User talk:Dchall1

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

I have discussed with users. they have told me that i should get references which i have. there is false information on wikiepdia. and people are making it out to be true.

They say our prophet said something he DID not. i am just telling people alternate views. At least help me improve it. what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from the morality page.

You sir work for a diabolical pirate organization which hijacks dictionary definitions and I want you to be permanently removed from the Internet and put in prison, if the Pentagon finds out I work for them then you got a big problem coming in your direction.

The space aliens told me; "Jewish elites are WW-2 German Nazi familes." 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I see no use of wikipedia, shut it down down and send all wiki editors into unemployment. Either you support the morality & respect page I have created, or there's not going to be a wikipedia.

Put you guys technological back to 100 BC that's what you can expect.

If you want to antagonise me, then you got to continue what you are doing right now. This Internet site is not big enough for the both of us, either you go or I go. But if I go, then I'm coming back and I told you my affiliates. 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As you said I think WIKI must show neutral views and when I read the biography of Mr Rajavi I found it hostile and a little bit in favor of the iranian regime so I didn't found it fair and I tried to help the neutralitiy of this encycolpedia cause if not people will not trust WIKI any more and thanks for respecting this rule. (Mari2008wiki (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC))Mari[reply]

Thanks I did my best! Hopefully the article can now live with small updates. It didn't pass the GA because the assessor didn't understand the article.--Avala (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could talk me through how I could make my artical When I Grow up more notabel if it is possable of if there is something missing - daryl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I belive I have added proper reliable notabel sources , I should hope I did anyway.

-daryl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the newspaper does not have newspaper achives or artical achives on its website since it is a city newspaper but I have tried to clear up the wrinckels as much as I could would this still be okay ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeness (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Re your message: They certainly are persistent. I salted a couple of variations. Another admin got the original one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen your recent revert on Dr Haider's article. I have done this revert over and over again but they just never stop. Is there a way to keep the article clean for good? --Oxygen305 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris,

i have seen you speak very well german, I have a few minutes ago tried, to add the section" Stefan Petzner" in de german version of Haider's article. but before i even finished the second sentence , i was already removed. I don't wish to have the same problems in the german version as I had in the english version. would you please help me to write the article in a proper way, so that nobody can claim, i did some 3rr or vandalism or something like that. I would realy appreciate your help.

Please let me know, if you have time for this project. Thank you for your time.--Oxygen305 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, thank you for your fast response. can I asume that the same rules apply for de.WP and en.WP ? --Oxygen305 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allele (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work in rewriting the Gulnora Karimova article. Muchness (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Dchall1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

You forgot to sign. Thanks, I do know what you mean btw :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I blocked Redneck12 and 77.241.230.242. 91.75.74.12 last edited a couple of days ago, so I let it be for now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Yup, that's him. I see you also tagged 70.240.177.54 (talk · contribs) as him, too. Same Houston, Texas DSL line. I didn't block the second IP since it hasn't been as active. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Sorry about not getting back to you. Something off-Wikipedia prompted me to be away for the past few weeks. I checked both articles and I see that another admin semi-protected both of them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help.

I have MASSIVE problems with this user!

He is sockpupetting the wikipedia:

User_talk:125.237.132.197

User_talk:222.152.87.30

User_talk:219.89.32.152

He is trying to put tag Republic of Kosovo, and a lot of unproven,

nationalist ideas of Illyrian-Albanian continuity everywhere, even if it is utterly unneeded!

Tell me, can we lock the

Talk to me, about ANY information, i am willing to understand and talk about everything!

Hoping for any news from you!

Tadija (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i understand that Serbian province is not quite good, but if we write ~disputed province of Kosovo~, then Serbian claims can be fulfilled, without only reference Kosovo.

When you see:

1. Located in Kosovo, you write it like it is a independent state, you never write in Vojvodina, or in the Kornati, you put the name of the State, but if you write it like:

2. Located in disputed province of Kosovo, it is quite different.. Every one is happy...

I would love that it is written like that.

Your opinion?

Tadija (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I made some edits today to an article you'd prodded, Peacemaker (ship). I was wondering if I could convince you to, in the future, add the {{WikiProject Ships}} template to the talk pages of ship articles in these situations, if it's not there already. There are several diligent WP Ships editors (not that I'm one of them) who are great at assessing newly tagged articles, so it's an easy way to call the attention of the Project to an article which may indeed be worth saving. Thanks! --Fullobeans (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous involvement with the

I didn't know that it was copied just a year ago. I figured that they both started that way or it was copied from Albanians in Serbia and made into a new article. In that case I think we should shorten the section on the Albanians in Serbia article. Maybe just have a couple of paragraphs that summarize and have a See Also link to Albanians in Kosovo. --Tocino 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Radioactive Barnstar
		I Hate Comments 08:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Congrats

Thanks for the heads-up. I've replied on AN/I. I'd be interested to know what you make of it all! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things really seem to have got out of hand now (check the latest edits). I've raised the issue and presented some diffs at

The article has been stubbed by another editor. Please see the comments (and my response) at Talk:Darko Trifunović#Stubbed - your views would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it is a very controversial topic, as explained on the talk page this is a non-proven statement which is written as a fact. How would you propose putting it?

My point here is that while there has been a discussion on the talk page for a while, I have not seen any arguments against this edit. Wouldn't that count as general consensus? I'm just trying to understand why you reversed it, not trying to criticise you.

(Talk) 11:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright then, I'll leave it at that, thanks for the explanation.

(Talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your argumentation about the "Instrukcije" and won´t change it until I have sources. But regarding the collaboration, the burden of proof should be at the one who states that all chetniks were collaborators.Kanmaur (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have time to check this out. I'm in a ruckus with one KneeJuan. Do the edits in the post linked below look like they are violating wikirules about .... doing something you shouldn't do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KneeJuan&diff=289507550&oldid=288953482

If so, what can I do about it? With the exception of 1953 Iranian coup d'état this just a dispute between him and me, so perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents won't work.

(P.S., Another issue may be that most of his April edits are of articles he had no history of editing but I did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KneeJuan )

I hope this isn't "canvassing" but I need the advise of someone more knowledgable than me. Thanks in advance if you have time to look at this. --

This comment about my character [1] is considered a personal attack. Please read

I do, however, understand how my edits may come across as more problematic than his, to someone like you who is not too familiar with the topics, just because I am "removing stuff", and he is "adding stuff". But you don't have to take my word on BoogaLouie's misuse of "sources", just take a look at what several administrators had say about his "well-sourced" article here[[3]], so that you can realize the extent of the problem for yourself. As you can see, he is a sophisticated ideological editor who takes liberty with the facts, to push a point of view by selective quotation of cherry-picked "sources". --

talk) 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are disputing an edit of mine, please go the talk page of the relevant articles and contest the rationals I have provided in my edit summaries. Blind reverting my edits with the customary "rv removal of sourced information" is not good enough. --

talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the

talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear BoogaLouie, all my alternative accounts have been merged and routed to my main account now, I would also encourage you and Dchall1 to do the same with yours. As for my comment on Iran-Iraq war, I didn't "clash" with you, I simply made a comment, and the reason I did so with Sina is because I had already edited that page and its associated talk page with Sina, and did not wish for my alternative accounts to overlap with each other. I don't want to point fingers, but your various accounts actually did overlap on that particular page ([6], [7]), and you have used at least three accounts on Iran-Iraq war, which is certainly inappropriate. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the accounts. In my defense they were sometimes used in the same article but seldom if ever in support of each other. --

talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had recently reverted some vandalism at

Checkuser has confirmed that DT is responsible for the IP vandalism. I've raised the matter at

WP:AE#Darko Trifunovic. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello We are working on creating a workgroup for wikimedia kosovo http://sfk2009.ning.com/group/wikimediakosova and have an event on august 29/30 in Prishtina. We would like to invite you to come. http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html

Thanks,

mike Mdupont (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of aware about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Most citations are from the press (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.

The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.

I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.

I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.

Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comment:

Thanks for the additional information and the discussion on sanctions. I was not part of the discussion on the use of the word "alleged" in this article. It is a shame because I would have argued strongly that "fact" in this case is highly contested and no article can reasonable be written from a NPOV if it takes for granted claims that are contested. Using words like 'hijackers', 'attack', 'collapse' shows a lack of awareness. I trust you appreciate that I am attempting to remove bias from the article, and I am acting in good faith. You may wish to see my talk page for previous apologies made by Wikipedia editors after they mistook my expertise in subject areas as 'bias' (i.e. the bias was from those with less knowledge in contested subjects). The article as it currently stands brings Wikipedia into disrepute because it states as fact matters that are not only contested, but are also sub-judice.

All the best Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A case (September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Dchall1. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]