User talk:Mr. Neutron: Difference between revisions

Archive

I have warned Capricornis about edit warring on your Talk page, however, both of you are in danger of blocking for WP:3RR violation on the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising page. The best course is dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but he is reverting against consensus with an unacceptable version - there are at least three other parties. Mr. Neutron 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should follow dispute resolution. And I say this as a neutral party who has no idea whose edits in this dispute are correct. Corvus cornix 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Constantine I Tikh of Bulgaria, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Constantine I Tikh of Bulgaria is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Constantine I Tikh of Bulgaria, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably leave it alone. It's divisive, so shouldn't be in the Template space, but people are generally free to disclose their political biases as long as they're not attacking specific individuals or groups. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not speaking for Wikipedia in any way, just for my own interpretation of policy and practice. If you feel it's an issue that talking to Strich3d won't resolve, there are other methods of resolving disputes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to dispute the Bulgariannes of Yane Sandanski, you could use following materials:

Sandanski established a political party, called "People's Federative Party (Bulgarian section)" and noted in its statute that member of this party could be "every Bulgarian, who is Ottoman citizen over 20 years" (see here). In his "Memoirs" Sandanski called Mrs. Tsilka (kidnapped by his band and born in Macedonian town of Bansko) "Bulgarian" (see in preface here), his language "Bulgarian" (page 19, see here), and one village inhabited by Turks and Macedonian Slavs "Turkish-Bulgarian village" (see first page here). Excuse me, but the Bulgariannes of Sandanski isn't POV. It is historical fact, recognized by several Macedonian Historians like Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, who defines all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies, including Sandanski, as "Bulgarians" (see his interview here).

Greetings, Jackanapes 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I see you presented this on the talk. Please reference those appropriately after the protection expires on the second of sept. Mr. Neutron 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away from internet for a very long time. Please, include all materials from the talk page in the article after the second of september. Greetings, Jackanapes 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something already, but I really doubt that non-specialists like our opponets will listen to any historical record... I'm afraid they don't want to operate with historical documents as leading arguments. What a laugh! Greetings, Jackanapes 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for bringing more sources. Mr. Neutron 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed citations from the Marinov's text, but for the second article, I don't reproduce it, I'm just using several quotes. That is not a reproduction of the text. MatriX 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not linked to the first article, so I can use it freely. Second, I can use that as a source when you can use imageshack, image54 and other unreliable sites for a reference. If you remove it, I'd agree to remove my reference as well.MatriX 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll search for an assistance regarding the WP "quoting" policy and I'd appreciate if you take your time and wait for a response before doing any removal regarding the problematic quote. Meanwhile, I must take a break as I have some other obligations (I'll back soon).MatriX 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever sleep? :) I don't know why you warned me about the 3RR when I'm just editing the article. The references I deleted are not part of some edit war, this is the first time they are deleted. In addition, I properly commented my edits on the talk page, you can comment there as well...MatriX 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(CC'd to you, as you had also commented) Short quotes or excerpts, provided that they are properly attributed to their source and not passed off as one's own work, are totally acceptable and are not a violation of copyright, as they are covered by the fair use doctrine. There's no copyright issue with the edit here, it's a short excerpt and is properly attributed to its source. From the "Partial copyright notice", it also appears that the author's main objection is to for-profit use, not to educational or scholarly use, which is our purpose here. However, even if it were fully all-rights reserved, we can and do excerpt short quotes from such documents, provided that we attribute them properly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you filed an AIV complaint against User:Amacos for removing valid sockpuppet tags. Can you point out one of these? I don't see one readily, though I'm still looking. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the checkuser case is linked on Amacos's user page. Mr. Neutron 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what makes you think the 162.* IP is this Amacos guy? On the checkuser page you linked him to INkubusse (talk · contribs), but there's also evidence it's Revizionist (talk · contribs). Are they all the same? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's reverting to Revizionist's version. His signature is faked, any IP can pretend to be a registered user with expired cookie. ALso Revizionist and Amacos might be the same. Mr. Neutron 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return my edit or I'll erase your funny speculations as well. MatriX 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I cannot let POV speculations in the article. I left your other edit, and I am checking it. The first one is pure speculation though. Mr. Neutron 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look this [1]Regards, --GrigorG 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty such edits here too. Mr. Neutron 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are very kind in this Wikipedia. They call you "bastard" and "degenerate". Civility!?--GrigorG 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just take themselves too seriously. Mr. Neutron 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Might I suggest that you don't label EVERYONE who has Macedonian blood in him - a VANDAL!? Seriously dude, it's pathetic. I mean, it's your right to do a rv (although you're not right about it), but you don't have to write 'rv vandalism' doood! You're not the one who should accuse for vandalism, instead, you can just describe your rv as 'rv unsourced...' or sth like that. Keep that in mind (and stop pretending to be democratic and civilized just because you got in the EU.. no-one knows how you did it though...). --INkubusse 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]