User talk:SoWhy/Archive 2

To end edit warring in this article I am calling all editors of this article for vote on talk page--Rjecina (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that even if this user is blocked because of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245 he will come again and again and again from other IP. All in all "4 users" are supporting his version.--Rjecina (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not able to overwrite policies like

WP:NPOV. Even if he does so, he will have to be dealt with like every other vandal. But he does make some valid points though, currently the article sounds POV, citing only criticizing sources. It should be expanded and other sources, if available, should be included. I have no particular knowledge of the topic (i.e. the book) but I do know that the Catholic Church and the Utasa did work together in quite horrifying ways and thus there have to be sources to confirm his viewpoint. --SoWhy ^Talk

22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not have problem about this. If there are sources which support book he can write them, but he can't delete which he do not like. See similar situation in article Ivo Andric' where this genius is deleting internet sources (1 of this sources is Wikipedia respected source (NYT)) which are speaking that his parents are Croats and changing with version that his parents are Serbs (without internet sources). Funny thing is that his version is saying that Ivo Andric' parents are Serbs but he is leaving in article Wikipedia document which is saying that he is Croat.--Rjecina (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct of course. My point was only to point out that cited article Magnum Crimen should be expanded and written more NPOV. For example the source [3] is from a newspaper, which is described in it's Wikipedia article as a "satirical weekly paper", thus this has to be mentioned in the article. I did the change this time.

Also, if you know Serbian, you might want to have a look at the Serbian Wikipedia entry for this book and transfer information from there to the English article. I have transferred from the German version that there are no major errors. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not even 1 source for this article on serbian wiki but I can give you information which is writen in that text so that you can rewrite article on english wiki. If it is OK for you I will write you that information around 1 hour from now--Rjecina (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are free to do so. I will try to change the article tomorrow then. --SoWhy ^Talk 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Statements from Serbian wiki

• On 1119 pages Novak has writen about church in Croatia between 1900 and 1945
• Doctor Novak is attacking church that it is working under orders of Pope against reform movement in Catholic church on territory of new state (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and against political unity of Croats and Serbs
• In words of Novak Vatican has been afraid of possibility that reform movement (reform movement has proclaimed creation of Old Croatian catholic church in 1919)will in catholic church on Yugoslav territory will proclaim church unity with Serbian Ortodox church and future creation of Serbocroatian nation.
• Pope has used diplomatic pressure on Yugoslavia so that Old Croatian catholic church will be proclaimed illegal in 1923.
• With creation of NDH in Novak thinking catholic church has entered in matrimony with fascist Croatian state.
• Novak is showing on hundreds pages that Catholic church has supported Ustaše solution of Serbian "problem"
• For WWII period book is using documentation from books "Court hearing against Lisak, Stepinac, Šalic' and others, ustaša-crusaders criminals and helpers" (original name: Su?enje Lisaku, Stepincu, Šalic'u i družini, ustaško-križarskim zloc(incima i njihovim pomagac(ima) and "Documents about against people work and crimes of one part of catholic priests" (original name:Dokumenti o protunarodnom radu i zloc(inima jednog dijela katolic(kog klera). Both books are published in Zagreb in 1946.
• First edition of book is published in 1948 and it sold very fast. There has been suspicion (my question is by who ?)that buyers of must of this first edition has been Catholic church which has destroyed books. Today it is very hard to find this edition.
• During raise of nationalism in Serbia and shortly before start of Yugoslav Wars (this is my comment) there has been 2 other editions in 1986 and 1989.
• English version of book is from Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books[1]. German publisher of book is from Ariman publishing house which is publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense [2]. (all this is my adding)

Serbian version of wiki is really saying "in words of Novak", "in Novak thinking" and similar.--Rjecina (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of any English-language edition and can find no evidence that such an edition was published by Prometheus. I can find no mention of it either on their website or at the link provided. Am I missing something? Kirker (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is none as far as I can see. But Rjecina's points above can be included in the article as they only reflect what the content of the book is. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake ! This are publishers of book:"The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs During World War II by Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey L. Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books" not of book in question. There is no foreign language publishers of book Magnum Crimen.--Rjecina (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with editor Arjuna316. I believe his heart was in the "right" place but his "head" kept misreading and mis-interpreting what was happening. I never questioned his POV. I doubted it, at times. I wondered if his agenda wasn't just to "muddy the water." I think he is a better editor because of his experience at "Dalit".--Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, although I did no work on the article itself, I just tried to stop him from messing up redirects. No thanks is in order in this case. I do hope he will learn from the experience though. Have a nice day :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you're not worried about dying in a week? skeptical scientist (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I? I mean, I rather appreciate the fact that I know the day of my death in advance, it allows me to live accordingly - i.e. without a care for the world ;-) --So#Why 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave John Dundee article alone - it is exactly as family want it

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the family's wishes are not the one's that are important for the way, a Wikipedia article is to look like. So please have a look at

WP:MOSBIO and you should rather stop making changes which destroy sentences and paragraphs. Regards. --So#Why

17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in the subject, to make this clear. I just reverted your edits because you removed letters from different words and thus the edits were vandalism. Second, this is a collaborative project and thus a single editor like yourself can't decide what style a certain article should have (see

WP:OWN). Articles about living or dead persons are per definition biographical and thus has to be treated as such (if you cannot explain why it shouldn't). This aside, have a nice day. So#Why

20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but feelings are no guideline for Wikipedia because if they were, we could never get anything done. It is a difference between respect for the feelings of others and making them the guideline for your edits. But as you will see from

are civil and try to explain to the rest of the community, why you think some facts are to be changed and if you are correct, you will be able to convince them (I should hope) and we can all try to create a correct article about John Dundee which then will allow the users of Wikipedia to learn all there is to know about him. Have a nice evening. So#Why

22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep out of issues you don't know. As I have stated I have his certificates, diplomas, publications etc, even his OBE so I am qualified to and can support every issue. The family wishes this to be withdrawn but Wikipedia have not responded despite several emails - Have a nice evening - grow up! Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I never did any editing on the content so I do not see where your problem lies. As I stated before, my changes were merely cosmetical as they only involved the style of the page. Also, as stated before, the way an article is classified or which style it uses it not up to any single editor (again, see

ignoring the rules. If you want to see a factually-correct article about John Dundee

you need to work with the rest of the community.

Also, the family's wishes to have no article about him are to be measured against the law and the guidelines as well and I fear you will not find sufficient basis there to do that. Also, you have to admit that you are in a

in your point of view. It is the job of the rest of the community to correct you if you do so and if you are not willing to allow this to happen, you will not be able to contribute efficiently to Wikipedia. Please take these things into consideration. Have a nice day. So#Why

07:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI - blocked 31 hours for disruption, article deleted and protected to prevent recreation. He's clearly the same person who created the article a couple of days ago and was indef blocked, but since the article's protected I'll keep an eye on his edits to see if he starts to contribute productively. _GB^T/C 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for pointing out the broken userbox. I use my own because I prefer it to fit into my colour scheme. _GB^T/C 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and no problem. I like your userbox, blue is really better than the usual yellow. Maybe, if you want to share it with the rest of us, you could create a {{userbox4}}-Template. I would use it for sure ;-) So#Why 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done (although it's a Wiki so there's nothing to stop you just copying it off my userpage in the first place...! _GB^T/C 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't, but I respect it if people want to have something unique on their user pages and thus will not do so unless others did so before (and thus it's not unique anymore) or unless they allow me to :-) So#Why 12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SoWhy/Archive 2! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list. Thanks! – sgeureka t•c 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm advising all participants in the

01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, SoWhy!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for Capitalizing the title of the page I was adding. I did not notice my mistake until I was not able to change it anymore to Capital letters.

Could you also please add the "von" particle to the title? (To make it: Karl Josef von Bachmann) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Again thanks and best regards,

Martin von Bachmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I did so, as well as wikifying the article. You may want to read

WP:EDIT to learn how to edit Wikipedia correctly. So#Why

09:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was trying to do more or less the same thing, but I am not nearly as fast as you are. In the time I needed to check the format used in Wikipedia you had already changed everything so that it fit. I hope that practice will help.

Best regards,

Martin von Bachmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We all have to start. Few tips: Try reading the aforementioned

conflict of interest regarding those articles you created, so you might want to be careful to remain neutral. Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this one with "~~~~" which will automatically put your name and the time in place (but never(!) use it in articles). Hope you will enjoy your stay here and if you have any questions I'll be happy to assist you as best as I can. So#Why

10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All but one of the sources found for Barry has been directly tied to Mad itself. An article cannot survive on primary sources alone. I, too, found the sources on Mad's website, but I'm finding almost nothing outside of Mad itself to verify so much as his existence. Therefore, I think that your "keep" in the afd is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A primary source would be Mr. Liebmann himself. DC Comics or MAD Magazine, who are effectively employers, are thus secondary sources as they are not in fact the person itself. Everything they remark about him is an outside view and thus allowable as a secondary source. Thus I stand by my "keep"-vote unless you can prove those sources to be wrong (which might be the case). So#Why ^{review me!} 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still not convinced enough to withdraw so I'll let the AfD run its course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Noone forces you to. As

WP:RS does not specify exactly if those sources, like MAD or DC Comics, should be treated as primary sources (like you do) or as secondary (which I think), we have no choice but to see where the AfD takes us. :-) So#Why ^{review me!}

Thanks.--Streona (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But Pontian language too isnt offical in Trabzon i know cuz i am from Trabzon.Lazs are living in Trabzon but they cant speak Laz langauge.Trabzon are polilingual town.Blacsea Turkish, Pontian Greek, Laz and Hamsheni Armenian !!!

I've only just created the stub. Give me time to expand it and make it a worthwhile article. Ovesey was a major figure who influenced people's ideas about homosexuality, he is a notable, and there is every reason to have an article about him. Skoojal (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so. But you should consider not saving the article until you had, otherwise this will happen more often. Or you could consider creating the article in your Userspace first and then moving it/copy-pasting it or placing the {{inuse}}-template to the article to avoid such confusion in the future... Have a nice day nevertheless :-) So#Why ^{review me!} 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific reason for thinking that it cannot be turned into a good article? That Ovesey was a significant figure is well known to anyone interested in the history of homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have none. I never said so anyway. An article with the only content being "XXX was an American YYY" is

WP:CSD#A7-eligible and that's why I tagged it as such. As I said above, there are ways you can create an article without fear of such tagging and I advise you use them. Otherwise you will only keep on being disappointed when people tag one-sentence-articles for deletion. But I am quite happy that you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I encourage you to continue doing so :-) So#Why ^{review me!}

11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a one sentence article anymore, because I added a couple of reliable sources indicating that Ovesey was a notable figure. Skoojal (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. You should add everything important before saving the page to avoid something like that in future. I have removed the CSD now^^ So#Why ^{review me!} 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please do not call my edits vandalism and check the history of Joana Raposo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) properly. I was tagging the article and when I had finished I found an empty artcile, so I g6 as per guidlines. The blanking was done by another editor. --triwbe (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary, you will see that I called the "db-a1" tag vandalism, not the "db-g6" tag you placed. I just reverted all of those back to the first version, as your G6 was only a reaction to the A1-vandalism. But I will try to be more specific next time to avoid confusion. So#Why ^{review me!} 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have the wrong glasses on :-) Cheers. --triwbe (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

Thank you for applying for

Gb^T/c 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article Msad 31. I couldn't figure out what was wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patman21 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to have a look at other articles using the same infobox next time, to just copy the correct way from them. And btw, great work on that article! So#Why ^{review me!} 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)