaper which is unbiased. There may be similiar wordings, but there is no foundation of your claim that the article is a quote from the history of kappa alpha psi. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The RFC you created may be fruitless because NinjaNubian has now created another ID, Mykungfu saying he lost his password to NinjaNubian; how convenient since he knows an RFC has been initiated against the NinjaNubian ID. I've heard this before in Fall 2005 when the User talk:Bobbydoop was blocked repeatedly by admins. Ccson 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I dont' know the RFC process, but i made everyone aware of what my new SN is. I did not hide this. I simply continued on my work. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

additional article research. http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053 Mykungfu 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In response.

First of all, Errabee, I did not revert NinjaNubian's user page. Second, I reverted edits he made on Alpha Phi Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Perhaps if you wouldn't let your emotions interfere with your reading, you would notice that I never said you reverted NN's user page. I simply noticed NN made 6 (more or less identical) changes to Alpha Phi Alpha; Ccson more or less reverted four of those, and you reverted the other two. Errabee 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Errabee, please clarify which page I reverted in order to avoid this mix-up, next time. I reverted his edits on Alpha Phi Alpha, not his user page. Thank you! Bearly541 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Can we please do this discussion in one place? I get a bit tired of placing the same answer on three different pages. I answered on your (Bearly541) talk page, let's keep the discussion there. (BTW, I'm going to sleep now, so don't expect an answer soon).


Bearly541 has done at least 2 reverts on Alpha Phi Alpha page and 2 on the Kappa Alpha Psi page. Is this good enough for a 3rr report? NinjaNubian 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they have to be done on one article. But you do seem to disrupt Misplaced Pages by trying to illustrate your point. Errabee 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the clarification. i'm simply looking for a NPOV in articles i work on. Mykungfu 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

and so, now he's back to reverting on the same article that he was asked to stop rv-ing on under a different ID Robotam 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


i've been commenting using this sn for the past hour. i have no other id. Mykungfu 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


First black fraternity and First intercolligiate black fraternity.

As previously pointed out on another usertalk page. There seems to be research that indicates that the first black fraternity is in fact alpha kappa nu is the first inter collegiate as well as overall black fraternity and sigma pi phi is the oldest surviving black fraternity.


sigma pi phi is an illustrious organization with a long and distinguised history. everything there is documented and non biased. various article links for references are there as well as the fraternity website as well as chapter website. if there is any problems with the page simply go to it and revise it, go to the talk section. Sigma pi phi was added to the alpha phi alpha article way before i came along as can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=69947100

Wiki does have a policy of no original research! Anything inserted has to be referenced an email by the historians would be considered to be original research.

Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
alpha kappa nu . although kappa alpha psi was named in honor of alpha kappa nu, they are 2 distinct organizations. kappa alpha psi has just as much authority as jimmy carter does in stating the type of organization alpha kappa nu is. Kappa Alpha Psi is an organization while MSU Statesmen is a Newspaper which is unbiased. There may be similiar wordings, but there is no foundation of your claim that the article is a quote from the history of kappa alpha psi. Mykungfu 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


An additional article has been researched that details more of the controversy.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053


Mykungfu 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

another reference provided.

http://groups.msn.com/NPHCArchivePhotoSociety/yourwebpage2.msnw

Mykungfu 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 37 11 September 2006 About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped Report from the Hungarian Misplaced Pages
News and notes Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

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 05:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Template:AMX companies

I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ninjanubian RFC

You should not list the RFC on the RFC page until it is ready. You can work on it without it being listed, but as soon as you list it, it will be open for comment. (If you need a link to help you find it, put the link on your user or talk page or make a user sandbox.) Make sure to put the correct date and time on it when you are ready to list it. Thatcher131 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy has opened a new sockpuppetry allegation (Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_(2nd)) against User:Mykungfu, who is evading his block via anonymous IPs and via User:StrangeApples. If you have evidence to provide of similar behavior across these IDs, please add it to the article. Thanks. Ccson 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu/NinjaNubian

Mykungfu has now simply gone back to vandalizing and reverting the Alpha Phi Alpha page he was warned about using NinjaNubian. Robotam 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have requested formal mediation on the article. I can think you can added a section called "peripheral parties involved". I hope you were successful in your campaign. Thanks. Ccson 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

coordinated attack

robotam

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history

64.131.205.160 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Russia Portal

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Misplaced Pages notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist. --Irpen 11:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:nationalism

From your comment on ArbCom I (and another user who pointed it out to me and suggested I react to it) got a distinct impression that you see the Poles as victimizers, and Russians as victims; something that I think is certainly not the case (especially in the context of Ghirla's behaviour, whose behaviour has been both unprovoked and very pro-Russian and anti-Polish). I certainly agree that both Polish and Russian (and other nations or groups) nationalisms (POVs) exist in Wiki and vary from time and place, but let me repeat: I got the impression that in your post you were saying that Polish nationalism is much more visible then Russian, and even went as far as suggest that Polish nationalist may attempt to 'hijack' this ArbCom discussion. It has nothing to do with WP:AGF: I don't know what your intentions were, I am assuming they were good, but the result was a post that looked quite one sided and inflamatory. Perhaps I should've asked you to apologize or refactor it first before responing there, but honestly, after so many examples of Ghirla's (and others incivility), I am losing much hope that most people involved in this discussion understand the concepts of 'I made a mistake' or 'apology'. If this was a wrong assumption on my part, let me apologize for it here or now, but again that doesn't change the fact that your post was uncivil and inflammatory. Last but not least, as for Iop(39) move, IIRC it was not a Pole (or a Russian) who campaigned for the move, but a German editor. In the end a proper WP:RM procedure was followed, and if Irpen has any problems with how his vote was treated, it is something he should have raised there to the closing admin. For the record, I think that the 'Polish Defensive War' would be the least controversial name, but apparently it was quite unacceptable to some :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was not your intention to offend on purpose; the fact remains that you did so. If you don't want to aplogize for that, that is your choice. I know you didn't direct it againt me personally, nonetheless I and other Polish editors I talked to interpret your post as 'Poles bad, Russians good'. Please note that we don't insist on reverse order - we think all are equal, and I'd warn you even if I was not among the nationality slighted by that post (i.e. if you wrote a critique of Lithuanian or Zulu editors, I'd point that it is offending and inflammatory, too). As for Ghirla, well, perhaps here we differ: to me (and virtually everyone I know) he is a very uncivil Russian POV pusher, although he seems to have finally stopped attacking Poland-related articles (thus my neutral stance in this RfA). Btw, comparing my critique of your post to an average reaction of Ghirla shows you have not really interacted with him in the past (or rather, disagreed with him): , , ...). So if you felt bad about my mild reply, consider how do people interacting with Ghirla feel.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, please stop this practice of putting things on their head and trying to present the valid critique of yourself and your friends as PA and incivillity every time it pops up and demand appologies left and right. Ot gives a convenient pretence that the issues don't exist. This is tiresome and unhelpful. When I see your attempts to go around the problems by deflecting the issues on trying to concentrate on the form rather than on the substance, I take it that there is nohing you have to say on the issues themselves. I will be responding only if you post on topic. --Irpen 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, while I am suprised at your comment in what was a private discussion, in no way addressed or advertised to you, I will just tell you that facts speak for itself. To clarify, those facts being that it is Ghirla who is increasingly banned for incivility and now on ArbCom, not me. Feel free to argue that those facts are 'deflected' or 'unsubstantial', but I will not reply to any more of such murky 'arguments'. PS. As I would prefer not to turn Errabee's talk page into our OT discussion, if you have something worthwile to say to me, please do so at my talk page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you want to conduct private discussion, the "email this user" link is there for you. Talk pages of the people with whom I talked in the past are on my watchlist and I am free to read them from time to time and comment as I see fit. I say things where they are preserved in the context. I repeatedly encourarged you to respond to my requests at your talk in the same place and the note on top of my own talk reminds of that as well. If Errabee minds me speaking at his talk, he can delete my statements as he sees fit. You are free to not respond. I simply address the issues that consern me.

To begin with, several people told you lately that you abuse accusations of others in PA every time you hear something unpleasant and find it unattractive to address the issue itself. That's unhelpful and disruptive. Ghirla was blocked not for incivillity but for the expressed dissent to the questionable actions by those who think they can get away with anything. His dissent was expressed in an entirely civil form. His previous block was caused by Elonka's complaint, you instigated her to file at WP:ANI that brought a totally out-of-whack accusation in Ghirla's using of ethnic slurs (you know full well that he wasn't). But your invoking of Ghirla here is inappropriate in the first place. Ghirla has nothing to do with that habbit of yours to accuse everyone, himself included, in PA when you face the issues you find difficult to respond, be it your questionable admin actions being brought up or your relentless defence of Molobo and Halibutt. Whether it is a part of an overall strategy aimed at getting an upper hand in all disputed through having your opponets blocked and using every chanse to achieve that, is a separate question which I raised earlier.

The only issue here now is that you were asked repeatedly by several users to stop pretending seeing PAs where there are none. Address the issues or do not respond if you don't have anything on substance. When there are true PA, that's a different story but I usually choose to ignore those too. Otherwise, I would long time ago seized to asnwer Halibutt statements. WHat I usually do is ignore his PAs and respond to any substance of his statement (when there is some)

Finally, note, that this written above is also not a PA and I request you do not pretend that you can dismiss this painful points on the false pretences of them being uncivil. If you don't have anything to say, say nothing. When I feel like telling you niceties, you here those. When I think your actions are improper, I am free to say so and if your response always is "Look! This is a PA!" that just shows that the points are valid. --Irpen 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks for your contribution. I couldn't have said it better. Errabee 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 38 18 September 2006 About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Misplaced Pages Report from the Simple English Misplaced Pages
News and notes In the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

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 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Witness

Thank you for assessing the Dumb Witness article. I can see that the article might, for example, need a picture of the first ed. cover in order to make it complete, but am surprised that you only rated it "Start", since there is no obvious additional material that could be added to it. Are you thinking of perhaps a section on the biographical background to the novel's having been written, for example? I'm not sure that this would be appropriate for a comparatively minor novel, but would be grateful to have your ideas. --Sordel 06:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll add any further information that I turn up along the lines that you suggest. At the moment, I'm just concerned to bring a group of novels up to a basic standard as I read through them. By the way, I don't know whether you've noted the discussion on the Project page of your top-importance page, but I'd suggest that you remove the obsolete flag from it. --Sordel 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, that actively pursuing Importance assessment rather pre-empts a number of processes (not the least of which is the emergence of a consensus backed by the main body of editors) and may thus be a waste of effort. On the other hand, I do think that the page you created is very valuable as a record of thinking within the Novels Project. I'm comparatively new to Wiki editing, and I find the ideal of a comparatively egalitarian editing structure very intriguing. I'm sure that the Novels Project is not intended to constitute some sort of "editorial oligarchy", but I think that we should do what we can to experiment fully with instruments such as the one you created. I'll probably fiddle with it further for my own entertainment and edification. In any case, thanks again for the response. --Sordel 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:On this day

I think it's too late to add to it, there is someone who picks these out before they are displayed on the front page.--Konstable 11:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I put it in. Not too experienced with editing the front page stuff, but I asked around and it seems ok. Enjoy =)--Konstable 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

There was some (unfinished) discussion at User_talk:C_mon#re_category:Dutch_liberals. I agree, this needs to be resolved. Intangible 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to consider Novels WikiProject Collaborations

Hi, as you have been contributing to a number of novels articles recently I would personally like to invite you to have a look at and consider participating in, our WikiProject Novels Collaboration department.

We propose articles to have a concerted effort at and once agreed edit away to make as many improvements as we can.!!

We look forward to possibly gaining the benefit of your input! :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 11:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium

I am sorry, but I am pessimistic about this. First of all, the name is a horrible thing. A very lame echo of wiki-pedia (which may not itself be a stroke of genius, but which works on many levels), the sort of thing marketing drones come up with after five minutes' of ridiculously overpaid brainstorming. It may make sense to create the possibility of "fork and fork back" with compatible licences to streamline the development of articles. It is a very bad idea to try and lure brainpower away from Misplaced Pages; the best this can achieve is creating two broken projects in place of one just barely working. Sanger has some right ideas, but he doesn't have the karma or charisma. He would have been useful if he had stuck around here as a voice of reason, but his walking away in anger imho proves that he doesn't have the qualities to build (read: to let build itself) something like what we have here. The best scenario I can see is that the thing will prove some sort of policy testing ground that will help Misplaced Pages grow into the more restrictive policies it so sorely needs at this point. dab () 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph

oh yes, no problem -- I did have misgivings about meddling with a project I had no in-depth knowledge of. It does seem like a lot of red tape is emerging, what with nominations and votes on everything; I used to prefer the state of affairs where you could go ahead and do things until somebody told you they disagreed and then you'd start discussing. Nowadays, there appears to be a lot of debate before there is even any disagreement :) I am unsure if Joseph and his Brothers has "Top" or merely "High" importance as novels go. I did notice that the "Top" importance tier is frightfully anglo-centric, and while it is fair enough to cover English literature first on en-wiki, there can be no discussion of world literature from such a provincial perspective; since Mann is a major 20th c. author, and Joseph is one of his major works, I reckoned "top" rating to be justified (inspired, I admit, by your labelling of Fandorin as such, which I would see more near "high" importance, for one thing because these books are too recent to have already exerted all that much influence on literature). dab () 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

it would be a horrible, horrible mistake to classify things like Harry Potter or The Da Vinci Code (yuk!) as "top importance novels". These are bestsellers, yes, but I doubt they are even 'literature' in the a more narrow sense. Maybe in a Wikiproject:Bestsellers they could be listed as "top" in best faith, but as "novels" in general, "high" would be much already. Oh dear, but I never wanted to get involved in this rating business, so I suppose I should just shut up about it :\ dab () 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've already seen edit wars over the ratings and had a dispute with User:Kirill Lokshin on his talk page over the wisdom of this rating business. Seems like a hopeless affair to me. The "top" rating of bestsellers well illustrates the fact that the project is oriented towards mass reader and mass contributor. Let's just ignore the ratings. --Ghirla 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


334

Thanks for reassessing 334 (novel) after my recent changes. I have a couple of questions... I know I also need to spend more time on the WikiProject Novels page, but if I may ask you too:

  1. What would you say are the main areas to address in this article to get it closer to Good quality?
  2. User:Kevinalewis has fixed the section headings to correspond to the template. Not to nit-pick, but... among the template's very thorough list of desired section headings (a little too thorough to my mind, but I wasn't there for the discussion) there are separate ones for "allusions to other works" and "allusions to actual events etc." By that scheme, I'd have to add a whole section just for the one point about the Burke & Hare murders, because that's not "other works". Is it really awful to collapse those into a single "allusions and references" section as I did? Also, I still don't understand at all why we're repeating the book title in the "Characters" section, but I know that's already been discussed.
  3. Is it really necessary for the "spoilers" warning to be at very beginning of the "Plot summary" section? The beginning of that section just covers the basic background and premise of the novel, and talks about its structure.

Thanks again... ←Hob 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. The article really needs pictures to lighten it up a bit. A cover of the first edition would be nice (put it in the infobox). Also, it needs expansion in the sense of context: how does it compare to other dystopian future views? And as for any SF novel, fiction gets overtaken by reality very quickly (e.g. Star Trek and doors that open automatically, the communicator vs mobile phone), which raises the question: how does this novel hold up in light of recent developments? The reception by public and literary critics could be expanded, e.g. by adding book reviews from newspapers. The allusion section could also be expanded by explaining how the allusion compares to the alluded fact. As I am familiar with Crime and Punishment (which influenced Friedrich Nietzsche to formulate his Übermensch theory) which the Nazis combined with eugenetics to create the Holocaust), I would like to read how 334 (and Angoulement specific) and Crime and Punishment compare. Also, the plot summary is not rerally a plot summary. Finally, the novel is missing references (see number 2 of WP:WIAGA) which are needed in all sections except the plot summary.
    I think templates are to help you, not to force you. But in general, I agree with Kevin's changes. ALthough I personally prefer the word synopsis, it would be confusing to have one article say plot summary and another synopsis. Apparently, Plot summary has been chosen (probably because synopsis is too difficult for the casual reader).
    The first part of what is now Plot Summary could be moved to a separate section Plot introduction or something like that (please check other novels for the correct phrase).
I hope this helps, Errabee 11:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39 25 September 2006 About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns Report from the Dutch Misplaced Pages
News and notes Misplaced Pages in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS 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 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin for GA?

Hi, do you think Erast Fandorin would stand a chance at being awarded GA-grade?

looks pretty good to me - I would propose it and see what happens. Let me know if you do and I will chip in at the time. :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I particularly like the section of the article titled “Concept of the series”. If there were one section which might be expanded, it is “Allusions and references to other works;” the section begs for other characteristics taken from the work of other authors. You've converted me; I'm currently reading The Turkish Gambit. Agree you should nominate it. Williamborg (Bill) 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Minister

Just a note to say thanks for assessing (and passing) the Yes Minister article. Makes the work worthwhile! Out of interest, what do you think might be required to get this up to FA? (In addition to your constructive comments) The JPS 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil

No, the reason why you put it up for FAR is that the current version (backed by reference sources) does not suite your personal POV, as evidenced by your discussion with Irpen at Portal:Russia/New article announcements. The reason why you have announced it at Portal:Russia/New article announcements is also crystal clear. Face it: this is not a constructive behaviour by any means. --Lysy 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanted to be constructive you'd look for sources to support either version of the article instead of making comments like "This is beginning to get ridiculous. Time for a RfC, RfM and if need be, RfAr?" at Russian new article announcements noticeboard. Where do you find my behaviour uncivil, by the way ? --Lysy 23:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Cynical it was, but uncivil is a different thing. I'm sure you can distinguish between the two. Anyway, I've looked at the article and saw one group of editors trying to support their claims with sources, and another group limiting their actions to saying that "this has been discussed" or wondering how to de-FA instead of fixing it. And discussing this in the "new articles announcement" board is outrageous, don't you think ? --Lysy 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have not noticed that. But: how about discussing this at the appropriate talk page instead of revert-warring and making irrelevant announcements at inappropriate notice boards ? --Lysy 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my "how constructive" comment, which was not very constructive itself. I'm sorry for the time you've wasted because of this and if my remarks costed you any stress. I hope not. --Lysy 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance Assessments

I'm glad you changed them to Low--I should have followed my instinct and done it myself. Yesterday was my first day assessing articles, and while I feel I have a good handle on quality rating, importance is shaky and a bit subjective and also likely to draw complaints. Thanks for your input! -- Merope 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Shilder

I agree with you. Shilder is better than Schilder. Just have an edit conflict with you over this article, I have changed it to Shilder abakharev 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Erast Fandorin

Sorry, I missed your message - I'll have a look later in the week. Cheers, Yomangani 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's much improved since I last looked at it. Some comments:
  • It needs a copyedit - I didn't want to storm in there, but just ask if you want me to go through it
  • It is overlinked - the book titles only need linking once, not every time they are used
  • I'd move the table on the titles to the end, as it breaks the flow of the article where it is now
  • The section on the individual titles is somewhat stilted and listy - you can expand on the details slightly even if they have their own articles, and I'd also expand the date/location at the beginning of each to be a complete sentence rather than a fragment.
  • The awards section would be better rewritten as prose rather than presented as a small list
  • There are too many images used under a fair use rationale - this will be looked at very closely if you put it forward for FA - you'd be pushing it with four and there are nine currently.
Hope this helps and congratulations on the GA. Yomangani 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Misplaced Pages.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40 2 October 2006 About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added News and notes
Misplaced Pages in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View RSS 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 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fotolyse

Hoi Errabee, Was op zoek in NL naar de auteur, helemaal niet aan gedacht dat je hier zou zijn, jullie komen er verder wel uit, denk ik zo, gr.Mion 11:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Het valt inderdaad wel op dat meerdere mensen liever naar een andere Misplaced Pages gaan, en daar helemaal niet tegen dezelfde problemen oplopen, ik ga er maar vanuit dat door de te kleine aantallen het democratisch gehalte te laag is. Er zit wel veel goede wil, ook al lost dat het probleem niet op. gr. Mion 12:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41 9 October 2006 About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller Wall Street Journal associates Misplaced Pages with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down Report from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages
News and notes Misplaced Pages in the news
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost
The Misplaced Pages Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42 16 October 2006 About the Signpost

Misplaced Pages partially unblocked in mainland China $100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Misplaced Pages defense" as appeal strategy News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Misplaced Pages in the news Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line 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 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Misplaced Pages:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA

So, do admins get to define personal attacks? Why don't we be respectful and respect the opinions of every users, especially thse from E Europe and don't discrinimate them. Sosomk 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I just fell like I get treated like crap by Khoikhoi because I'm from E Europe and I expressed my opinion there and some IP editor keeps deleting my comment which has no offensive input in it whatsoever. Can you help me? Sosomk 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ;-) --the anon

I saw what u did, what if I just sign my name? Is it gonna be ok? Sosomk 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What is a personla attack for god's sake? He attacks our political culture, history and nearly every article on Georgia nd e calling him Russian POV pusher does not meer the wiki criteria, heh:) Sosomk 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, I will sign my name next time, thanksSosomk 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have enough time to do a research about Russian NeoNazi or NeoBolshevik skinheads. In addition, why do I have to cite something on the talk page. It is just a talk page of something that is not even a wiki article. So, take it easy, dude. Sosomk 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)