Jump to content

User talk:4wajzkd02/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 4wajzkd02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 
---- Black Harry (T|C) 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind welcome. I've been reading Wikipedia as an unregistered user for a couple of years. At first I was a bit of an 'Encyclopedia snob'; over time, I've come to appreciate Wikipedia as a useful and enjoyable resource. I've been lurking as a registered user for a little bit, and after trying my hand at some small edits, felt it was time to contribute a bit more.


I very much appreciate the references you provided. I'll read them as a first step in my education here. I'll also continue to look at existing pages for inspiration and example. Your user page is certainly impressive to me - I'll be sure to use it, and other such pages, as inspiration when I update mine in the future.

Edits at Barack Obama

Hello 4wajzkd02. Please note the result ofthe 3RR complaint that you submitted. Since an RfC is now in process (thanks to you) any further reverts of the disputed item, in either direction, may not be warmly received by administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and sincerely thank you for the comment. I did assume as much, so stayed hands off once I opened the RFC. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, you have already been asked - Fix the link you cited int he Relevancy section at Talk:Barack Obama/Relevancy to reflect the edit in question, instead of another talk page edit. You've made tracking down what your'e actually complaining about nearly impossible without guessing based on the edit histories. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've "already been asked" - what? Where? Apologies, but the above note doesn't seem to ask that. I mean to comply and be helpful- what have I done wrong? Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I should be the one apologizing, I should probably have been a little more civil in my editing rather than just making sweeping statements. Your input in political articles is as valued as anyones, don't let everyone get under your skin. :)Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind comments! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.
Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".
Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.
Please take a look: here.
Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility poll

Did you mean to delete most of your text, leave it unsigned and mark as minor? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. I am unsure how the 2nd edit ended up the way it was - I received a timeout message when I saved after previewing (the preview looked fine). Since then, every time I've tried to edit or undo that change http://en.wikipedia.org/ has timed out. I'm hopeful whatever the issue (latency?) is resolved and I can now undo the minor change (which really was, as I saw it in preview, just a minor typo fix - I had missed a closing parentheses). Thanks for the note! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm stumped. Using two different browsers, when I try to edit my comments, the Preview looks fine, but the final result deletes a lot of text. Here's what I was trying to say:
31. A review of edit summaries and discussion pages of some (unfortunately, mostly high-profile) articles shows a profound degree of incivility. It seems that a small group of editors take advantage of the anonymity afforded here to be purposefully unpleasant. A further review of these editors' talk pages and contribution history shows sometimes a wealth of contributions, but always a history of misbehavior - yet contributions seem, time and again, to be used to justify only limited blocks of these individuals. Moreover, on some items of great contention (e.g., the controversy in Fascism about "left vs. right") some editors seem to spend too much time pushing individual points of view while "rearranging the deck chairs" of a sinking article (read it sometime, then compare to a mainstream encyclopedia - the Wiki version is too long, over-referenced, and more confusing than illuminating). I believe that editors who demonstrate incivility anywhere on Wiki should be quickly warned, then blocked, then (with some reasonable escalation process) eventually permanently blocked. The rate of recidivism amongst some uncivil editors is simply too great. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've pasted it in for you - you might try signing it yourself and removing my <comments>. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm still troubleshooting the problem, so don't want to edit and have data deleted again. It appears there's a proxy in between my browser and the web that was not there in the past, and that proxy times out when sending relatively large amount of data. When I have the issue resolved, I'll do as you recommend. Thanks again! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have finally corrected the problem. I don't see the need to go back and update the entry in the poll, however - it seems fine as is.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


That was vandalism? Oy vey.201.124.83.161 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, that was a flagrant error on my part (I'm not sure how I made the mistake, but I absolutely did). Thanks for the kind note (particularly under the circumstances). I removed the warning section from your IP address' talk page. Welcome, again, to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you mixed me up with another IP. No worries, and thanks for being such a mensch about it.201.124.83.161 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Kindest regards, --4wajzkd02 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Good day mate! I would just like to let you know that on the talk pages of several new users that you welcomed, you forgot to add your signature. I'm just informing you of this because new users often ask the individual who welcomed them for advice, and if the signature of the person who welcomed them is missing, they may be unsure of who to speak to. I feel that you should probably go back and add your signature to these talk pages. Anyways, happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I left off my signature purposefully, as it is embedded in the template in a link. I've seen at least one case of a new user complaining about being welcomed with a signature, calling the signature "advertising". Additionally, I think I'm not violating any policy regarding signing talk page entries, as the template used explicitly includes a link to my user pages:
"If you need help, ... ask me on my talk page,"
Thanks for the note. I'll think more on this topic. If you have any more thoughts on this topic, please do post them here. Cheers,--4wajzkd02 (talk)
Hello, 4wajzkd02. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This user misapplies Wikipedia rules to attack other users

Further discussion should occur at WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This user attempted to falsely categorize arguments against another user's behavior as "personal attacks".

Apologies, but:
    1. My filing of a WP:ANI report was wholly within guidelines, and,
    2. Unlike this, neither my doing so nor my warnings on your talk page in any way meet the definition of an attack. Something to remember is to comment on the content, not the editor.
I refer you to some tips on such things. Consider reading Wikipedia:Civility, in particular. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Incorrect

Closing - Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


You mean don't stop somebody from obviously censoring comments on a talk page that they don't like? Yeah, I'll be sure not to do that.

By the way, regarding your "rule" about not replying on your talk page: don't stick comments on MY talk page and then have the audacity to tell me not to put one on YOUR talk page. That's just rude, though of course it's typical of wikipedia. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 98.112.55.128 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Apologies if the text on my talk page implies a "rule" about replying. I'll refactor that text later to clarify that there's no need to do so, as I'll notice a reply on your talk page. That concept of keeping discussion threads in one place is commonplace and meant to reduce clutter (for example, should I place my reply on your talk page, or here, or both, or just here and leave a note there pointing here - well, perhaps you see the point). Regardless, you're welcome to reply here.
  • As to leaving comments on someone's talk page in general, read WP:Don't restore removed comments. Anyone is welcome to delete notes on their talk pages anytime, with or without replying. The referenced document notes that by deleting, the user is implicitly acknowledging they're received the message. In addition, there's not supposed to be any shame or bad feeling associated with having a note on your talk page - templates (such as the one I used) are just supposed to be handy shortcuts to providing guidance to new editors (which, from the list of contributions from that IP, it seemed you are). You may want to sign up for an account, but not doing so is also your choice.
  • Regarding your comment at the top of this section, "You mean don't stop somebody from obviously censoring comments on a talk page that they don't like? Yeah, I'll be sure not to do that.", I refer you to the third box from the top of that article's talk page:

    This is not a forum for general discussion of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

  • Regarding "That's just rude, though of course it's typical of wikipedia.", please WP:AGF. The discussion thread you reopened was not about improving the article, but instead was general discussion, which is inappropriate (see WP:NOTAFORUM). My warning you on that point was appropriate, though you may notbe listening. If I can clarify, I'm glad to do so.
  • Finally, you recent re-introduction of your edit isedit warring, which is also inappropriate. Please stop. (I'll leave a note on your talk page regarding that, and point you back here).
--4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Protostan 3RR

Closing - Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You might take a look at User talk:Protostan again. I think you meant the warning to relate to Barack Obama rather than Pepsi. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I corrected my error. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the Obama page

Closed - resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for the welcome message. I have actually been around here for a while, but I make a point not to make a user account, as I see the necessity of such as being contradictory to Wikipedia's original intentions. That being said, I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article; we need to get rid of loaded terms. Thus, my post was more than appropriate. 67.60.50.5 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Thank you for the welcome message". You are welcome.
"I make a point not to make a user account". That's your choice.
"I did indeed provide provisions to clean up the article". Pardon, but with one exception, I did not see specifics:
  • "Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion". No suggestion for improvement.
  • "The entire article is peppered with partial language". No suggestion for improvement.
  • "Rising star?" Really?". No suggestion for improvement, although one might charitably infer you mean to delete this phrase - even though it is (per other editors in the discussion thread) included verbatim from a WP:RS. But is this what you mean, as you did not say so? Being quite fair to all involved, your lack of precision and your broad, negative introductory comments don't engender confidence that your intention is to improve the article (which is pretty common with high profile articles such as the one in question).
  • "We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia." No suggestion for improvement. You did attack other (unspecified) editors ("selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia"), and did not assume good faith ("We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically").
"I have actually been around here for a while". Then it is reasonable to assume that you know that your approach to introducing improvements to the article, demonstrated here, could be improved, as in at least two instances (WP:AGF and WP:NPA) is contrary to best practice, and could be construed as beingdisruptive editing. For an article on probation, in particular, I recommend you reconsider your approach. I also suggest that further discussion regarding your 'suggestions', such as they are, be continued on the talk page. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Hatnoting

Closing per WP:DRAMA, WP:CIVIL, WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Please be so kind as to go back and revert your hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle. It is totally inappropriate to hide all of these discussions retroactively. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"hatnoting of discussions involving Grundle". A careful review will show that the discussions hatnoted are those that were initiated by the editor in question, as well as being consistent with the behavior leading to his indefinite topic ban (If I got one (or more, G-d forbid) wrong, please let me know, and I'll correct).
"It is totally inappropriate". I don't think so. But I'm not trying to be WP:POINTy, and I try to be a stickler for policy. I'm hatnoting (hiding, not deleting) to remove clutter - of which there is an enormous amount. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Don't take my response as presumptive; I'm happy to read if you'd like to explain your point of view. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk)
I think it's very bad form. I didn't see anything inappropriate in the comments I looked at after seeing some of them pop up on my watchlist. They were posted in good faith by a major content contributor. Some of them had been responded to, and I don't see any reason they needed sought out and collapsed. Obviously Grundle will not be able to participate in those discussions for the time being, but collasping them the way you did looks to me like an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect towards someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions. Given Grundle's many article creations and his substantial content contributions to Wikipedia's articles about political subjects, the damage resulting from his being banned is bad enough. That you've gone ahead and proactively hidden his past comments is wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it). I hope you'll reconsider. Given your politics and point of view it seems you have cause to celebrate already without sticking your fingers in his eyes. Personally, I think our NPOV core policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia and our readers are greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "an unnecessary provocation and an act of disrespect","sticking your fingers in his eyes". It is not intended that way - pardon, but it seems you're looking for conflict here.
  • "cause to celebrate". I am saddened that the action was necessary. I tried to help the editor in question - but I came to the conclusion that his (to quote another editor) "Doe-eyed naif act" was indeed just an act - no one could possibly be that resistant to simple understanding. I suspect he wanted to be banned (and his subsequent 'celebration' of that banning via posts to various off-wiki web sites is consistent with that suspicion). Sadly for him, he seemed to lack the patience to work within the system (or, cynically, to more subtly push non-NPOV views into the knowledge base, as at least one person off-wiki has proudly proclaimed success in doing).
  • "someone who is already censored from further involvement in those article discussions", "greatly undermined by banning an editor who doesn't share the majority perspective as far as content and article interests are concerned". I recognize this is your core issue. There was clear community consensus on this issue, and your point of view as to the rationale of the action is not reflected in the record of what was discussed, nor in the record of the editor's misbehavior. As I recall, only you and an IP editor offered a contrary view (and I'm afraid neither of you offered effective rationale for not taking the action proposed).
  • "wrong (that's the mildest word I can come up for it)". If you feel your statements on the issue of the community action, or your comments here, are "mild", please spare me your less 'mild' commentary.
  • "Given your politics". Your statements have been rather unfriendly (to put it mildly) from the beginning of your insertion on my talk page on this topic; this last comment is per se without good faith. To my recollection (and I would be greatly surprised if my edit history would clearly and without interpretation show otherwise), I have never espoused any political opinion whatsoever, and my comments with respect to the editor in question have had everything to do with his inability to adhere to policy, and his apparent inability to change. Other than those two comments, I do not feel it appropriate to comment (let alone debate in a hostile atmosphere) more on this point - you're welcome to read my views on the recent action as I have posted them. As for my "politics", I feel it is "wrong" for you to assume that my (or any other editors') actions are predicated on bad faith. Shame on you. To paraphrase you, "I hope you'll reconsider" your comments.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Closing per WP:BAIT, WP:CIVIL, WP:DNFTT, WP:DRAMA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Agreed. If you run crying to freerepublic, and tell everybody there to tell Matt Drudge, you never had any good intentions and were only here to make a point. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as were others, but he's taken our good will and spat it back at us, trying to get some right-wing glory. I don't get it. Grsz11 04:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you and other POV pushers have been able to censor him Wikipedia you think he shouldn't be able to post on his experiences elsewhere? What nonsense. The bully tactics employed by you and 4waj might work here, but you can't stop people from complaining about your behavior elsewhere.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"you and other POV pushers", "censor", "bully tactics ". I reiterate my request that you be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when editing my talk page. If you cannot do so, please do not edit this page again. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

hi!

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

any particular reason why you placed a template on my page? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just documenting, per (I forget the WP:acronym). But, per an often-referenced essay, you're welcome to revert the addition, for whatever reason - it will be in the History of your Talk page, pour l'encouragement des autres. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
cool. bcs, there already is a default WHOIS template on bottom of every IP's talk paga. cheers. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a gift for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you don't mind, come to my page: Hollstein (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

French Prisoners of War at Agincourt

Closed - Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bonjour, That was an interesting addition you made toPrisoner of War. When you get a chance, would you please add a reference for the addition? I didn't want to clutter up the article with a fact tag. Merci beaucoup, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
Thanks for showing interest. I've added a reference. Teofilo talk 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Great reference! Thanks again! --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Camp Friendship

I think I understand why you left a notice concerning the PROD of this article, but I'm fine with it because I think that article probably should be deleted anyway (my only contribution to it was stopping people from vandalizing it) but I'm not sure what the intent of the message you left on my talk page under the heading "Warnings" is about. Rnb (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Regarding the WP:PROD warning, I saw you had edited it, so I wanted to be thorough in my notification. As for the Warnings header, I'm sorry, I thought it was the right thing to precede any warning of any sort (including WP:PROD. I'll go delete it from your page (and of course, you can always delete anything you like from your talk page). I'll rethink the addition of that header in the future. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. I think the edit summary that mentions WP:COI was what confused me, as I'm used to associating that with people who shouldn't be editing articles involving themselves. Thanks again. Rnb (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, I didn't notice my error in the edit summary. My browser (Safari) helpfully fills in forms. I meant to have it say WP:PROD warning, but it picked up my prior entry (for a different user) of WP:COI and I didn't notice. Rats!

I have another gift for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HI, it's me again (the one that gave you the cookie(Hollstein)) and I decided to give you some wikipets!

 ps: I hope you like cats :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Hollstein (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, someone out there actually exists!

Hello. I am Hollstein's older brother. I noticed earlier that you are one of few people who respond to comments, so I thought I would say hi.CitizenofEarth (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)