User talk:Isotope23

; Archives
	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Isotope23 is mostly not here... so I may not respond all that quickly. Just remember though; BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

If I've deleted an article you created and you are here to protest, please clearly state the name of the article in the header of your note on my talkpage so I can investigate.

Abusive language

Hi, Isotope23.
Here I report you the repeated actions of abusive language of user:Evlekis on Wikipedia. These can be found on his userpage.
See this:

"cunt" - Pizda (in Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
"cock (penis)" - Kurac (in South Slavic languages, I think also in E Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
"fucking" - Ebanje (in most Slavic languages it's said "jebanje", but I think that in Macedonian and in Bulgarian they use hyperekavian form, "ebanje". Also, in other Slavic languages, "ebanje" reminds on "full word form", and mentioning that "shortened" form is the thing that's not used in polite language.
"fart" - Paardenlul. Variation of prditi.
"fucker" - Caralho. "karati" in Serbian = "fucking", so sounds like "f*ckalho".
"vluggertje" - in Dutch "quickie".
"knullar" - in Swedish "fucking".
"gomno". - Sounds like "govno", in Slavic languages meaning = "shit".

Also, many curses used.

"go to c*ck" - Idi U Kurac (in South Slavic languages). Heavy curse.
"Suck c*ck" - Pushi Kurac. (in South Slavic languages). Reads as "puši kurac" in S Slavic languages, if you want to check the meaning.
"vaffanculo" - in Italian. Not used in polite language.

Uploaded pictures with abusive language. Also, the picture this user, user:Evlekis, uploaded, contains text with abusive language.
[1].
Leccacazzi. "Cazzi" in Italian means "cocks, penises". Not used in polite language. Leccami la mia figa'. "Figa" in some Italian dialects means "cunt".
Contains text in Hungarian. Hungarian user might tell you the meaning.

User Evlekis also uploaded this picture, containing text with words "cunt". [2].

Here're some changes, so you can see that he, user:Evlekis, uploaded that text on his userpage [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.. Mostly in the section A_Fictional_Story_unrelated_to_actual_events...well...a_few....
We don't have to tolerate such users.
Wikipedia has explicit policy of dealing with such persons and such behaviour. This was not just one incident, as you see this is a bunch of repeated actions/edits.
He should be banned from editing Wikipedia. Kubura 10:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to bring this to ANI... I'm not nearly a good enough linguist that I feel comfortable blocking for this sort of thing.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent AfD

Of course not - unstrike away :) ELIMINATORJR 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation user:DIREKTOR together user:Zenanarh

See [11] --Giovanni Giove 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making you the "complaints department" again, but since he simply refuses to lay off I feel I must respond. The "reverts" this guy speaks of are ordinary edits. He persisted in adding info that was still dicussed between myself, Zenanarh and other Italian users to provoke someone into breaching the 3RR. He made seven reverts in one sitting earlier and it looks like he's gonna get away with it. Now he reports other people for making mere edits (and only four of those)... DIREKTOR 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hedgehog01

Hi there; if this guy is blocked why is he reverting my removals of abuse of other editors from his talk page, publishing my Wiki details on an external message board & accusing me of breaching 2RR (whatever that is!)? Your advice welcome before I pass this on elsewhere. --Rodhullandemu 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can still edit your own talkspace even when blocked unless the page is protected (as it is now). I didn't protect the page when I blocked the account.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy

Hi Isotope - I'm not sure if we've crossed paths before (I think i've seen your name around) - but nice to meet you nonetheless...

I saw your note in the edit summary of your removal of Don Murphy's official site, and thought I'd come here.

My position is that if we are to have an article on somebody / something then to not link to their acknowledged 'official' site oversteps the mark of neutrality (ie. we're qualitatively analysing the link as unacceptable which fundamentally means taking a point of view) - it's also a bit embarrassing!

Anyhoo - I also wondered if you could point me in the direction of any centralised discussion (or i'm happy to discuss this here with you if you'd prefer) - I'd like to be able to restore the link.

thanks, Purples 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting here. I don't believe there is a centralized discussion anywhere about this, but it probably would not be a bad idea to initiate a request for comment on this. There are a number of editors who have a very real and legitimate privacy concern with information posted at that site and I don't think linking it in the article serves Wikipedia's best interests or purposes. External links are a "nice to have", but I don't seen them as absolutely necessary unless they are being used to source the article. This isn't a "moral judgement" as Mangoe (talk · contribs) called it; it's simply weighing the benefits of having the link in versus the negatives. That said I would be totally comfortable with a RFC and following the consensus there... I just don't particularly want to see that link back in the article until the community at large is involved in considering this... it isn't really something that should be decided by one or two editors.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree that we're going to need a clear community decision at some point, and it's equally clear that your edits are thoughtful, and in good faith (thanks!) - you've probably seen the discussion under way here, I'll keep further replies on this to the talk page or that developing discussion, cheers, Purples 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on User:Italiavivi

I have requested community comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve his behavioral problem on the project. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward Trolling and Wikistalking me

Hello, I first posted this to Thatcher131s page but he is busy. Dheyward is now not only Wikistalking me, but agitating about me on Mongos page. Could you please check this and ask him to stop?

User:DHeyward is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for months Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he had never edited, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him advicing him not to troll the article. [12] The facts that he wont communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacks good faith intentions on this article and to me (IMO). There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am going to stay away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me. Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation bar

There doesn't seem to be a nested table, but just adding a second </table> tag worked without the text bunching up. Without it, have a look at one of the project's pages such as Students to see what I mean. --Geniac 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call!--Isotope23 ^talk 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ArbCom case on the BADSITES thing....

is being considered.. - i thought i'd let you know, both as a good editor who may have an opinion, and also because in my short tuppence worth that i've submitted here, I've linked to our chat above as an example of the mild confusion that the lack of a clear policy causes.. cheers - Purples 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of that link wasn't based on WP:BADSITES per se, it was more as an interim precautionary measure because there are several editors they are trying to "out" (myself included... luckily the person who was "researching" me did a poor enough job that they got ever single piece of personal information about me wrong). As consensus was apparently to keep the link in I absolutely respect that consensus. I probably won't comment there because I generally agree with what DTobias wrote about a measured, balanced attitude towards site links rather than an absolutist one (though I don't extend that same agreement to his essay). Regardless, thanks for the heads up!--Isotope23 ^talk 12:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nysted with Sucherman and Walker

Thanks for the help on links to Nysted/Walker/Sucherman discographies at AMG

Reliable sources like AMG should be in/on every musicians article, in my opinion. A discography gives a wide range of information that editors can use as a valuable resource. Musicgarden 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR breaking by DIREKTOR

See [13], Marco Polo and talk:Marco Polo. D. has deleted sources, where Polo refer to himself ad "Venitian". That is imposing POV against the evidence. Regards --Giovanni Giove 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrika paprika on Roger Boscovich

See here [14] and here [15]. Regards--Giovanni Giove 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all the changes were reverted.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Rabbits (band)

Hello. My page for the above mentioned band was deleted and I am unclear as to why. The band was notable enough to be featured on NPR's World Cafe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14239777), have thier albums sold through Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Fort-Nightly-White-Rabbits/dp/B000OHZK0Y), and to have several influential magazines and online publications (such as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide) review thier debut album (http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/whiterabbits/fortnightly). Please reconsider your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peces (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point because the admin who recently deleted it restored it. Just for future reference, having an album sold an Amazon isn't any evidence of notabilty per WP:BIO (pretty much anyone can sell on Amazon if they want to fork over the money); the other links however do demonstrate notability... they just didn't exist when I originally deleted this June-13.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question / some advice requested about Gothic Chess

hi Isotope,

I've made some edits at Gothic Chess, and wondered if you might have a second to take a look. Basically, there's a conflict of interest issue with the game's inventor editing, but perhaps the larger issue is one of notability / vanity generally - I've never instigated a request for comment on an article, and although this or an AfD might be a good way of getting more eyes to consider this article's pros and cons generally, it will obviously raise the temperature once again, perhaps unnecessarily.

If you've got a few minutes to take a look, your advice about the right track for the article would be welcome....

cheers, Purples 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of the situation. I did some edits there a while ago. WP:RFC is a better venue if you are concerned with the content pros and cons but accept that that the game is in and of itself notabile.. If you are concerned about the notability of the game (and this may be a very valid concern; none of these chess variants seem to have a whole lot of external notability independent of their creators), WP:AFD is the way to go.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice - i've asked for multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and I'll give all editors there a bit of a chance to dig them up, but in their prolonged absence I think an AfD is probably a good idea. cheers, Purples 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a moderation

I've started an RfC in Marco Polo article. user:Zenanarh has suddenly wrote a personal attack against me (btw quite meaninless), that I've removed. I'm quite sure that it will restored by DIREKTOR or by the same Z., so that event this RfC will be fail. IMHO Z. has broken the rules, (or maybe, me deleting the lines...). I suggest to tell your opinion... that just a last effort to save the RfC. Here te lines that I've removed:
"- :Nothing for discussion here! Or maybe Mr. G.G. expects that we take role of history arbitration commitee to decide which theory is correct?! Very funny and childish. This is an encyclopedia not totalitar regime which should decide what is history and what is not. There are 2 theories, one disputes another and that's all. Nothing more or less. That's how it should be edited in the article. "Mr. XY wrote that Polo was a Venetian in year -abcd-, mr. WZ disputed it in year -efgh-" - this is the key.
"
Tx. --Giovanni Giove 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ! Anything that criticizes your work on Wiki is "personal attack" for you! Is previous sentence also a personal attack? Sorry Isotope for arguing with this "personally attacked" person on your talk page. That's all from me. Cheers. Zenanarh 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Griot Incivility

You previously stated that referring to Griot on my talk page as a "hysterically paranoid info-deleting professor" was grossly incivil and bordered on a personal attack, and so you blocked me from Wikipedia for 24 hours for it. So then I expect that you will now do the same with him for the following edits, where he refers to me as a FREAK and even altered my own words to make it look as though I was actually referring to myself as a FREAK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=153021407&oldid=153021211

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot#What_if_I_am_a_gun_freak.3F_So_what.3F

He has also added a link on his talk page that points directly to mine in an apparent attempt at starting more trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

As a Wikipedia admin I hope that you will deal with his behavior exactly as you dealt with mine. Thanks.

--BillyTFried 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please report this to the admin noticeboard.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of PDF software

Why have you nominated most of software from List of PDF software for deletion without making proper research first? While some of them are truly not notable, some of them (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pstoedit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDFedit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PdfTeX ...) are clearly notable and widespread enough to stay here. I think you should be a bit more careful when nominating for deletion next time to avoid wasting time of many wikipedians in useless discussions with clear outcome. --Mpx 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]