This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Varlaam! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Everyone with a username who isn't a vandal or spammer eventually gets welcomed, given enough edits. I welcome people who edit articles on my watchlist (like Astur-Leonese language.)

I hope you like it here; movie articles need help too. ;-) Grand master ka 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people reply on their own talk page to messages. I reply on the other person's talk page (like here.) There's no reply button. Grand master ka 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere? respond here Deadline is December 15th. AstroBoy 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand how to "talk" in Wikipedia.

You have to register a username separately for each Wikipedia. That's all. Grand master ka 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yucko. And then my changes accumulate separately under each language? If you are trying to assess someone's history in order to determine whether he is reliable or not, then it is useful to have a full history, eh, don't you think?

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I needed to set up explorer/author Michael Asher, and I wasn't familiar with the procedures for new stubs. Feel free to nuke it or fix it or standardize it, or whatever seems appropriate. Cheers. Varlaam 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam I noticed that you some Danish related contributions on wikipedia.Perhaps you would be interested in joining the wikiproject. The scope of the project is to create, improve, and maintain articles relating to Denmark, its history, people, geography, and culture.
You can join up at WP:DK

Best regards and happy editing.
Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re "Eats, Shoots and Leaves": In that case, why don't you amplify or extend my contribution rather than simply deleting it? Why don't you try something pro-active, rather than merely nihilistic? There appear to be a lot of self-appointed policemen in the database who knock down people when they are trying to build it up. Nicht wahr? Varlaam 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [in Toronto]

There already is a mention of the "main" joke that the title stems from in the section "The Title"; there is no need to mention each variation thereof, dirty or not. — Scouter Sig 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey man thanks alot for helping out with this article, both with spanish spellings & just plain old english typos! I did so many edits on it the other day I must have missed them. Fennessy 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fennessy, No trouble at all. Since I was a kid, I've had an eye for those. Something on the page looks amiss. They just stand out to me, that's all.

By coincidence, I was supposed to be in Mexico City this afternoon, but that trip's been delayed 2-3 weeks. I edited the article after seeing the Tom Berenger film again. The pretty girl in the film, Vanessa Bauche, is a friend of a friend, although I've never met her.

Cheers, Varlaam 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [still stuck in Toronto]

Ah OK I haven't seen the film yet, I should track it down already. Its funny that you mention you'll be in Mexico city sometime soon... if you get time when you go see if you can take some pictures of any of the Saint Patrick's Battalion monuments, I'm having real trouble finding images that can be used in the article. I know there is a plaque at San Jacinto Plaza, and another at the former monastery of Churubusco. Either of those would do, if you get the chance of course. Fennessy 13:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, I've been down twice but haven't been either place. I'll check my Guía Roji for DF and see what that entails. Here's a research project for you: There's a small place in upstate New York called Churubusco. So what's the local connection? Varlaam 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My Guía Roji doesn't have a listing of squares. I checked Mexican Google. So clearly you are talking about here:

Si le apetece ir de mercado el sábado, acuda a la Plaza de San Jacinto, localizada en San Ángel. Bazar Sábado es un mercado de artesanías fabuloso, y es el evento que hace de San Ángel una zona famosa. La plaza tiene una historia turbulenta: la casa que es actualmente el principal edificio del Bazar fue usada por soldados invasores de los Estados Unidos y Francia. Tambien es donde más de 50 soldados irlandeses del St. Patrick's Batallion murieron mientras ayudaban a los mexicanos resistir la invasión estadounidense.

And the nearest subway is here: Estación más cercana: M.A. de Quevedo which is on the University line.

It's in the San Ángel neighbourhood which is of interest to history buffs since that's where President Obregon was assassinated, the Irish-Mexican president. It's south of Trotsky's heavily fortified house where he was killed.

It's the wrong end of the city for me, but it is not inconceivable. A cab ride from there to my end of town is 40 bucks Canadian. It's not close. Varlaam 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow $40... well if your willing to do that then great, I spent the same amount sending off for two back issues of the "Irish sword" from like 20 years ago to get more references, so I've sacrificed some money as well as time for this article, haha. See if you can get a picture like this [1](I cant contact the person who took this to get permission to use it). But yeah Mexico city is a really intresting place, I should find time to go there someday. As for Churubusco in NY... I dont know, I'll look into it, I only moved to PA recently so I really dont know the history of this area of the US. Fennessy 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. I wouldn't drop that much on a cab by choice, but the subway there does not run late. A couple of friends live at the adjacent subway stops but I typically meet them downtown since travel time there is problematic. And when I rent a car, it's to head north. I'm supposed to go to Querétaro (where Maximilian was executed) on this trip, then Tepic, Puerto Vallarta, Colima, and Pátzcuaro. We're going to try to see the "new" volcano too, at Paricutín. And also the big mysterious ruins at La Quemada, down the road from Zacatecas.

It's interesting to see on the plaque that President Lopez Portillo had some kind of bachelor's degree – you get a title for that down there. I get a title there too – "Ing."

Your bio page said you were Welsh, I think, eh? I've got family in Gloucestershire, and a few strays live over the border. (One of them's probably in Wikipedia actually, come to think of it – he was in a rock band.) Varlaam 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I´m staying with a friend in Coyoacan down south. So chances of getting to San Jacinto have improved. Varlaam 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no luck. Next year is a possibility again however. My friends want to go to some snazzy clubs in that neighbourhood next year. If so, we'll have the camera. Varlaam 18:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (back home in TO) P.S. Didn't do any scuba on the trip -- it's priced for rich Americans down there. And no visit to the Paricutín volcano -- too far, and too many tiny roads frequented by drug traffickers apparently. But the totally not famous ruins at La Quemada were amazing. Their unfamiliarity even to Mexicans is inexplicable. If they were closer to a population centre, they'd be swarming with people for sure. It's possible to have a private pyramid experience there. I doubt that's true elsewhere.

The terms wigger and white negro are different from the term white nigger, and they have different meanings. The wigger article is about a very specific phenomenon, not about every combination of the word white with words that have been used to describe black people. The first two terms refer to people who have embraced stereotypical black culture, and the last term is a sociopolitical term that refers to white people who are oppressed by other white people (similar to the term white trash). Unlike wigger or white negro, the status of white nigger is not one that individuals choose for themselves. Spylab 10:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just ran a Google search on "Bush's War" and got The Nation, which is one of the oldest American weekly newsmagazines, is it not? And at some point, mere op-ed pieces become standard usage, seeing as how they are written by opinion leaders. Depending upon the publication under consideration, of course. Varlaam 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, on the first page of results, we get, "Bush's War Against Evil," "Bush's war support rising?", "Bush's War For Reelection," and "Bush's War On Cops." ← Ben^B4 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that in general that Google is making a poor case for me. But I didn't coin the term; I read it in other places. I sent emails to both Harpers Magazine and Al Franken's website as likely possibilities to see if they would provide some citations, but neither one responded. And Harpers has answered my email in the past too. I still haven't been able to think of a specific context for the term that I can locate and cite. Al Franken often writes about his Lexis-Nexis searches where they apparently maintain everything that's published in a searchable form. If you want to pay for it, that is. Varlaam 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Bilingual Canadian. It's OR. That's why I removed it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So what? I just spent half an hour reading the f*cking list and counting it.

If you've ever used Wikipedia (which you obviously haven't), you would know that the fact that other crap exists is never an excuse. I suggest you read WP:OR. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you have obviously read my changes history, you know that I have used Wikipedia once or twice in the past. What you are supposed to have done in an instance such as this is to apply a ^{citation needed} on mine, then in the future, someone, maybe even me, can dig a little further and produce a published reference to the point I am trying to make. In the interim, my facts are 100% CORRECT and EASILY VERIFIED. By following the link on that very page that you are too lazy to follow, on the evidence. I, unlike you, have NEVER deleted valid information from the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I have often demoted information which was clearly posted by a partisan of that information who felt that it had more importance than it clearly has or merits. If you want to reorganize or annotate my contribution, fine. But since it is accurate, you should otherwise be leaving it alone, and heading off in search of things in the encyclopedia that actually INCORRECT. Eh? Are you unable to draw a distinction between *crap* and *unsupported fact*? They are not the same. And my *facts* only qualify as *unsupported* by the narrowest of definitions. Varlaam 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The citation needed template is only to verify information that looks like it could be false. What you are doing is adding correct information, but you are doing so without a source, thus making it Original research. As for removing stuff from articles, if you see anything that looks like advertising, then you can remove it yourself - you don't need to get someone else to add it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're edit warring over whether a flag is left or right justified at the above page. I've created a section on the talk page for a discussion regarding the issue. In the meantime, if you are at a loss for other things to do, can I suggest Category:All pages needing cleanup? Happy editing. Steve block Talk 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comment

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Will Eisner. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

• I've just noticed your hidden comment in this edit, [2]. Please note such comments are counter to our policies on assuming good faith, personal attacks and civility, and that breaches of them can result in blocks. If you have an issue with another editor, it is better to discuss rather than continue to agitate. As you have not responded to my previous message, I am left to assume you have no interest in building a consensus and will therefore act accordingly regarding the consensus achieved on the talk page. Steve block Talk 12:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the hidden comment too, and while the correct position is probably to ignore it, I have to assume good faith, and therefore infer that a self-righteous declaration of that nature must come from a strong belief in a correct action. Unfortunately, you cannot have looked too deeply into the context, if you think there is no error in assimilating your style preference (re: other authors José Saramago, Orhan Pamuk that use the MoS of the Template:Infobox Writer). Will Eisner on the other hand uses the Template:Infobox Comics creator which has nearly 700 cases of right allignment flag, and renders a statement like "What the hell is the matter with you?" pretty deficient. Please don't be so quick to judge that you know the whole context and try to stay calm in the future. MURGH ^disc. 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Weapons of Mass Deception (documentary), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{ hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Weapons of Mass Deception (documentary) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not write the article first, with independent verifiable references to show that it meets the notability guidelines? That will ensure that it doesn't get deleted a third time for lack of content. Jimfbleak ( talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You added Italian lira and South African rand to Category:Bimetallic coins in late October 2007. I'm wondering if you intend to include all currencies with bimetallic coins to the category? A lot of currencies would qualify. See [3]. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the weblink about "Shakespeare and war" you put in the article about Robert Fisk seems to be a dead link. There are a lot of Fisk's articles under [4], but I don't know which is the right one! Could you check this out, please? Greetings, -- Meile ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but on Monday, the link did not work. Now, it works well! Greetings, -- Meile ( talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored La bohème - Jay ( talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam, I noticed that you added the category "Songs against racism and xenophobia" to the Strawbs album From the Witchwood - please see notes on that article's talk page. Best Witchwooder ( talk) 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For quietly improving the encyclopedia in subtle and significant ways. Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your interest in improving this article is appreciated. Please, though, when reverting an edit with which you disagree, please don't introduce errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Also, with regards to British vs American usage, your opinion is noted, but please be consistent. Generally, the nationality of a film drives usage for an article (US in this case), but original presentation is also considered. Here, however, I looked at which spellings and terms were in greater number and saw American prevailed. When you edited, why didn't you make changes to the whole article to standardise on British? Your revert reintroduced the inconsistencies in usage. Also, consider WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when communicating with other editors. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Your comment to another editor about insanity was disconcerting.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,Varlaam! I would like to ask you not to add to the Template:Infobox Film in articles imdb_id number. [5] For this use {{imdb title]} in the "External links" section. See Template:Infobox Film for more information. Cheers! -- 85.141.123.138 ( talk) 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw that there was a red link for it in the filmography of one of the Barrymore siblings, so I created the page.Of course, I searched wikipedia first to see if it existed under another name. -- Robors ( talk) 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The joke you keep adding to smallpox is trivia and IMO not relevant to smallpox or it's use in biological warfare. (What "notion"). Please do not reinsert this material before discussing it on the talk page.

The notion was current in the 1930s, appearing as a joke in the 1933 film Design for Living. (Screenplay by Ben Hecht from the play by Noël Coward: Drunken Fredric March: "May I refer you to a letter sent to you from London ... ? ... I could have enclosed some smallpox germs easily." Drunken Gary Cooper: "But you didn't." ... [toasting] "To smallpox germs." Drunken Fredric March: [responding] "In Latin, variola caca." This retort incorporates a Latin obscenity.)

-- DO11.10 ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've undone your changes to the Terrorism template. While it may not be "patently obvious" that terrorism is being used in the "post-1960" sense of the word, the fact that the other 100 entries on the template all fit that time period suggest that the Fenian War is likely a..."controversial" addition to a list of Canadian terrorists. That said, Atilla Altıkat is perhaps more legitimate, but is a victim of terrorism, not a terrorist. Do you happen to know the name of his killer who lived in Canada? He could certainly be added to the list. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 05:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When am I changing nationalities? I do remove flags when I encounter them per wp:mosicon and wp:mosfilm, but changing them...? Garion96 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I fixed these two articles now with the correct links. It does not really seem needed but I guess it is more accurate. Garion96 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To put it simple, flags are strongly discouraged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). For instance this edit of yours goed against the manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Varlaam, somebody's vandalizing this page. Can you do something about it? PraeceptorIP ( talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are a little over excited here. I moves a chunk of comment to the talk page and changed USA to US. This hardly constitutes "blowing away" the article. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Canniba loki 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Christina Aguilera. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Christina Aguilera. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Christina Aguilera, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't give two sh*ts. I am not a fan. You guys are. They don't play her songs on the classical station between the Shostakovich and the Mahler. Therefore your beautiful blonde heroine's nickname should be listed there already, without a non-fan having to do anything at all. Right? The accuracy of this page is your responsibility, not mine. It's your job to make the facts complete. Do your job, and don't try to pass it off on me. When my pages are inaccurate or incomplete, I fix them. I don't reject criticism automatically, or complain about it. Varlaam ( talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Read WP:BURDEN. That is Wikipedia policy. If you add the information again without a reliable source, or if you make another personal attack, you will be blocked from editing. And there is no such thing as "your pages" because you do not own any article on Wikipedia. Ward3001 ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Christina Aguilera, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ward3001 ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I accept it, though your comments for the original edit make your NPOV suspect. Regardless, you may want to edit this page then too. Best! Luminum ( talk) 07:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the message you left from the user's own userpage, to the user's talk page, where the message should have gone in the first place. Otherwise, not a single thing was changed. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't place a notice on my userpage that it was not a talk page, because I have not found it necessary (until now). I don't find it aesthetically pleasing, so I don't plan to add one; you might want to check what you're editing next time. Cheers, Pegship ( talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You should really consult the WikiProject Films people on lists of films. My personal method would be to create Category:Films based on military fiction or Category:Films based on non-fiction war books, but if you want the source and the film to appear on the same list, I would split it into List of films based on military fiction and List of films based on non-fiction books about war. There is a List of nonfiction works made into feature films and a List of fiction works made into feature films, which you're welcome to add to if you like; these are primarily lists of books or other printed media rather than focused on film. HTH, Pegship ( talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, explaining the puns is regarded as violating WP:POV. It is unnecessary to explain them, as well as violating WP:V. Because it this, the puns should not be explained on Wikipedia; however, you're welcome to edit the Veronica Mars wikia. With regards to the Pi, all internet sources list the episode as "Lord of the Pi's". The π used on the DVD is probably just used to stylize the title of the episode. However, I'll look further into this and see what I can come up with. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the kind words, I was surprised to find the list as some wars, like WWII would be pretty giant in size.

As for my opinion on including the sea fight in Ben-Hur (I prefer the silent one way more than the sound one), that may not be such a good idea. I haven't read General Wallace's book so have no information to an actual historical event. Also the sequence is fairly small in the main plot of things, like including a brief war sequence in a book whose primary narrative that has little to do with the war itself. Foofbun ( talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Lovely to hear from you, and I was fascinated by your knowledge of the book of 'Ben Hur' that I've never read. Particulary interesting was your remark on Uncle Ben using the scythes on the wheels. I was under the impression that MGM decided to tart their film up with some James Bond gimmicks and stunts to outdo the old silent film, but there's where they found the idea!

Still, I'd be careful on how much you'd include, as you say, two peasants in a field discussing a war, or a brief interlude where the hero is away from the female by being in some war that the particular book doesn't cover lest you attract wrath and ridicule for a fine piece of work.

I'm in Sydney, and on 6 June I eschewed my usual home screening of 'The Longest Day' (my fave war film of all time) or 'D-Day, the Sixth of June' (the female of the species seems to prefer it) to attend our Sydney Film Festival where Stuart Cooper screened his 'Overlord' that was quite a good film. (my first time seeing it). I'm afraid I embarassed him during question time...I had asked him why he thought that the WWII film was quite a major part of the British film industry up to the early 60's, then the only British war films were made by American producers with Ami stars (Oakmount Productions of Mirisch). He gave me a shrug of his shoulders and admitted he didn't know. He talked about the Ami studios having a major presence in the UK until the early '70's when tax laws changed and they fled (like the Ami producers and stars in Italy) He mentioned 'when I was an actor'...the light bulb went on over my head, he must've seen my expression and stopped talking and looked at me. I blurted out 'Are you the same Stuart Cooper who was in "The Dirty Dozen"?' I thought he'd say 'what kind of moron are you?' but he stopped like a 'roo caught in the spotlight and said 'You found out my guilty secret, yes that was me. Did someone send you here to annoy me?' (audience laughter, I also embarassed myself in front of Ray Harryhausen). Later he talked about the only US Screening of the film on a Channel Z through his friend 'John Cassavetes (points at me) who I knew from "The Dirty Dozen"' I also asked him some bizarre question about the film I wondered about afterwards Foofbun ( talk) 01:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • The galahs I see are the people I work with (hang upside down after thinking too hard). Well you certainly were in the right part of Sydney, I'm in that area too. (the big K you mentioned and work in the CBD)

I haven't been to Toronto for some time, the wife's Auntie used to live in Scarborough, now live somewhere near Kingston or near the Detroit airport. They were just here awhile ago. I had a splendid day exploring Toronto on my own when the Mrs wanted to go up the CN tower and I had a personal tour of the Queen's Rangers museum and visited the St. James Bond Uniting Church (was disappointed there were no statues of Sean Connery and George Lazenby). My father in law was trained in Empire Air Scheme at Ottawa during the War. Your Ted Kotcheff is here and will be introducing the screening of the restored 'Wake in Fright' at tomorrow's Sydney Film Festival at the Great State. Your hot dogs are better than ours though. I went off the lager (except for summer shandies) after coming back from the UK. I don't know why they call VB 'Bitter'. When they see me coming at the Lord Dudley they know to put the bottle of Old Speckled Hen in the microwave for me as they don't have any at room temperature. I don't recall a Cooper's Stout, just their great ale, and if you made it to Down Under Down Under (Tasmania) they cheesed me off by ceasing production of Cascade Stout that was better than Guinness. Toohey's Old is still made that accompanies a steak well, but again they serve it at the wrong temperature. Btw, I know you mean no offence, but please don't use the 'm' word; 'mateship' is Strine for 'loyalty to your dubious acquaintances and their illegal activities over loyalty to the law' Cheerio! Foofbun ( talk) 06:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We should not take ownership of articles. That is an extremely bad thing to do. We're a collaborative encyclopedia, not one where we own the articles themselves. As for your specific points, articles should be not linked to disambiguation pages. The guideline is here. So if you do not think that story should point to short story, that is fine but then it should maybe go to narrative or to another fairly generic non-disam page. If you feel that the edit I made is incorrect, then change it back. Yes you did ask me about search and replace but honestly, I wasn't sure what you were getting at or asking for. My main point though is that please be careful about telling users what they can't or shouldn't do on an article. You do not own those pages nor do I own any pages. If you disagree with something I've done, that's fine and I totally respect that. I'm hardly perfect (as my talk page attests to). But we work on the encyclopedia together not as owners of articles. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Varlaam. I noticed that you added flag icons for the country listing in A Victim of the Mormons and Ilya Muromets (film). However, there was a discussion about these last year at WP:MOSFLAG and so these aren't used in Film infoboxes anymore (see Template:Infobox Film#Parameters). I reverted them. I just wanted to let you know. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues that keep coming up with you. One is the ownership of articles as I noted above. And then also above you were warned several times about personal attacks. Well you are still doing it. Anon users have just as much right to edit as logged in users do. It's certainly not a reason to question someone's education. And I have issues with signing things as "The Editor". It suggests that you have some special status on the List of films based on war books articles. You don't. Users do not have special status on any article just because they contribute to it. Please sign your talk page contributions just like any other user. The thing with OWN and CIVIL is that they are policies and not a guideline. So if you continue to show signs of ownership or continue to attack other users, you are going to be blocked. The thing is that you are not a new user so you should really know better. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a missprint. In fact the Italian wikipedia article [6] is spelled Salvadore. It would appear that Salvatore is the anglicanized version of Salvadore. Singingdaisies ( talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the length of my edit history or yours has to do with this discussion. This is a collaborative encyclopedia and editors new and old come with different skill sets, education backgrounds, etc. that can be valuable. I was merely correcting something that I percieved as being in error. Let's please not get into a heated debate and stick to discussing the facts.

The New Grove Dictionary of Opera has the listing as such: Cammarano, Salvadore [Salvatore] The [ ] indicate that it is the less accurate spelling of the name (most likely an anglicanized spelling), but not incorrect. I was merely changing the article to allign with Grove. I'm not an expert on this issue, but Grove is usually extremely accurate when it comes to these kinds of things. Plus I assume Italians know their own culture/language best and I trust the Italian wikipedians. I'm not going to kick up a fuss though if people want to change it back. I just thought it odd that the English wikipedia used a different spelling than the Italian wikipedia for an article about an Italian. That is why I investigated Grove. Grove seems to justify the Italian wikipedia spelling. I am going to go ahead and post a comment on that article's talk page and see what other editors think. All the best. Singingdaisies ( talk) 01:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you are not willing to communicate in a civil/friendly way. That is a waist of my time and I am no longer going to continue this conversation. Singingdaisies ( talk) 01:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned multiple times about violating ownership of articles and civility guidelines. And yet you continue to violate both. Here is a violation of OWN and here and here for CIVIL. None of the articles on this site are "your" articles. Also, being new or an IP isn't a reason to attack someone. Blocks are meant to be instructive not punitive and this is not an exception. That's why it's only for 24 hours. When you come back, please remember that this is a collaborative encyclopedia and that nobody owns anything here. Everyone has the right to edit any article no matter how new they are or how much they know about the article itself. As I said above, if you were a new user yourself, I could excuse such behavior but you are not. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This was originally 24 but I shortened it to 12 because this is not punitive. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Woohookitty.

I am not clear about OWN.

There are numerous medical articles in Wikipedia, as you are aware. If a doctor, or medical student, creates such a page, and populates it with data, is he not likely to feel a sense of guardianship? If his page contains dosage levels for pharmaceuticals, and those are vandalized by teenagers, and he chooses to keep an eye on that page, is that considered to be a bad thing? Teenagers are the equivalent of doctors?

If a person conceives of a page, creates that page, provides 100% of the data on that page, and updates it daily, what is the correct way for him to refer to the page in question, if there is some objection to the use of a personal pronoun?

At present, there are 11 pages in Wikipedia where I provided 80 - 100% of the data, and which are in active development. How do you recommend I refer to them?

My "attack" which you cite above is not anything of the kind. That's an IP who hasn't figured out about the history log yet, and he is not making his correction to the page in the appropriate way. You have apparently, mistakenly, misconstrued my use of "well-educated" as an attack. It's not sarcasm. He is well-educated. He's the only person to notice a factual error on the page. Unfortunately it's a newbie who noticed the error, not a user who understands to check the history log. I am frustrated in trying to communicate with him since I appreciate having a knowledgeable collaborator to make contributions to the page.

I like collaboration. I like the fact that he has something to contribute. Maybe this makes me different from the self-appointed guardians of other pages elsewhere in Wikipedia. Like the page where you open it to edit, and inside it reads, "Any change you make to this page will be automatically deleted. So don't even think about it." But maybe that page has a long history of problems. That fellow didn't delete my updates to the page.

Questioningly, Varlaam

To answer your question about OWN, the answer is that there is no ownership on the site at all. I can understand feeling a sense of pride in editing pages close to your own likes. But we should never, ever use the phrase "my page". Why? Because it makes it sound like you have a ownership stake somehow and that you are more qualified than others to edit pages or that others don't have the right to edit pages. It's against the whole collaboration concept. You asked which pronoun to use. I would recommend simply saying "the page". The reason why we discourage ownership is that it tends to lead to feeling more qualified or better than anyone else on topics and that often spirals into incivility and a general lack of collaboration. Are some Wikipedia users experts in certain areas? Certainly. But that doesn't mean that non-knowledgable people cannot edit articles.

The "well educated comment" can be construed to mean what you say but only if the other 2 links I cited didn't exist. You didn't answer what I said about your treatment of new users and IPs, especially a link such as this. It kind of goes with the ownership issue. Not only is that edit and this edit uncivil (swearing is never a good idea here. Ever) but they make it sound like you are somehow more qualified than others in making edits to pages. The thing is, we're all equal. As I tell many people, I've made thousands of edits to pages I have no specific knowledge of. That's really the whole basis of Wikipedia.

So I would recommend not using "my" and not to be uncivil or say things such as "I have X edits. How many do you have?". There is no reason to do either. I understand pride but with you it seems to cross the line into acting supreme to others on certain things. I'm glad you want to give your knowledge of these topics to Wikipedia. But you need to relax a bit on people editing articles that you have pride in. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As you are aware already by this comment, please don't add flag icons to film infoboxes. For example this edit. Garion96 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Love the edit summary :) — Deon555 ^talk_{I'm BACK!} 07:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Varlaam. Putting our disagreement on Pitt aside, you appear to have severe ownership issues on wikipeida. Becuase you have added loads of new films to the list, it does not mean that you are in anyway the editor. You have deleted a massive chunk of text - the 21st century section - for no reason. On top of which you have filled the pages with your own personal observations and commentary and you continue to use the term "the editor" despite the fact that you have been told by others that it is inapropriate. You seem to go out of your way to be needlessly rude to people and looking at your talk page this is not the first time. It's stuff like this that discourages me from joinimg wikipedia. 86.157.89.44 ( talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

1. Always glad to help with Russian film titles, please feel free to ask anytime.
2. No, I'm not going by war film list:)
3. I agree, Retribution should be Retribution (1967 film). Novel by Simonov, that film is based upon, is called Retribution for sure, so it's a good reason to use Retribution for film title as well, no? The problem with Soldiers Aren't Born is that it's not clear wher this title comes from. Was it US screen title? Cheers, Henry Merrivale ( talk) 09:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of films based on westerns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Persian Warrior---- Contact Me! 04:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Persian Warrior---- Contact Me! 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Persian Warrior---- Contact Me! 04:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason people come across pages you have edited and change links to disambiguation pages is because of a Wikipedia project, Wikpedia:Disambiguation pages with links. While, yes, people would probably be aware of, say, what a "Play" is, it just means that people who are indeed interested in going to that page have only one link to click, instead of having to look through the disambiguation page to find the right page. Puceron ( talk) 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was lazy myself. It's now Original+tranlit+Cyr. Henry Merrivale ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that when adding content to an article, the burden of providing referencing falls upon the person who adds it. It is never appropriate to add content that potentially, or in fact, violates WP:BLP and stick in a "citation needed" template regarding it, as you did here and here. Further, I'm in no way convinced such an addition is relevant or encyclopedic, even if it were cited to a reliable secondary source. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

...and pardon the bad grammar I just noticed! -- Ejosse1 ( talk) 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been a long time since my last Latin class, so thanks for the change to "magnum opus. However, lingering in the back of my mind is that Latin adjectives follow the noun. Should it not be "opus magnum" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siciliano99 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Skittleys ( talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you give me the sources for this move [7]? Your title appears minoritarian in scientific literature. -- Cusio ( talk) 12:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

V--Sorry I couldn't get to answer your message before. You are correct that some adjectives don't follow the noun, yet most do. This is carried out even today...eg...in Italian "la signora povera" has a differt meaning than "la povera signora". The latter expresses pity more than poverty. But my Latin goes farther back than yours..to the first Nixon administration! So, I'll defer to you on this one unless I pick up a Latin book somewhere. Siciliano99 ( talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Siciliano99

Have you seen this movie or you've done your edits because you're native speaker of English and know some words in Polish? Thank you in advance for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.24.233 ( talk) 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Varlaam! Please kindly answer directly whether you've seen the movie or not. Please kindly do not redirect discussion into the subject of IP addresses and registered accounts. I understand your superior command of English, but this isn't the point here. The point is Have you seen the movie?. Thank you very much again. 70.183.24.233 ( talk) 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to add any other movies based on that book to the list, because I have no idea what those movies would be or if they exist. It seems more logical to me to list it as "often-filmed" (or whatever the phrase was) at the same time that you add the information that shows it has been often-filmed. But it's really not my concern, as I doubt I'll ever have occasion to view the page again (not having any personal interest in war books or films myself). Propaniac ( talk) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I'm not going to add the movies to the list because I don't care. Your telling me how easy it would be to do just makes me wonder why you don't simply do it yourself, since it would probably have taken less time than leaving these messages on my Talk page. I came across the link while working on the Pathfinder disambiguation page, thought I might as well correct it, and while I was doing so I'd point out this small thing that didn't seem to make sense to an uninvolved viewer of the list, that might have been overlooked by the people who had obviously put a lot of time into it. When I said "I'll leave that for others to consider," I meant it -- you have apparently considered it and decided to leave it as-is, which is perfectly fine with me. I was only attempting to be helpful. Propaniac ( talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I did not want to be rude, and I don't think I was particularly rude, especially when you look at the entire sentence I wrote, let alone our entire interaction, instead of quoting seven words totally out of context. But if you want to think I'm rude, instead of someone who simply attempted to leave a constructive remark on a project that she is not herself engaged in, and as a result found herself embroiled in a discussion she never sought, then okay. Go ahead and think I'm rude. I do not wish to continue this conversation nor do I see the benefit in doing so. Propaniac ( talk) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Look it.

You asked a dumb question; I gave you a nice, friendly, courteous answer.

You didn't know how to do something; I told you how.

And you continue to harass me.

So go fly a kite, eh.

Varlaam ( talk)

Hi, I've reverted your 'humourous' characterisation of Lady Sovereign

her chav culture

. I'm notifying you as you are evidently an experienced editor, so I feel your feedback would be particularly worthwhile. My reasoning is this - chav is more a term of abuse than an accurate description of a style; your characterisation of LS as a chav was inserted into a description of her mode of dress, not in itself enough of an indicator; in any case, her mode of dress is more aligned to a particular style of US urban dress (perhaps wigger) than to generalised chav style. If you feel really strongly about her representing for the chavs, have you any refs or citations to back up your opinion?

Overall, I reverted it because it's not NPOV. Grammatically, the statement 'noted for her chav culture' also has questionable meaning: what exactly does this mean? Centrepull ( talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your measured and helpful response. I think the 'chav' page itself has multiple issues, but I note the citations you indicated on the page. After some consideration, I think that while Lady Sovereign might well be considered a chav, the problem remains that the term itself is not NPOV, it's a term of abuse. Also you haven't addressed the issue of the description 'chav' covering culture and behaviour, while the paragraph is covering aspects of her notability including her noticeable small size and dress style, rather more limited. The sentence also doesn't make sense as it stands - her dress style in and of itself does not 'evidence her chav culture'. When you contend in your reply on my page that her choice in dress was notsome sort of personal statement, I disagree, and you seem to disagree yourself later when you point out in the third paragraph: 'The clothing style/culture, to my recollection, mattered as much as her music, and she was all about how her clothing defined people's impressions of her...'

I did revert the 'chav' reference, but it appears something went wrong - I can't see my reversion even in the article history. I've removed the phrase now, I didn't revert because of Koavf's date edits.

Not sure about the final part of your reply: 'So, as far as citations go, your article is higher profile than the ones I edit. In mine...' It is certainly true that WKP articles that are biographies of living persons have particularly stringent rules (i.e. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.), but the article is not 'mine', nor are other articles 'yours'. Nobody owns WKP articles, so neither of us can expect our own set policies to apply to any particular article.

If you still don't agree with my deleting the phrase 'chav', let's look around and try and find a consensus from a larger group than just the two of us. Centrepull ( talk) 11:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

– Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

– Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Unreferenced statements shouldn't be there in the first place, 2 months grace is hardly short, and the majority of what I just culled has had 6 months to 2 years. If you've got references, reintroduce it. The article is never going to improve if it doesn't comply with WP:V. I put some of the tags on, after trying to find references myself. Hohum ( talk) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The approach is one of wikipedias core policies, disagreeing with it doesn't make it go away. Here it is in a nutshell:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Wikipedia is particularly strict about contentious information in biography pages, read WP:BLP.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

If you think what was already there was true, find a verifiable source. I've looked, and I couldn't find one.

If you think that this makes wikipedia seem ridiculous, then I don't think you've considered how poor alternative methods which rely on editors saying "they know" something is a fact, but can't prove it. That would truly make wikipedia a laughing stock. Hohum ( talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but in some cases it is maxim guns. On that particular page, I misread the page I was making the correction to. It happens. For the future, I would suggest giving the actual page that you revert the user on. I edit several hundred pages a day, so without any kind of direction, I can't really correct the mistake for next time. In this case, I found it through your edits but I shouldn't have to do that. By the way, I don't appreciate referring to my edit as a "correction" in the edit summary. I've warned you (and blocked you) about lack of civility before. Just make the revert. It doesn't require commentary or sarcasm. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently up for deletion, you contributed to this article. Ikip ( talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Like 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' the more I tried to fix the entry the worse it looked, had to leave it like that to not upset the looks of the article. Thanks for your stewardry of an interesting item. It certainly must be difficult when you have ficitional war films (i.e. Dino De Laurentis' 'Anzio') based on factual books. Foofbun ( talk) 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • A noble goal, sir! No, I've never even HEARD of the film. Feature films showing at the cinema have fairly weird and unreliable exhibition. Usually they come in packs in 'film festivals'; I was hoping to see the new OSS 117 film as it was playing in Christchurch, (as part of a French festival naturellement) but it never came here Foofbun ( talk) 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Varlaam you forgot to add Argentina and Chile that originally they were added but a special user was not agree that Argentina wasn't added because its less rank, the user was even blocked but after days, now Chile was also removed by that user. In the beginning all latin countries were added with all their references. You can see it on the historial of the page. Also the same user did the same with the article in Spanish but now I restored. -- 187.146.40.128 ( talk) 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I undid your change of his/him to they/their Si Trew ( talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? --- kilbad ( talk) 14:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

See your point. Relocated it to a section of its own in between events so that its in its correct temporal spacing. Hope its okay now. AshLin ( talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have been going to great trouble to alter a page which already had an organizational scheme in place.

All of the pages are organized chronologically by war (with the exception of the peace page which I organized by armed service and special mission). There is no war in Ben-Hur. Judah Ben-Hur receives the message from the Prince of Peace that war is bad, and stops the anti-Roman war that he had been organizing with his vast fortune.

So there is no war in Ben-Hur.

In lieu of a separate piracy page — an idea that no one liked — I decided to treat piracy as a form of limited war in order to keep it on the main pages. That is why you found Ben-Hur in the Piracy section. I would prefer to have the Ben-Hur sea battle as an engagement in an historical war, but which war would that be precisely? The US vs. the Barbary Coast pirates is a state-to-state conflict, so it is classified as a war and has a name, and it is consequently treated like any other war.

There are supposed to be Piracy sections in the 16th and 17th centuries as well, but I haven't had time to write them, and the issue of how to deal with privateering hadn't been resolved. There is also a Jules Verne novel about 19th century pirates which became a movie. Too much to do, and too few collaborators to make additions to the page.

If you would like to reorganize a page, the appropriate place to begin is on the Talk page with a paragraph outlining your proposal.

Please restore that block to Piracy where it already has a home, imperfect as it may be. Thank you.

If you want to collaborate on the page, I have some ideas.

Varlaam ( talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted as requested. AshLin ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Offer still holds if you need another side project.

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally did that a while ago (I just wanted it to say that on my page, not the whole userbox), and I forgot to undo it for some reason. Thanks for fixing it - sorry 'bout that... Doc9871 ( talk) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that certain groups actually refer to the guy as "Umar Farouk the Nigerian guy" while people don't say "Keanu the Hollywood actor guy" - I remember reading somewhere that, in jihadi circles, it's common for people to adopt "the X nationality guy" as suffixes or something. I forget where I read it. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm aware that Umar and Omar are the same thing - I spelled it the way the LA Times source spelled it. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Was your edit intended under WP:ENGVAR? WP:ENGVAR does not apply to image file names. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Varlaam/Archive 1! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed thta, but why you're editing Cher articles? Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Varlaam from UuvT, The link didn't seem to fit because there was no mention of the Sabre dance incident in the article. So, I thought I would include mention of the incident by tweaking the production section and including the link in the body. I think it works okay that way. Yes, I have seen the film several times, have the DVD, and can vouch for the scene's veracity. I also have the book (the film is better). If you haven't seen the footage, go here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-11_F_100.WMV. For a lot more info, go here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/the_sabre_dance.htm. I should probably include these links to the Sabre Dance article. I should also probably add a cite to my edit as well. Nope, haven't been involved with the IMDb.  BC  _{talk to me} 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interested maybe, but certainly not an expert. I first saw the film in the late '50s (I'm dating myself here) and liked it because it was a war adventure, and the story involved the same jets that flew from the NATO base I lived at in Europe. The film wasn't shown much on TV. If you like war stories and aviation, I think you'll like it. I clearly remember the Sabre dance scene (it freaked me out) from the first time I saw the film, and it didn't occur to me then that the jet was an F-100 rather than an F-86.  BC  _{talk to me} 02:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Late '50's. So we are talking classic RCAF here. I don't even know what we were flying then. Starfighters are a decade later, correct? NATO base. You mean Lahr, or did we have another?

Yes, classic RCAF. The RCAF had several bases in Europe (see here) during the Cold War. France and Germany. We were stationed here. Sabres and CF-100s, and later, Starfighters, were flown from the base. Lahr came on stream after most other NATO bases were closed.  BC  _{talk to me} 04:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Been to Metz (1983). Didn't know all that though.

I did a report on the Starfighter for school. Grade 3? Early enough anyway that the coolest part of the report was my drawing of a Starfighter in pencil!

We would have been bewailing the loss of the Arrow in those days. (Used to work with a guy who'd worked on the Arrow.) And the Bonaventure too, I think, eh? If memory serves.

Varlaam ( talk) 06:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The one thing I seem to remember from Metz is a memorial plaque for Jean Moulin in the train station.

Could you please add a source for this? [8] Also, the "in fact..." comes across a bit POV and/or WP:OR... Cirt ( talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an unsourced addition to the article. Cirt ( talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a cite. All is well. :) No worries, Cirt ( talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of films based on arts books requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen ^talk/ _contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page List of films based on arts books worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. iBen ^talk/ _contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as List of films based on arts books. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. iBen ^talk/ _contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

iBen ^talk/ _contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't declared as such but as it's some three years or more since that data was entered, I can't remember the thought processes that led to it. Publication history wouldn't be a bad place for it but then I'm sure someone would come along and object to that as the price wouldn't appear alongside each interation of the book. Such is life on wikipedia.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a new policy; it's been part of the MoS for some time, See WP:LINK#What generally should not be linked. Colonies Chris ( talk) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a bit of a battle over introducing it, but it's been in place for about a year now. Colonies Chris ( talk) 00:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no definitive list of countries considered to be well-known enough that links to them have little value. It's a somewhat subjective judgment; my feeling is that most English-speaking and European countries for example, (and many others), will at least be familiar enough to the average reader of the English Wikipedia that they won't be thinking "where's that? - never heard of it". I see what you mean about linked countries standing out from the rest, but that's not what linking is for - when linking, the question that needs to be asked is whether any reader is likely to click on that link. It seems far more likely that a reader would click on the link to the film - after all, that's why they've come to thia list - or if there is no article on that specific film, perhaps a general film/country link such as Cinema of Nigeria could be provided?

I also have my doubts about the value of the year links: [[xxxx in film|xxxx]]. Firstly, they're Easter eggs, so the reader wouldn't know that they lead to a film-specific article, and secondly they're available from the film's own article and thirdly it doesn't seem very likely to me that a reader of this list would particularly want to know what else was happening in the film world in a year related to a film, without actually choosing to view the article for that film.

There's a longstanding rule on disambiguation pages, that there should be only one link per line. In my opinion, most lists would be better off sticking to the same pattern - they're always a list of something, and it's that 'something' that should be linked. All the rest is ancilliary or identifying information, readily available elsewhere, that would be better not linked, so that the focus is purely on the links for which the article has been created. Colonies Chris ( talk) 10:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points. I did not conceive of this format; I inherited it. As I understand it, these pages began as a project of the Novels group 4 years ago.

I stumbled on War Books by accident 1 year ago when the page was dormant. That page happened to be a good fit for me. Formerly all of world history fit into 30K. Now the Napoleonic Wars alone are probably that size.

I happen to be a former IMDb researcher type. I was their historical documentary guy. So if you want to know who is standing on the grass in the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination, and you go to the IMDb, that's my "cast list". If you want to know the 2nd and 3rd string Nazis in Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, again that's me telling you which scene every one appears in, standing behind which other, slightly more familiar, strutting jackass. I created the IMDb pages for Lenin, Stalin, Gandhi, plus most kings, popes, prime ministers, presidents, civil rights leaders, UN Secretaries-General.

So I have pretty strong opinions on the film and historical sides.

On the formatting side, I'm starting with what I was given. The original format had [[USA]], [[1960]], and my personal favourite, [[Novel]]. And the pages originally had a ton of contributors adding 2 or 3 films each. Probably all Novels people.

So a lot of people had signed off on the format before I ever appeared on the scene.

I zapped all occurrences of [[USA]], [[1960]], and [[Novel]]. Film year originally had the [[1960 in film|1960]] style — double entry on every single table row! — so I retro'ed in the template.

So, from my own purely subjective perspective, the table format is pretty lean right now compared to the consensus-of-the-Novels-group format.

From a film point of view, France and Germany are major producers which appear often. They could be considered gratuitous. Mexico, outside of the Mexican Revolution, is rare. Spain, outside of the Spanish Civil War, is rare. Eliminating those two in the context of their respective civil wars is reasonable.

But Spain has made 2 War in Bosnia films. You're thinking, "Spain? Seriously?" Mexico has its Japanese-Mexican Air War film, which, before the advent of WP, was probably the most obscure World War II film. (I knew about that film before WP only because a friend's uncle fought in that engagement for the Fuerza Aerea Mexicana.)

A lookup on Spain in the context of Bosnia seems harmless and minor to me. Overhead that's inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

WP is full of absurd lookups. In an English-speaking encyclopedia, you've got [[English language|English]] everywhere.

I agree with pruning in general. But I think I have a good feel for what is reasonable in the specific context of my film histories.

Varlaam ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (in Toronto)

I saw you raised this matter on Colonies Chris's page. Well done for supporting the logic behind restraining editors' urge to link everything in sight. You may be interested in these pages:

• User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills
• User:Tony1/Silliest_wikilink_of_the_month_award. Tony (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But frankly, I was a little surprised to see that Chris's page is some sort of forum for this issue. Is that the case? Colonies Chris is not one of the standard users who updates and retrofits my pages on a recurring basis.

Varlaam ( talk) 14:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

MLauba ( talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a page move. Normandy Campaign is still there and its not a redirect to Operation Overlord or anything else. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I realize you are not an amateur war historian.

I had this (1): [[Normandy Campaign|Battle of Normandy]]

which got changed to this (2): [[Operation Overlord|Battle of Normandy]]

2 is not the equivalent of 1.

2 is the 1st day of 1.

Our fundamental problem here is that somebody has labelled Normandy Campaign

a disam page, and so you were acting to resolve the perceived disam issue.

But Normandy Campaign is just fine as a termination point,

so I propose to clear up this problem by removing the disam marker

from the Normandy Campaign page.

How does that sound?

Varlaam ( talk) 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)'

Well no because it IS a disam page. I'd recommend starting a discussion on the Normandy Campaign talk page. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please add a note to yourself on that page that that disam is one not to be acted upon. There must be some other class of disam marker. I've already reverted my page to terminate at that page as it should. Thanks. Varlaam ( talk) 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is exactly the same as the introductory page to List of films based on war books.

If someone wants to point at War Books as a entire group, then that doesn't need to be "fixed" by changing the link to point to the Peloponnesian War specifically. Same thing here. There is no disam to resolve. So that page should be marked in whatever way pages get marked in cases such as this.

Varlaam ( talk) 13:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're out of line on your recent edits to my talk page. You've been badgering, aggressive, and inappropriate. Your edit history suggests that you should know better. Cynof Gavuf 08:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is rather difficult for me to respond when you do not provide the smallest hint of the matter under discussion.

You apparently dislike my talk history.

Well, unlike some other Wikipedians, I do not conceal my varied "transgressions", predominantly misunderstandings on the part of others, inside an archiving system. My full history is there, plain as day.

Varlaam ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess when you've badgered hundreds inappropriately, it is hard to keep track of them all.

Who are you again?

As I have already indicated, you should probably reread whatever it was in the collaborative spirit in which it was no doubt intended, whether you chose to take it that way or not.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the first person in the some three years since I did so much work on the Christie pages who seems to have an issue with this. Please go ahead and change the pages if you want to do so but at least have the staying power to change ALL the pages and not amend one and say "job done" as so many before you have done.-- Jtomlin1uk ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But those pages are your turf. You wrote them. You are the author. (They really hate it when you say that.) You should have the most informed and circumspect opinion about how best to deal with them. Not so? I am merely a casual visitor over there.

I have my hands full now with the pages I have written, and the sundry self-centred individuals who launch their ill-informed attacks on them.

Varlaam ( talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see whether any of the stewards could help. They deal with cross wiki issues. Durova ⁴¹² 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank God. A helpful response at last.

Thanks a lot, Varlaam ( talk) 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any great interest in Welsh WP.

But I changed the language of the film from "Welsh" to "Welsh, English" to match the IMDb page, and for that:

Blocked for 1 year.

Cheers.

Each project sets its own standards. The English Wikipedia really doesn't have any authority over the others. Durova ⁴¹² 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to do anything about your problem on another problem because there is nothing we can do, and even if we could we would have to discuss it there first. You are asking in completely the wrong place and if you can't find the right place there's no real reason why you should expect us to either. Now please drop the stick before someone blocks you here as well just to shut you up. As to Durova's suggestion, I'd be astounded if the stewards will do anything either. Every Wikipedia has its own community. Your description of your edits looks awfully like trolling, at least form the context of a Welsh language Wikipedia (the clue's in the name), in cases other than entirely unambiguous compromised accounts they are extremely unlikely to take any action based on the word of one blocked user. Stridently demanding that people most of whom don't even speak English properly (from my perspective as a speaker of the Queen's English as taught at a school that predates the founding of their country by over 700 years) help you with a problem on another project over which they have no jurisdiction and in a language few of them have ever encountered even on a road sign is just plain silly. Asking nicely might have worked but you didn't. You have been quite silly and now would be a good time to chill. Guy ( Help!) 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You really seem to be in the habit of making these broad generalizations, when you are entirely ignorant of the facts of the case.

Keep your comments to yourself until you have looked into the matter at hand.

Good Lord. I ask the experts for any assistance or guidance they can offer, and then I have you harassing me.

Why are you monitoring that noticeboard if you only intend to ignore any serious questions which are raised? Go read a book or something.

A sys admin punishes a user for correcting errors on a page — errors according to respected neutral external sources — then you characterize protesting about such unwarranted punishment as silly.

It's a good thing that we are going to have the ability to recall sys admin authority from silly people who misuse and abuse that responsibility.

Varlaam ( talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History doesn't use the 'List' assessment class, and the tag doesn't recognize that as a valid input. We grade lists the same as articles, progressing towards the status of 'Featured List' instead. While other projects use the list status, MilHist has avoided it so that we can rank lists in need of improvement in the same way as articles. Does that make sense? Cromdog ( talk) 16:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem therefore to imply a lot of activity which other groups deem unnecessary.

If they think labelling it "List. Period." is good enough, why do we need to differ from everybody else?

And those other groups have more warm bodies, don't they?

Varlaam ( talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the way MilHist handles their lists. I believe part of it is the large numbers of Orders of Battle, as well as the listings of equipment for wars, lists of battles, etc. There are a lot of lists associated with the project, and many of them consist of much more than a long list of links. While it may seem unnecessary, that treatment of lists like articles has led the project to several dozen Featured Lists, including all the different lists of Victoria Cross recipients. I don't know about warm bodies as I haven't worked with other projects as much as this one, but as someone who's been hanging around in MilHist for almost 3 years, our group is dedicated and a lot of the contributing editors have been around for awhile, and there are always new ones moving in. I think having the lists set up this way, instead of the 'List' assessment class, motivates people to treat them as capable of being more than a series of links, especially given the important nature of some of the lists. Cromdog ( talk) 16:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's cool.

I find the typical list page in WP to be rather inadequate, so I like to think I hold mine to some higher standard.

But, as far as I can ascertain, when the War Books page was started 4 years ago, the format was fresh. So the pages have their own look and feel.

Varlaam ( talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag read "17 February 2010 (UTC). If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." Just tidying up. -- Chuunen Baka ( talk) 16:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya.

But as I said, that's still a new page by my standards.

Is there an argument that lets you customize that phrasing?

I'm hoping that little construction worker logo will encourage somebody to pitch in.

Officially now the page is stable or something.

Varlaam ( talk) 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum. Is anything ever stable in WP? You can always put your maint tag back if you want. -- Chuunen Baka ( talk) 19:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I worked on it a little more, and restored the tag. Varlaam ( talk) 08:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam: was just passing through and noticed that your ToC is superimposed on your userboxes. It may be just my OS (Snow Leopard, Mac). When you adjust the window size, there's just one point at which they lie side by side; narrower and wider, and you get the superimposition. Cheers Tony (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If only I could spell. I've asked dabomb87 to look at this matter. Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind what I've done with the formatting. I notice that you do not have a userpage, and would suggest the you ejected the contents which are at the top there. I'll do it for you, just revert it if you don't like it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to arma virumque cano in accordance with:

[9] [10]

It's true that canto would seem more logical with current words, but it definitely is cano.

128.232.241.211 ( talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me why you insist on adding your own IMDb review as a source to List of films based on war books — 1927–1945? In what way is this a reliable source? -- Beloved Freak 03:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that you don't seem to want to discuss this. I've removed some of your original research and started a discussion at Talk:List of films based on war books — 1927–1945. It would be useful to have your input.-- Beloved Freak 10:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to go back to Talk:List of films based on war books — peace and contribute again as there are some concerns. -- Beloved Freak 03:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there is another discussion about these lists at WP:NORN#Vampire baseball, et al. -- Beloved Freak 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not quite sure that I have understood your request. What did you exactly mean by this message ? Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Varlaam, I have tried to discuss various issues with this article, and others, with you. Do you think we could give that another go instead of you just reverting everything and / or blanking the page?-- Beloved Freak 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source for Alice Eve. My concern, however, is that there's no way to know whether the information on that page is provided by Ms. Eve, or simply by some outside person who set up the page in her honor. Has she ever made any type of official statement that she controls the content of that Facebook page? - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your work reodering the Zarzuela composers. I love that music gender and this improvement was needed for long. Diego ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please be aware that you shouldn't italicize the titles of album pages, as you did to Camembert Electrique and other articles. This is against MOS:TTR#Italics and formatting and has also been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_32#Italicized_titles. – Ib Leo ^(talk) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

... and of literary titles, etc.

Last I saw among extensive discussions of this issue, there was no consensus that the template should be permitted in book, music, or other media articles. The majority of editors felt that it should not be implemented in those articles. But it looks like you've been busy putting it in more than 170 articles tonight. Do you know something I don't know about the discussion? Is there any reason your 170 edits shouldn't be rolled back? AtticusX ( talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you really need to stop doing this. Consensus is against it, and it says so specifically in the template documentations. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're ignoring these warnings. Please see this thread at ANI. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you to prevent you adding the italictitle template to many more pages, especially as you have been warned against it many times above. You may be unblocked when you acknowledge that you will not continue to do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you provided an edit summary which referred to an edit of mine as "vandalism". Please note that "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and that edit, which was to remove your improper addition of the "italictitle" template to the article, was not vandalism. You should also take a look at WP:ENGVAR for Wikipedia's policies on changing spelling from one variety of English to another. In American English, "caliber" is a correct spelling, and I have therefore reverted your change to "calibre". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your long experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page and download the file with the questions. This would take around 20 of your time. Thanks! Aresj ( talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold textWe recently have repaired the tomb stones of Seba Smith and Elizabeth Oakesmith in the Lakeview cemetery in Patchogue, NY. I would like to submit to you photos recently taken of the tombstones. Please, let me know if interested. Sincerely, Robert Garcia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelot986 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and you seemed a very humanitarian person to me so maybe you won't be mad at me and help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, bye! Capsot ( talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

After MUCH work to get your post back, I have replied to it here. Sorry for the accidential deletion of the post, the software does that sometimes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, please see my comment on the Cv Alkan discussion page - Best regards, -- Smerus ( talk) 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Joyeux Jour du Canada Foofbun ( talk) 23:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i just dont whand put up with the b.s on wikipedia i just try to do may beast thats all i evener done so plz do not hate me i try may beast. and your welocme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leer5454 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The change caught me off guard too, but WP:BLANKING allows users to delete comments from their talk pages—although it notes that archiving is preferred. In any case, the history of the user talk page is available (and when I go to warn a user and see a blank talk page, that's a sure sign to check the history). There are certain exceptions, such as {{ unblock reviewed}} templates, which state they may not be removed. I've left Leer5454 ( talk · contribs) a message advising him of this and also noting that the courteous and civil thing would be to leave your comment in place. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Hi Varlaam, good work on the article List of war films based on books (1898–1926). It seems though that the entries for Hedd Wyn has inadvertently reverted to showing the film's country as UK. The reliable sources noticeboard confirm references cited are more than adequate to note the entry as a Welsh film. There is no need for you to revert your edit as I will do it for you. Best, Daicaregos ( talk) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Varlaam, this edit summary was uncalled for. I have no idea whether "UK" or "Wales" is most appropriate here (though I fail to see what is "non genuine" about adding a reference to an article), but I do know that an editor has made several attempts to discuss this you, first on the article's talk page and latterly directly here. This is a collaborative project, and does occasionally require editors to work collaboratively. Dismissing other editors' good faith edits in the way you did here is not cool. TFOWR 19:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR 13:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now fixed the naming issues on George Pal, and elsewhere. See Talk:George Pal. Thanks for catching this error. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was checking out a recent edit of yours where you cleaned up the spacing in an article. Did you do that by hand or was that bot assisted? I'm amazed if you did it by hand. I wouldn't have the patients to go through the trouble. OlYeller ^Talktome 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you took out the categories listing Mendelssohn as a Jewish composer, etc. I think you were in error. Firstly, it seems accepted on WP that 'Jewish' does not only refer to those of Jewish religion, but to those of Jewish ethnicity. See WP article which defines Jews -as 'a nation and ethnoreligious group' . Mendelssohn was undoubtedly Jewish in this ethnic sense by both parents - see the article, but I can provide extensive family tree if you wish). He therefore legitimately 'belongs' to Jewish categories. Secondly, as the article makes clear, Mendelssohn was proud of his Jewish ancestry and never distanced himself from it. Thirdly he was recognised by his contemporaries as being of Jewish ethnicity and indeed attacked by some of them (e.g. Richard Wagner because of it. I was just going to revert your edit as a good faith error, but I thought it worth raising this with you first in the hope that you find the above satisfactory. I am posting this also on the FM discussion page. Best regards --- Smerus ( talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that my "personal opinion" is appreciated. Unfortunately, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OWN are not optional. I have started a discussion Talk:List of war films based on books (1775–1898) if you'd like to contribute, but a lot of cleanup work needs to be done on all of these film lists that you started.-- Beloved Freak 09:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Varlaam, I'm try to assume good faith, but your edit summaries make no sense. For example, Talk page. Find out what it is. Use it. Rule #1: Assume good faith. Am I dealing with a child?. I have commented at that talkpage, explaining my edit. You have not responded there. I have started discussions at several of the relevant talkpages. Not all, admittedly, but the issues are the same for all of these film list articles that you are editing. In case they are not on your watchlist, I added a note above this one. You have not responded. Primary discussions should take place on talkpages, not in edit summaries as you revert edits. Criticizing others for not using talkpages makes no sense. Secondly, you quote WP:AGF and then in the same breath ask if you're dealing wit a child? Does that make sense to you? " If you have a criticism, you put it on the Talk page. Am I the only one who knows this?" Again, I would love for you to participate properly in a discussion about these lists.

" This page's principal author is the authority on running this page, not two utter non-contributors whose personal opinions run counter to all of this page's readers." I'm afraid this is incorrect. You have been warned several times before about page ownership. Even if you consider them to be "your" articles, they still must comply with Wikipedia policy. These pages need to be cleaned up, and if you want to be involved and help out, then please discuss it. A page has been started to help cleanup: User:Nihonjoe/Films, and you are welcome to come and discuss these issues, including any that you disagree with at User talk:Nihonjoe/Films. Or, of course, here, or any of the relevant article talkpages although it might be a good idea to keep discussion in one place.

One last thing to bear in mind is with your reversions no, you are reintroducing unsourced and poorly sourced material as well as original research into the articles in question. Please stop doing that.-- Beloved Freak 09:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from List of war films based on books (post-1945). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Beloved Freak 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of war films based on books (1927–1945), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Beloved Freak 09:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of films based on crime books, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I know you're upset, but please do not blank pages while upset (or any other time, for that matter). We are here to work with you on improving these lists to meet the standards established by the Wikipedia community. This entails you being willing to work with us rather than working against us, and we hope you'll be willing to do the former. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine a less worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia than the haphazard WP:ERA edits you're been making and, having reviewed your recent history only very briefly—fearing I'd find you've been going about it with missionary zeal—I'd like to urge you to do something more valuable, like... just about anything.— Machine Elf 1735 ( talk) 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you have done some edits on the template above. Would you help on nominating a consensus if the template should stay or not. Thank you. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Varlaam, I just wanted to say that cleanup of the lists of war films based on books etc. has begun. I think it's going quite well, but your input as original author would be appreciated. I know we haven't really got off on the right foot, but if you'd like to join in discussion at Talk:List of war films based on books (1898–1926), for example, or User talk:Nihonjoe/Films, your thoughts would be welcome.-- Beloved Freak 09:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 4th Reich, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 4th Reich. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama 頭 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You ask "Why are a tiny handful of obscure European articles using the wrong system in the first place when the major European articles do not?" Please read what the policy is - WP:ERA. The relevant bit is "No preference is given to either style." Hence it is accepted that Wikipedia will remain inconsistent. Further any change in either direction requires consensus. Changes to the era style are always controversial and this should always be flagged up in the Edit summary. Dejvid ( talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 22:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd forgotten about this! Put it back to how it was, per WP:UE and WP:NCF. And avoiding all the horrible redirects. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand you may have a personal stake in an incident where Canadians were killed in a friendly fire accident. However, that has absolutely no bearing on editing in wikipedia, and I resent the fact that your seemingly innocent question regarding the valor device morphed into a rant about the Bush Administration and war. Please refrain from turning talk pages into forums for your opinions on unrelated or only tangentally-related events. I have deleted the section in question on those grounds. Rapier ( talk) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I suggest moving on as the policy about talk pages clearly states that a discussion of that nature has no place on an article talk page. - OberRanks ( talk) 12:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I think - if they're going to provide a source they will, in some way, and if they're not going to they're unlikely (in my experience) to be prompted by an empty header. I think there's a use to them when you're presenting someone with a pro-forma skeleton to start an article with - you're likely to get a prompting effect there - but I honestly doubt there's much effect for someone editing in passing.

Either way, we certainly don't need empty "see also" sections ;-) Shimgray | talk | 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't keep accusing me of making edits in bad faith. Beloved Freak 09:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my additions. There will be more to come. -- INeverCry ( talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for changing this without asking you. I just wanted to show a high res pic of Gorky the writer. Gorky the man obviously had some serious shortcomings. I also figured that his relationship with Stalin is already notorius. -- INeverCry ( talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple things to consider are:

1. The vast majority of Gorky's best ficton, including Mother and The Lower Depths, was written long before the appearance of Stalin.

2. I've read alot of things like this:

"Gorky played an important role in saving the lives of writers such as Victor Serge and Yevgeni Zamyatin when he successfully obtained permission from Stalin to let them leave the Soviet Union. In return, Gorky agreed to publicly support some of Stalin's policies."

"With the increase of Stalinist repression and especially after the assassination of Sergei Kirov in December 1934, Gorky was placed under unannounced house arrest in his Moscow house."

"The sudden death of his son Maxim Peshkov in May 1934 was followed by the death of Maxim Gorky himself in June 1936. Speculation has long surrounded the circumstances of his death."

I would hope that readers and potential readers would look into the whole thing and form their own opinions of Gorky.-- INeverCry ( talk) 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work on List of British words not widely used in the United States. I have, however, removed four of your recent additions that don't qualify for the list. Nick, grass, sponge, and revise are all words that are used by both, with differing meanings, so they instead belong in List of words having different meanings in British and American English. Three of them are already there; sponge could easily be added. Maedin\ ^talk 06:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please see Template:Infobox film on guidelines for filling the parameters. For the language field, the guidelines say, "Insert the language primarily used in the film." Instead of removing the secondary languages altogether, I added mention of them in the production section. If you can provide background for usage of these languages in the film, it would fit even better. Regards, Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You and INeverCry are doing a really nice work on this list, thank you! Hope you'll continue filling the list. Perhaps I'll also return to this task in future, but now I'm really busy offline. Anyway, my regards Greyhood ( talk) 09:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Go to the article, click "view history", then click "page view statistics" which is a couple lines down from the top. It looks like the page is averaging between 3000/4000 views a month in 2010. There were 4052 views in August.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://mosman-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/bashing-victim-makes-news/ Foofbun ( talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to your explanation of reverting Paint Your Wagon (film)‎. You state that it is nonsense that you had overlinked. Please read the guideline. Appropriate wikilinking is one of the more difficult concepts to grasp.

I can assure you that there is no reason for Paint Your Wagon to link to gold dust (because it's a common word), cabin (ditto), bull and bear fight (this one is arguable either way), NPR (should not be linked but spelled out and given international context instead), and Simpsons (because reading about the Simpsons will illuminate anything about Paint Your Wagon. Regards, — EncMstr ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about how to do the reference in this case? The story Adam and Eve is included (page 509) in The Portable Twentieth Century Russian Reader published by Penguin Classics 2003.-- INeverCry ( talk) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That an episode has the same title as some play is not proof that the episode has any link at all to that play. Providing such a link, without including a citation from a reliable source constitutes original research. In order to justify the inclusion of a title reference you need to include a citation proving that the episode was named with the play in mind. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 18:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As you should be aware, as the editor seeking to include the information the burden is on you to provide a verifiable link between the episode and your play. Edit-warring is not the way to do this. Having had it reverted, instead of bulldozing your edits into the article, you need to provide a citation or discuss it on the article's talk page. Please do not continue edit-warring. AussieLegend ( talk) 18:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do with the Undos.

Thanks for noticing the additions. I've done some for the Poets and Dramatists as well. I'll have to start writing articles because I'm going to run out of easy adds soon.

I'm thinking about finding a nice looking font style for the author's real names you've started adding.--  I Never Cry  11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary found here is not very nice towards the more than 460 Million english-speaking people in Africa. Your addition of a wikilink in the infobox_budget section of a film article does not adhere to WP:MOSFILM, WP:FILM and Template:infobox_film. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Wikipedia" - check through Wikipedia's film articles (e.g. here), and you'll see that nowhere in film articles the currency in the infobox is wikilinked. Template:infobox_film does not specify any addition of Wikilinks to the infobox_budget section. The text in your edit summary strongly appears to be systemic bias. I am not interested in an edit war, and therefore I am asking you to please kindly remove the currency wikilink which you added into the infobox section. Failure to do so will result in you being reported for systemic bias to the appropriate Administrator's board. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Amsaim, this is nonsense. Firstly, there is no way this is 'systemic bias' (I believe you may have no idea what that term actually means). Secondly, it's Bold Revert Discuss, not Bold, Threaten, Report to ANI. Third, Wikilinking the currency appears useful and the edit summary says nothing about English speaking Africans, it refers to people who might have heard of this currency. Do you have information on how well Nigerian currency is known outside of Nigeria? Fourth, have you tried explaining about the flag in infobox thingy? I see no sign that you have.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the link here. Amsaim ( talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I used my third R in order to tell YellowMonkey that he had just 3R'd me.
So I assume that you blocked him before me, since 1) he did it first, and 2) he provoked the discussion?
Varlaam ( talk) 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and what about the question I just put to you? I used my R to inform YM of his breaking of the 3R rule. So you have now blocked him for 1 month? Varlaam ( talk) 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you blatantly violated 3RR rule to make WP:POINT. If you provide a link to YellowMonkey doing the same knowingly or him making personal attacks against you I will be happy to block him also. I guess you are experienced enough to know that policy violations is not a correct way to inform anybody of anything Alex Bakharev ( talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not experienced enough. I have no idea how 3RR works. I assumed he would have to lodge a complaint against me, which of course he would not do, because 1) he did it FIRST, and 2) I had no intention of blowing the whistle on him, since it's two guys having an animated chitchat.

Personal attack? I was responding to him calling me a Yank. You do not call a Canadian an American under any condition.

He was jamming his POV into the article, claiming it doesn't express a "worldwide viewpoint" when I had just spent two days giving the page a world view by including all the non-US flags which were not there before. Look at the page log for last week. Look at the page log from a couple of weeks ago when Erik blew away the entire film list claiming it was indiscrimate which is nonsense as the table now demonstrates, after all of my hard work, plus a superhuman effort today by Dewaine after I asked him to participate in table building.

And my reward is getting blocked over nothing.

Varlaam ( talk) 06:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, you used four reverts and swore, I only used three. Secondly your claim that there aren't any Vietnames war films, thus rendering the rendering the article text incorrect, are false YellowMonkey ( new photo poll) 06:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I used 3, not 4.

I am not claiming there are no Vietnamese war films. I am the one who found that film after 30 years of searching as you would know if you read the Talk page like I asked you to. But no, you were too busy reverting me to do your homework.

Varlaam ( talk) 06:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Um, no. I'm plenty impartial. The problem is just that you dislike my opinion of how some of the lists you created need fixing. That has nothing to do with this, however. You still can't break the rules in order to inform someone they are breaking the rules. That's just plain old common sense. Requesting to be unblocked because "He did it, too!" is just plain absurd. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So YM gets to:

• POV push
• 3RR
• launch a personal attack

and that's fine, is it?
You know, I don't care.
I wouldn't have punished YM either if I were an admin. He didn't really do anything much. And neither did I.
Two guys should be able to have a discussion without Mummy and Daddy officiating.
Varlaam ( talk) 07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is arbitrary.

If you looked at the facts, DeWaine and I would be getting barnstars at this point, not blocks.

Nihonjoe, once again you are so self-absorbed, you don't understand a thing.

You made assumptions and accusations about the nature of my lists without making any effort to determine their actual nature by investigating the history, then carried on fixing problems that did not exist.

But that is a discussion for another day.

Varlaam ( talk) 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Requesting to be unblocked because "He did it, too!" is just plain absurd."

That is a joke I assume.

The first guy who breaks a rule is fine.

But the second guy, informing the first guy, he's the villain.

What school of philosophy does that derive from?

Please provide me with that link. Is this Bergsonian? Neo-platonist?

Varlaam ( talk) 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, are we free to start using that Japanese template again?

Varlaam ( talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am supposed to be blocked at the moment.
But my IP address appears to be available for editing right now.
Can an administrator please confirm that there is not a hole in the blocking scheme?
Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi V. Alex Bakharev blocked you with autoblock enabled (slightly unfairly I feel, but I'm not an admin so what do I know), so My understanding is that it should autoblock the IP as soon as someone attempts to edit from it. If it's not doing that, and you are sure that your IP hasn't reset itself since the block (in which case I can't see how the Mediawiki software could tell it was you unless it was psychic) then yes, it would appear to be a bug. Wouldn't recommend exploiting it tho. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm no crook (Nixon said that too!!); I'm an unfairly judged good guy.

And a software designer (I was on the Discovery Channel in the 1990s) and an IT admin and stuff like that.

I have seen the block working; I have also seen it failing. Precisely once.

Now, through no fault of my own, I am a polyglot. I am currently in frwiki, translating one of their articles into English for relaxation.

It is likely that I had transitioned from a different project when I observed the "bug". As an expert bug tracker, one notices these anomalies.

What project had I just come from? Maybe Polish. Maybe Russian. Not sure.

I don't want a genuine villain finding a loophole to exploit.

Varlaam ( talk) 22:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If it recurs, I will note the circumstances in fuller detail.

Happy hunting, Varlaam ( talk) 22:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just received this:
Database error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "Database::selectRow". Database returned error "1146: Table 'enwiki.cn_notices' doesn't exist (10.0.6.50)". Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Varlaam"

A side effect of bug tracking or coincidence?

Odd, schmodd. At work I run a Websphere portal that does exactly what it likes, when it likes, regardless of anything I tell it. It has three allegedly syndicated content servers that are out of whack with each other on a daily basis. en.wikipedia runs on syndicated servers. I rest my case (it's been at a conference on automated telephony all day). Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

But I've been around here since 2004 and I really don't have a lot of troubles.

I don't believe I've seen a SQL query error here before.

Varlaam ( talk) 00:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An error I actually do see fairly often is this one:

ERROR: maximal load time exceeded!

Varlaam ( talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, looks like you're got a real Governor General and not just a feel good trendy one... Foofbun ( talk) 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite.

The previous GG was a hot black chick, and a half-decent journalist. No problems there.

The original criticism of her choice was her husband was suspected of secret separatist leanings. A fellow traveller.

But since then, she's been pro-military and whatnot. She was certainly preferable to our previous distaff GG who had pretensions to replacing the Queen. As if.

She took a personal interest in the Haiti disaster. Fair enough.

The more recent criticism of her is that she failed to rise to the challenge of a PM with dictatorial ambitions wanting to prorogue Parliament.

That's a stronger criticism.

What I've read about the new GG so far is not good, namely that he's an arch-Tory goombah of the PM's, and he fucked up the U of Waterloo when he ran it.

That's clearly one side.

I have family connexions to academia there, so I still need to hear whether there is another perspective.

Keep you posted.

Varlaam ( talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Very impressive list.-- I NEVER CRY 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It has a number of titles I'm not familiar with. I shall have to look into those ...

Question: Which other languages do you read, or otherwise muddle through?

Varlaam ( talk) 02:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fluent in Street Slang, Spanish swearing, and I can count to 10 in a few languages.☺ -- I NEVER CRY 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a brand of beer in Mexico called Barrilito, but it's usually referred to as Huevos by the guys, because of the shape of the bottle.

I like to use Barrons Dictionary of Spanish Slang.

So you don't read any other script, Russian, Greek, Arabic, or the harder ones?

Varlaam ( talk) 03:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was asking cuz I translated the Le Monde list into German, but my German's pretty rusty at this point.

The Spanish translation is next.

I wish I knew another language. I do have some volumes of Russian grammar, etc, but I'm still in the procrastination period of the learning process.-- I NEVER CRY 07:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BB!

As long as you're under the age of 16, it shouldn't be a problem!!

It's tougher for those of us who used to watch the war news on TV. Vietnam War.

I had a guy on a motorcycle once in Denmark ask me for directions in Spanish. So I told him where the palacio was. A salesman in Istanbul just automatically started speaking to me in German.

I, on fairly short notice, had to go to the Orient one time.

So, I got one of Karlgren's shorter books on Chinese etymology, and learned some characters that way.

That came in handy when I was sprinting through the airport in Guilin and all the signage was in Chinese.

I spoke both French and German in China. I spoke Mandarin over the phone and was understood. And I used Arabic script to read some inscriptions at the big mosque in Beijing. (Allah Akbar!) The old Italian church in downtown Beijing is where I first saw old Mongolian script, and had no idea what it was.

The most shocking thing I saw in China: a party of Danish schoolkids on spring break. In China.

Sexy Israeli tourist girls!

The world was a lot bigger when I was a kid.

Anyway, Russian is not the easiest, and you have to get past the script. I taught myself Cyrillic from a book almost 40 years ago to please my Galician grandfather, and it's only now, partly due to labouring on WP, that I'm getting comfortable with Russian handwriting.

The Slav(on)ic languages are like the Romance languages, in the sense that ya learn one, ya learn 'em all. There's a large overlap in vocabulary.

I've always thought that an alternative strategy is to attack Russian via Polish, which is a useful language in its own "write" (Lennonism), and thus avoid the Cyrillic problem. (But don't let a Russian hear you saying that.)

It's like the languages of north India. Each one has its own peculiar script, and they're all syllabic. You have this tremendous orthographic hurdle to surmount, when all you really want to know is how to say 'cat'.

Varlaam ( talk) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are really at the very beginning, and you really haven't started, you know you're better off starting with the Greek alphabet, eh?

Russian after Greek is easier, just like Hebrew and Aramaic after Arabic.

Now, one thing else you want to keep in mind is the interesting Girlfriend Effect.

Years ago, I was travelling on a train from Paris to Amsterdam.

In the compartment were two German guys, a Dutch lady, and a French Canadian.

Oddly enough, the language of conversation was German.

Meanwhile, I was seated in my corner, reading some paperback like Von Ryan's Express and pretending not to understand German.

The Germans were telling this ridiculous story about trying to hitchhike together in a group. (Like, who is going to pick up two young men together?) Eventually a driver did stop, but that was because he thought the longhaired guy was a girl. <Laugh goes here.>

Then my countryman starts telling his story about riding in a truck. But when he gets to that word, he can't remember the German word, so he says it in English. "Truck."

Germans look confused. Dutch lady tries to be helpful. "Trook?"

At that point, I lower my book, say "Lastwagen", and raise my book again.

The Germans eventually asked how he learned his German.

He explained he had a German girlfriend, and he learned it from her.

I was really impressed because he was more fluent than me, and I studied it in school, starting in Grade 10.

I know another guy who learned to speak Finnish after marrying a Finnish girl.

And Finnish is tough. It's got more noun cases than anything else, and vowel length really matters in pronunciation.

(Vowel length is what distinguishes "father" and "farther" is any non-rhotic English accent.)

So it's something to do with incentive combined with proximity to a patient source. The Girlfriend Effect.

I used to have a Mexican gf; that's when I learned chiches and pompis.

El pompis de <ex-girlfriend's name goes here> es pequeño, pero las chiches de <ditto> son ¡grandes!

Mi primer español, Varlaam ( talk) 22:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
The bot changed [[War_and_Remembrance#Television_adaptation|War & Remembrance]]
into [[War and Remembrance#Television_adaptation|War & Remembrance]].
Pretty good. Any chance it could also zap that underscore in the secondary heading?
Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Varlaam, thanks for the suggestion. I didn't realise it was possible to use spaces rather than underscores for the fragment section of a wikilink; I assumed it mapped it directly onto a URL without any changes. I'll update the bot to do this too.

Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 12:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Just playing my role as a source of inconsequential information.

Varlaam ( talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. You sneaky robot, you.

How were you able to update my User Talk page, without triggering the automatic New Stuff On Talk Page message?

You robots are taking over the world. They should make a movie about that.

Varlaam ( talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the inconsequential info. I'm not sure how I managed to do that: I just edited the page as usual. Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 20:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While I see your points from the aesthetic side of seeing The Bahamas appear in the middle of a sentence with The capitalized, it appears to be the established consensus on how to present that in Wikipedia. Looking at the article on said Commonwealth, that's the way it's presented throughout that article. It's reasonable to me to use that spelling as a guide throughout the rest of Wikipedia, even if an English variant line is crossed between that article and Amy Lee.

If you disagree, I'd take the matter to a talk page for further discussion—possibly Talk:Amy Lee, but more likely Talk:The Bahamas, since I'm sure this isn't the first time the issue has come up. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you are adding (almost but not always) edit summaries when you change the era system, but I've found at least 2 cases where it started as BCE and you changed it to BC, which was you know is against our guidelines. I'll assume good faith this time but please don't let it happen again. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And you've reverted me at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. It's hard to assume good faith when all you have to do is click on 'earliest', and then look at the earliest version with text (the first edit had just 'modified'. Clearly BCE. Dougweller ( talk) 05:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a total surprise to me that anyone had ever created an article with BCE.

I had gathered the impression, from experience, that any BCE was a result of a POV pusher coming along well after the fact.

Once I discovered that several productive editors had written their articles in that style from the outset, I thereafter looked into the history log more thoroughly.

Since then, I still find cases where a user, typically an IP user, made the change without a discussion; only those cases are now reverted.

Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. Varlaam ( talk) 01:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger ( talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

I actually don't remember what article that would have been. Varlaam ( talk) 01:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) — particularly the part about properly sourced real world perspective. That is, an article about a television character cannot just be a plot description of things that happened to her over the course of the series — it has to be sourced to coverage that demonstrates that she's notable enough to warrant a standalone article rather than a redirect to the series she's in: newspaper or magazine articles that actually discuss her cultural or historical significance as a character, etc.

Wikipedia mostly isn't "full" of the "generic plot description" type of article, actually, as those articles routinely get tagged or deleted — but even if you can find other examples, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply to that. Such articles generally shouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean every one that does will always necessarily get properly dealt with right away. Bearcat ( talk) 00:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You recently called my edit on this article as inventing a nationality. British is a nationality whereas English is an ethnicity. There is no such thing as English citizenship only British citizenship. Turco85 ( Talk) 11:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Many people would disagree with you. Many people think that declaring people born in England and having English accents as not being English is offensive and perhaps racist.

According to you, I am English. According to me, I am Canadian.

Varlaam ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a point that not everybody is good with foreign languages. So I think we should not ignored those articles from now on. Jonpat123 ( talk) 06:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Best Dutch novels, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Coolug ( talk) 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I spotted your comments on User talk:Δ and thought I'd just stop by and ask you to please be more civil when interacting with other users. Being civil helps users interact more productively with each other, helping to build the encyclopedia, and also makes Wikipedia a nicer place to be on the internet, as well as being an official policy on Wikipedia.

Thanks, [ stwalkerster| talk 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very civil, unless someone starts POV pushing repeatedly. Varlaam ( talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article NRC's Best Dutch novels, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NRC's Best Dutch novels until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Best German Novels of the Twentieth Century, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best German Novels of the Twentieth Century until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. BilCat ( talk) 09:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should have actually read these messages.

I notified people of a discussion. I clearly did not tell them how to vote.

I notified users I know of who edit literary articles.

Don't make unfounded accusations.

Varlaam ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of WP:CANVASS before.

Regardless, the definition reads "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion".

That was not the case.

Varlaam ( talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The date system was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE on 2009-09-22 (with lots of edits since) and nobody complained. Ergo, consensus was (by default) that the change was acceptable. Accordingly, your change was against consensus. Hpvpp ( talk) 07:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the proceedure poutlined at WP:ERA. So far, no such case has been made, so the previous format is correct. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page, so plese engage in discussion rahter than reverting back to BCE. - BilCat ( talk) 09:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe your stance on the above contravenes several of the pillars of Wikipedia. Please take your objections to the talk page to discuss. Thanks, Hohenloh ⁺ 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and associated guidelines, this section has no place in a Wikipedia article. This has nothing to do with your (or anyone else's) edits, it concerns only the article. Please take your objections to the talk page to discuss. Simply reverting will get us nowhere. Thanks Hohenloh ⁺ 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying once again to discuss your issues with this article on the talk page, and please feel free to do so. In the meantime my attention has been brought to disputes with other articles that you have edited. I suggest you deal with these issues on the talk pages of the relevant articles. There should be no personal rancour, the main objective is, WITH CONSENSUS, to produce a good, well-sourced objective article. 99% of Wikipedia articles are produced this way, and your input is valued, along with others. Thanks for your co-operation. Hohenloh ⁺ 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that it is "Dogs" in the episode, not "Pigs on the Wing". I have a recorded off-air copy of this episode, and that is indeed the song played. 24.78.50.156 ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember that episode being quite amusing in fact, because someone (Carlson?) walks in as the dogs are howling.

Varlaam ( talk) 01:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this edit summary - [11]. I strongly suggest that an apology to the other editor is in order. Whatever the content dispute, there is no excuse for accusations like that. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was coming to make the same observation. Calling another editor "racist" is a personal attack, and therefore not acceptable. Likewise, I'm not entirely sure what this summary is supposed to mean, but it is not what edit summaries are for. You are experienced enough to know this by now.

Regarding the content dispute: the use of UK or its constituent countries in articles is a complex and, sometimes controversial, subject. There is not always a "right" answer I would note, however, that in this case a diligent effort has been made to establish whether Wales is appropriate, with the engagement of the wider community. You were made aware of this over 5 months ago, yet I can find no evidence that you have engaged in discussion, seemingly preferring a slow revert-war. Please stop. You have had a number of blocks of increasing length for similar behaviour, but clearly they are not having the desired effect on you. If you continue on this path I will not hesitate to add to them with a longer block. If you believe you have a better case for why the UK should be used instead of Wales, then put it on the talk-page and see if you can convince other editors of its merits. If not, you can always seek a outside opinions. Rockpocke t 19:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not explicit enough before, so let me be clear. Any further edits like today's and I will block you for a number of weeks. Rockpocke t 08:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are on very, very thin ice – I consider this edit pure trolling, calling it an English film, but will not block you personally for it because I have expressed a view on the article's talk page (more than you have ever done, I note). Suggest you change your ways before someone without such an inhibition blocks you for a significant period. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Having seen what else you've been doing this evening, I wanted further eyes on your behaviour, as opposed to blocking you myself. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are POV pushers who are active in Wikipedia. Perhaps you are making reference to them. Otherwise I don't know to what you may be referring. I have never heard of any of you guys before. Who are you? Varlaam ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is truly a ridiculous situation when people who are not important enough for you to have ever seen their work take it upon themselves to block you. You apparently have nothing productive to be doing. Merry Christmas, Varlaam ( talk) 00:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC) -

I have blocked you for 2 weeks as your last block, for similar transgressions, was for 1 week. I suggest you read the warnings above an the links therein. Rockpocke t 00:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And what about when I read the above, and it turns out to pertain to people who were warring with me? Have you blocked them?

What is the appeal process in this ludicrous situation where, just like the time before, I am the conscientious editor and a POV pusher attacked me?

This is what makes WP seem like such a farce to other engineers I know who do not participate in it.

When I describe how this place functions to my colleagues, I always get a laugh.

You guys are amateur judges. How long did you spend examining the facts of whatever case this is? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

Less?

Give me strength. Varlaam ( talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, no response.

Note that I did use the word farce above to describe this process.

It does seem rather apt, does it not?

Varlaam ( talk) 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your questions. The other editors involved in this have gone to reasonable lengths to resolve your disagreement. For example, they have engaged on talk pages and sought advice from the reliable sources noticeboard. You, on the other hand, have declined to engage and simply reverted, reverted and reverted. Add to that personal attacks in edit summaries, WP:POINTy disruptive edits, and multiple ignored warnings. I put it to you that those are not the contributions of a "conscientious editor" in most people's book.

You can be unblocked if you can convince me (or any other administrator) that you understand why your edits led to a block, and make plausible assurances that such actions will not be repeated. Alternatively, you can sit the two weeks out and return afterwards. But you should also note that if you continue with this type of editing pattern, more blocks will follow and they will get longer. Therefore my advice to you is to start paying more attantion to talk pages (your own and those associated with articles you edit) and use them instead of hitting the revert button. Rockpocke t 10:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the point of telling someone he is the subject of an ANI discussion at the same time you tell him that he can't edit any page other than this one?

Is that not the definition of a kangaroo court? The judicial process here is like something from the mind of Franz Kafka.

Varlaam ( talk) 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's quash that inaccuracy. You were told about the ANI discussion at 21:59. You next edited at 22:01, and then at 22:04, 23:32, 24:59, 00:12, 00:16, 00:18, 00:19, 00:22 and 00:24. You could have joined in the ANI discussion at any stage. You were blocked at 00:28, 2 hours and 29 minutes after you were told about the ANI discussion. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that these things happened "at the same time". Bencherlite ^Talk 11:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is strange- you said that you don't check your talk page because your many newsletters cause your new messages bar to be always on, but you haven't gotten a new newsletter in nearly a week. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Advance Merry Christmas to you too. Jonpat123 ( talk) 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you to Varlaam. Pimbrils ( talk) 09:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonpat123 ( talk) 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my revision here, please keep in mind that this article is Featured. While this of course does not mean that it's beyond improvement, it does mean that a certain amount of care must be taken while editing. Your changes are unnecessary and, in the case of moving one sentence to its own section, go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. If you have ideas as how to improve the article -- in line with its FA rating -- I would appreciate it if you could add such suggestions on the talk page, rather than simply reverting my edit. I think you will find that I'm the only major writer for this article, seeing as how I wrote it from scratch, but I will not hesitate to ask for a third or fourth opinion if you think this minor dispute warrants it. Thanks for your understanding. María ( habla con migo) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am falling foul of the peremptory revert impulse of this editor and noticed that you had some run ins with her too. She tends to revert without notice or discussion while citing INDISCRIMINATE or NOTABILITY where they have no application to the edit in question. We are warring over the page about Hill Street Blues the TV series. I decided not to just lie down and accept autocratic edits and took the debate to the Notability Noticeboard and then the API edit warring page. Any thoughts ? -- Tumadoireacht ( talk) 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot ( talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what article to point you to, but I have been in FLC proceedings for two featured lists, and they had to comply with WP:ACCESS, after the information was brought up during the prior nom of Kelly Rowland discography. By the way, I could care less of spelling errors, it's not there to impress anyone. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this edit, and it looks like vandalism to me. I can't tell for sure, because I don't know much Russian. Could you check it out when you get a chance? Thanks. Jncraton ( talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam

The purpose of the {{ recent death}} template is to notify editors that a page is being heavily edited—not simply that someone has recently died. It is applicable for short periods of time for reasonably prominent deaths, and applicable for longer times for the deaths of highly prominent people. There's nothing wrong with a category that's frequently empty.

If you can garner consensus for a change to the template's intended application, so be it. Until then, please use it as documented.

^Bongo _matic 04:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

I should note that this is only for the template {{ recent death}}. You can add the category without adding the template by adding it explicitly. I don't think there's any suggestion that the category is applicable only when the template is applicable. ^Bongo _matic 04:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A friendly warning, you are getting close to WP:3RR on this topic at Anna Yablonskaya. Please be careful. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

You are right, in other languages, it is called author. But no I am not an author per se. I typically apply that template whenever I add a lot of content or pretty much reconstruct the article from bottoms up. Also I take such articles through GA, A reviews too.

Only after I successfully complete a GA review, that I apply the template and put it on my watch list. As to feedback or messages, its pretty quiet. Till date I have not received a single message due to the template. But then these articles are pretty obscure that there are not that many footprints around. Your message as a matter of fact is the first one I have received since putting it up.

Hi! I looked around the Turkish Wikipedia and saw: this post

I think that was very uncalled for. I would like for you to modify or retract your comments. My post says "The Turkish Wikipedia needs an article on the en:Supreme Leader of Iran. The position's Turkish website is at http://www.leader.ir/langs/tr/" - That is polite and not obnoxious. The attack on my nationality is also uncalled for.

Also, the Turkish Wikipedia really does need an article on the Supreme Leader of Iran. The Supreme leader maintains websites in many languages, with Turkish being one of them. There's also Azeri, Bahasa Indonesia, Kiswahili, and Urdu, which still need articles on the position of the Supreme Leader, and various languages which do already have articles on the position. All of those languages that I named need articles on the Supreme Leader of Iran. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your tendentious revert " That is obviously an interpolation by some imbecile", the fact seemed plausible, was cited, and was easily checked. Don't remove facts. cygnis insignis 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I will can help you. You hope to translate for the sentences, include document in Korean language, isn't it? If it is right, I can do it. p.s. Same the both 저자(Jeo-ja) and 작가(Jak-(g)a). Thank you. -- Idh0854 ( talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam and happy birthday! Every new article I create gets added to my watchlist, and I check every edit on my watchlist (sadly, there's lots of IP vandalism), and make any fixes since the article was initially started. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus ( talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

hi.I answered ur questions here.-- jasmine ( talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you noticed at Howard Zinn that the editor who was blocked recently has returned under a similar IP -- 74.178.194.33 . You might want to check into that. -- Skol fir ( talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 03:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a misunderstanding here, pal. Victoria Justice is half Puerto Rican (mother) and half Irish-American (father). The section clearly states: "The following is a list of notable Puerto Ricans or people of Puerto Rican descent with Irish surnames. This list also includes people of Puerto Rican and Irish descent born in the United States and Irishmen/women who adopted Puerto Rico as their homeland as well." Therefore, Victoria Justice qualifies to be on the list. Of course she is an "American", but an American of Puerto Rican and Irish-American descent. By the way, all Puerto Ricans are "American" citizens. Take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 06:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please seek consensus on the article's talk page before adding a controversial POV to Osama bin Laden lead paragraph. Ronnotel ( talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you persist, I will block you from editing, and the duration of your block will be increased significantly. Rklawton ( talk) 05:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care about the matter, but for the sake of good order - why did you include Ernst Thälmann (film) in the list? Correct me if I'm wrong (maybe you intended to use the term in another fashion; if so, disregard everything I wrote), but 'assassination' and 'execution' are not the same. No one sneaked behind Ernst Thälmann and stabbed him. He was brought to Buchenwald by the same authorities that held him in prison for 11 years, and there he was shot by the guards. Bahavd Gita ( talk) 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How is a film category appropriate for a television show episodes list, let alone a television show or even an episode. Category:Vietnam War films is a category for films, it is a subcat of a whole series of film related categories. Simply renaming it would not be either appropriate or solve the issue. This is a episode list, and should thus be only in categories related to either the subject itself or episode list related categories. Episodes belong in episode categories, shows in show-categories, etc. and films in film-categories. This category has no place on an episode list article.  _Xeworlebi ^{( talk)} 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Varlaam, Thanks for your query regarding Jim Morrison's The Lost Paris Tapes.

No, as far as I know the recording has never been issued commercially in its original form.

However, parts of the recording were later remixed with instrumental tracks by the remaining members of The Doors and released under the title An American Prayer.

Of course, the original recordings have been circulated on CD as a bootleg album.

Sincerely, -- Skb8721 ( talk) 18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums never on CD, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Varlaam. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SparsityProblem ( talk) 04:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You get the record for the longest talk page I've ever seen. Have you ever thought about setting up archiving? Just a thought...meant with the best of intentions. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

^^^ This. And in answer to your question, yes. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

....for the tip. Have set up user page. Should be in blue now! Asnac ( talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot ( talk) 23:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! -- Shining.Star ( talk) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for your edits to Peter Hammill and Van der Graaf Generator related articles. Your edits in turn make me enthusiastic to edit some more, and so the combined efforts of all editors will hopefully create good articles about Hammill and VdGG. Greetings! Mark in wiki ( talk) 17:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Silent. I love your user page, by the way. Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes sure. Both sublime indeed. But at least yours is colourful! It often feels like we are indeed "at the Mill with slaves" doesn't it?! Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day! Foofbun ( talk) 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. [12] Thank you. ScottyBerg ( talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Varlaam, I would like to formally apologize for the actions I took in regard to protecting the "Irish immigration to Puerto Rico" page. It was a mistake on my part when I believed that you vandalized the page. A mistake which should have never happened since it turns out that you were right in your observations and that I was wrong. You are a great contributor and I hope that we can continue to make this a much better project. Take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has edited Bernard Lazare before, I wonder if have any thoughts on the issue I have raised on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Lazare BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If I have a chance, I will look.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 19:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! What do you mean with the "dum-dums" reference? Hey Mid ( contribs) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't remember specifically.

Dum-dums are a type of flattening bullet that was originally manufactured at an arsenal in British India called Dumdum, if I remember my history correctly.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

By the way, to answer the question in your edit summary, film stubs are primarily split by decade and genre - it is only where a country's films hand a genre are largely interchangeable or where they occupy a key niche or cult status that they are normally split by country. US films - especially in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, occupy such a huge proportion of the films on Wikipedia that it's largely regarded as unnecessary to have a separate stub type for them. Grutness... wha? 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All right. I seem to remember I was correcting an omission here, rather than breaking any sort of new ground.

Maybe I am misremembering.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 19:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your revision/undoing of my edit:

I put this in, not to do "a microscopic recounting", as you allege, but so the reader of the abstract can understand the heroes actions. You obviously find this information unnecessary and excessive.

But why do you just delete it? Why won't you try to discuss this, first? After all there's such a thing as a user discussion page, and such a thing as an article discussion page.

I am generally open to arguments, but I don't like my work being undone, just like that, because someone thinks that my particular edit is not to their personal linking.

Wikipedia has trouble attracting new editors and keeping current ones. Behaviour like yours (and you are by far not the only one with that kind of attitude) is a major killjoy for me, personally, and may very well lead to my leaving this project, alltogether.

I invested 20 minutes of my life into this edit. 20 minutes I could have spent on other things: My family, working for money, having a conversation on the phone with some old friend. - But I invested it into WikiPedia to make it a little better.

And you just take the right to trample that to the ground, because you seem to think that your personal assessment of how long a recounting of the plot has to be is somehow objective.

This is no fun.

-- Teiresia ( T) 09:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I'd normally, up to this point, never just undo a revision of one of my edits, as I think that this kind of behaviour is just stupid and often leads to edit warring. But I'm fed up with people like you who just slash other people's work. Perhaps I don't do you as a person justice, perhaps you are different, but my experience tells me, that discussion with "you people" leads nowhere, because you think you know that you, and only you, are right.

So why not just go by the same attitude?

Because it is not productive.

I'd rather leave alltogether.

But this one time I had to do it, just in order to not lose my self-respect.

I've been working, on and off, mostly doing minor, WikiGnomeish edits, on this encyclopedia since its beginning, and still remember what it was like when most people were still aware, that behind every edit there was a person.

Farewell, golden days. :-(

-- Teiresia ( T) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it with you? Don't you want to discuss? – I see you around doing a lot of other edits, but no reaction to my message, here? -- Teiresia ( T) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not read this page since 2010.

Nothing to do with you personally.

Sorry, Varlaam ( talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I just read your "sentimental" section.

What the hell?

I don't know why you are picking a fight with me over a simple translated page.

Your weird accusations of POV? Huh? I have no opinion.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? "Contradictions"?

I did not write the article; I translated it. Translated. Did not write it.

Book list with introductory paragraph. Translate into English.

No personal opinion about the contents.

Do not care how Franquin compares to Lowry.

Exercise in translation.

Good Lord. Varlaam ( talk) 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I do keep coming back to that same question, which is why are you behaving like some arrogant prick? Is that intentional or inadvertent?

Apparently, I don't speak French.

Yeah, but I do. Since 1969. I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to reside in France for 30 years. I do apologize.

Why do you feel free to throw baseless accusations around?

What is with you and your ad hominem attacks?

You mention the five pillars.

So perhaps you might want to moderate your discourse and join the civil world.

Yours in friendly Canadianness, Varlaam ( talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well isn't that a hoot. Varlaam ( talk) 02:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a glance at the "sentimental" thing again. You are well of shit, man.

Varlaam ( talk) 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Thanks for your absurd reply, Varlaam". Fuck you, Varlaam ( talk)

"As a member of Wiki's Kindness Campaign, it is out of the question to insult or malign fellow contributors at Wikipedia and I do my darndest to be kindest. That said, you won't last long at Wiki by insulting people and behaving like a plouc or jumping to rash conclusions about Big Ebert and success. Above all, you'd better get used to people challenging your edits because that's all part of the experience."
Jesus, you really take the cake, don't you?
There are plenty of assholes infesting Wikipedia and you are campaigning for King. Varlaam ( talk) 04:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fruitcake replies, Sir Varlaam. It's enough to consult your Block Log and read the list of complaints against you on your Talk Page to realise we're dealing with a class act. During the time you were blocked for a year by Wikipedia, were you also by chance in a mental institution? -- Jumbolino ( talk) 08:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you. XO Varlaam ( talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You piece o' shit.

Now, now, Sir Varlaam. It's back in your cage for a nice 60 hour block and some Prozac for good measure. All my best-- Jumbolino ( talk) 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I've started the Badfinger wiki amd I need help. You seem to know a lot about them, could you please help out? Canadian Reject ( talk) 01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just talking to somebody about Badfinger a week ago at my local shopping complex.

Maybe when I'm not blocked!

You can ask me here if you want. I am not blocked on this page.

Varlaam ( talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot ( talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop! Now you're citing advertising for a hotel as a footnote in a taxobox! Perhaps you're in a funny mood today for some good reason, but that's getting too silly. Nadiatalent ( talk) 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Blanický, hello. I have been working a little on your page. I am interested in Ančerl since he was a Torontonian, like me. But this article really needs a reference from a Czech magazine saying how important this collection is, before there is trouble here. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, there are many sources on internet, where particular discs from the edition are reviewed, also in English. It is very difficult to rate all collection, because the content is enormous, surveying long period of the work and going from romantic era to end of modernism, resp. beginning of contemporary classical. I think the fact, that this Supraphon set was awarded in 2006 by Grand Prix du Disque de l'Académie de Charles Cros, the most prestigious prize, granted together for exceptional artistic and technical level of classical music recordings proved it a little bit. Only the last one (no.43), released later and content Czechoslovak composers from early communist era is in my opinion bad, but not from the side of the conductor :-) Many of albums were awarded also separately in previous editions on vinyls. Of course, i am aware it is not sufficient response, but i did not find any review of all collection. For me personally are some discs there absolute peak (Dvořák´s Requiem and 9th Symphony, Janáček´s Glagolitic Mass and Sinfonietta or Taras Bulba, Bartók´s Concerto for orchestra or Kabeláč´s Mystery of Time.

I see you updated Jiří Stivín. Progressive rock sources used to talk about him 30 years ago.

I cannot help, but Stivín has nothing together with progressive rock, only maybe some instrumental participation somewhere. He was predominantly the pioneer of free-jazz in Czechia and also experimentator in jazz-classical fusion attempts or, if you want, progressive jazz. I really don´t know any album of him, that should be denominated as "rock", regardless "progressive" or not. I made a shopping trip to Bratislava in 1983 looking for progressive albums. My information on Czech prog came from an article in Surface Noise magazine, as I recall. We used to see Supraphon LPs here often in those days. And some Panton, but not as much. Varlaam (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanicky ( talk • contribs)

I've no idea what your bizarre rants about the BFI are supposed to prove. It is a reliable source. Take it to the relevant board if you doubt that. Of course all reliable sources occasionally make mistakes, but that's neither here nor there, since there is no reason to believe any mistake has been made. There is no point arbitrarily sticking citation-needed tags in the middle of a table. It's arbitary to pick out the writers rather than any other aspect of the content. The table itself is merely a summary of what the BFI site says and there is no reason to doubt it, especially as, contrary to your untruths, the IMDb says exactly the same thing. Click on the episode list: [13]. So, please go and read your own sources properly before making a mess. Paul B ( talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the BFI in general, so why do you claim that I do?

I do have a problem with people who go around claiming that the BFI holds opinions which they do not hold.

There is one particular POV-pushing editor who constantly cites the BFI.

Is that you?

About two or three years ago, I wrote to the BFI and asked them, "Do you endorse the opinion that this editor is shoving?"

They said, "No", they do not agree with the POV-pushing editor.

So I said, "Can I quote you when I have to deal with this irritant?"

And the BFI said "No."

So that is my only beef with the BFI.

The BFI will express an opinion but will not stand behind it.

They stick me in a forward trench then refuse me reinforcement.

Varlaam ( talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

I'm pretty interested in knowing what is your rationale behind creating such short sections in the article? Cover versions and popular culture appearance are part of the social impact of the song, and go in the same section. And whether you like it or not, that image was unnecessary. I promoted the article to GA, I know better what works for it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember this scenario precisely. That's the song by Alizée.

Two sections are conventional.

In some articles, an editor will take a nicer approach and do a more polished job.

If that is what you did, then that's a good thing.

Please maintain your high standard, Varlaam ( talk) 19:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about some text you added to this article. See Talk:List of book-based war films (future wars)#Alien races. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I created that article and wrote the entire thing as I recall.

But I have not maintained an active involvement over there. Sorry.

Varlaam ( talk) 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary that changed BCE to BC said just 'overlinking' - that was clearly misleading and you should have known that. Whatever the convention may have been, misleading edit summaries are not acceptable and you know you have had comments before about changes from BCE to BC. Dougweller ( talk) 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry.

I would have noticed an overlinking problem, and then noticed a second problem once I already had the page open.

Varlaam ( talk) 19:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you've got a LOT of nerve resorting to baseless insults on someone's Talk Page, ESPECIALLY when upon review of your talk page it is FULL of complaints over the exact same sort of edits that you're making on the Chuck pages. Unsourced is unsourced, and irrelevant trivia is trivia. Ambaryer ( talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How many edits you make doesn't impress me, especially considering the LONG history your talk page shows of questionable edits. In fact I've VERY rarely had problems with other users attacking me over reverted edits until YOU came along.

I can't be there for EVERY single edit made to a page, and if something gets added to a page and another change is made before I happen to check my watchlist I might miss it. I'm not going through every page I watch daily looking for every little change. If I happen to be reviewing one and catch something that needs to be removed because of OR, I remove it. But I DO have a life outside of Wikipedia. Your OR edits I caught because no one had made a change since you did and I can see it before it got buried by something else.

Making 60,000 edits doesn't mean you never post bullshit, as your CONTINUED history of posting unsourced OR has proven. Ambaryer ( talk) 04:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Here was your response from Andy's talk page:

I happen to have read your remarks, 209, since I was on this page anyway. I really can't say that I agree with them. And do editors at this level "hound" people? Not in my experience. But, then, I have not looked into these specifics. A prima facie reaction, Varlaam (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely the response of the complacent members of the 1% to the outrage expressed by growing numbers of people among the 99%. Entirely predictable. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.97.10 ( talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm American, you twit. I have no idea what possessed you to start off your message so snarkily.

2) It is generally agreed nowadays that Manfred was shot down by Australian ground fire, not Roy Brown. Get up-to-date on your military history, hmm?

3) Lothar and Manfred were brothers, not cousins.

4) The only things I have seen regarding Albania's "participation" are some news bits reporting some official hand-waving by the PM saying that while Albania couldn't provide anything militarily, they would be more than happy to maybe offer humanitarian aid and bases. I have not seen anything which indicates that any of this came to fruition.

5) Even if they did contribute a base and some band-aids, there is no reason to include Albanian leaders in the infobox. They would have been acting under NATO command, so the NATO commanders would cover this. For this reason, we do not include the leaders of countries such as Bulgaria and Romania (for example, there are others) in the infobox, even though they actually committed military personnel and ships.

6) Please share with the class what is it exactly that you "hesitate to mention". My curiosity has been aroused....

Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Bitty Schram, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WP:FILMOGRAPHY clearly shows that table headings are to be used. If you disagree, then I suggest you bring it up on the talk page of that section of the Manual of Style and achieve consensus to remove them. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Eagle (2011 film): I wasn't trying to "change" the default spelling of the article, I just never occurred to me that an article on a movie made in Britain, based on a famous British novel about British history, would not follow British spelling and so the word "centered" leapt out at me as an anomaly. As regards the original spelling of the article, the first version has no obvious Americanisms that I noticed. The editor, User:Steve is "from the UK" so I wonder if the spelling was changed by a later editor. So looking at WikiBlame for "redeem his family's honor"; I find that some IP editor changed the spelling from "honour" to "honor" (and "rumours" to "rumors", "amphitheatre" to "amphitheater") with this edit [14] on 28 February 2011 without any discussion. So I feel justified in restoring the UK spelling throughout, and will do so. Barsoomian ( talk) 10:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In The Lieutenant of Inishmore, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Saint Louis and TVO ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi. When you recently edited The Adventures of Tintin (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rambo and Raj ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Nadolig llawen and best wishes for 2012!
	All the best, Varlaam, for the New Year. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn ( talk) 12:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

A Simple Noodle Story ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mandarin and Yuan

Militant League for German Culture ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Eisenstein and Alfred Neumann

Children of Hiroshima ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Japanese

The Lost Chord ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Menlo Park

The Mentalist (season 1) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sierra Nevada

Thomas Shelton (translator) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Disjunctive

Whispering Smith (TV series) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hell Bent for Leather

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Caballero operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator ( talk) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Silent River Film Festival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button 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 article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Joja lozzo 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anglo-American University ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Vernon Smith and Berkeley

Antinous ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diaeresis

Cavalaire-sur-Mer ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint Raphael

Hips Don't Lie ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merengue

Subhuti ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rutland, Vermont

The Taqwacores (film) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Burka

Tommy Prince ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Opting out of DPL bot

Voilà. 
Varlaam (
talk)

Sorry about that. It's been kind of an off week for me. I'll try to be more pleasant when I'm editing Wikipedia. -- Boycool ( talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking within quotation marks is as natural in WP as night follows day.

That is not true. On Wikipedia, we generally avoid linking within quotes to preserve the integrity of the quoted text and to avoid editorial bias. Unless there is a very good reason to link within quotes, and an exceptional reason to do so on controversial articles, we avoid it per the MOS. Please join the discussion at Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy#Linking_in_quotes. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 05:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and participate in the discussion at Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy#Linking_in_quotes. You will need to convince me (and others) that your random link is relevant to the article and overrides best practice as outlined at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking, which clearly and unambiguously states, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." If this isn't making sense to you or if English isn't your first language, feel free to participate in the discussion on the talk page and ask questions. Adding random links to words you personally feel are important to the article isn't helpful to quote integrity. Please use the open talk page to explain your reasoning in your own words, in the context of best practices outlined in the MOS above. You're not going to convince anyone that you are "right" by edit warring. You were bold in your edit, and you were reverted, and the reason for this reversion has been explained on the talk page. Please now take an opportunity to respond to the problem at hand. Viriditas ( talk) 09:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Precisely. The operative phrase there is "as much as possible" which can hardly be classified as an absolute. It is fine.

I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to personally determine whether something is "fine" or not. I object to your misuse of quotes and to your random linking of irrelevant words. Feel free to use to the open talk page discussion at Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy#Linking_in_quotes to make your case, as I've previously requested several times now. Since your changes are disputed, they should remain reverted until the time comes that either a) you can convince me that you are right, or b) you get an outside opinion, either through a noticeboard request, a third opinion, or an RFC. You have many choices to resolve this, but repeatedly edit warring your changes into the article is not a valid choice. Viriditas ( talk) 09:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

There is a discussion in relation to edits such as these on the article talk page at Talk:Hedd Wyn (film). There seems to be strong support for recognizing the film as a Welsh film, so if you disagree it would be better if you participated in the discussion rather then editing against the consensus. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hedd Wyn (film) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. A slow edit war is still an edit war, and some of your edit summaries fail to assume good faith -- Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I show a posting below that I received last night on my talk page, together with my reply, and the user's response:

Bread of Heaven

I enjoyed your collection of flags at the top of this page.

I know (the English version of) the hymn that includes the line "bread of heaven". In fact, it is right up at the top of my favorites. But please tell me what is the specific connection between Welsh rugby and "bread of heaven".

Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cwm Rhondda is a very well known Welsh hymn tune. First performed in 1907. Cwm Rhondda translates as "the Rondda Valley" in English, and more often than not, sung to the words: Guide me, O thou great Redeemer. Wales rugby union supporters adopted it years ago, although the reason is not understood, apart from the fact that it is an inspiring song which everyone knew (Sundays in chapel) and could keep repeating, and repeating... I think it splendid.

It was sung at the funerals of both Princess Diana and the Queen Mother, and at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed splendid, both tune and words. The version I learned (in the United Church of Canada) began Guide me, O thou great Jehovah.

The part of the story I did not know was its adoption by the Rugby union. A great anthem, known to everyone in Wales. I guess it is a natural. Wanderer57 ( talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if you would be kind enough to add below any knowledge you may have on this topic.

Many thanks for your time.

With kindest regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk)

I followed your link but can't seem to find any mention of Varlaam. 129.98.192.54 ( talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not.

The IMDb listing uses real names, not IDs.

Their choice would not have been my choice. Because "Joe Blow" might be a guy I only know under his IMDb ID, while Blow means absolutely nothing to me.

People around here who know my real name can spot me without trouble on that list.

I have many aliases at the IMDb. Maybe that is why they opted for real name.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your remarks are rather offensive, but Ssilvers has kindly pointed out to me that I had misread the earlier edit, and I am happy to accept the commas. In English, as opposed to American, usage we have not traditionally used a comma (see Fowler) where you have put the first one, but the second, closing the subordinate clause is perfectly correct in English as in American usage. Meanwhile, happy (and civil) editing! Tim riley ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to revert User:Tim riley's change to restore the commas that you had suggested, when I saw your very rude and abrupt edit summary, Varlaam. We must not make demands of each other in this community, only requests. I am sorry if you are having a bad day, but please try to be civil, if not collegial. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem determined to be offensive. The phrase was given to me by a kind colleague, and I am not so rude as to jibe at it. 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the game is central to the book does not mean the book is based on it, that is, the book is not a retelling of the events of the game like, for example Dungeons & Dragons novels or Star Trek books. In The Third Reich there is a plot outside the game and the characters merely play it. AshcroftIleum ( talk) 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"...not some bloody Chinese political page"—I do not appreciate your attitude, especially since you show no appreciation that I used ROC (TW) instead of just ROC, which explicitly recognises the common name and is therefore a compromise. It is not NPOV to have "China" and "Taiwan" shown as separate entities, and even the proponents of the move agree that text must be accurate. GotR ^Talk 04:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

We disagreed a little while ago over a music article, but I'm sure we both want the WP articles to be the best we can make them. I have Georg Solti up for peer review, where any comments you cared to make would be gratefully received. – Tim riley ( talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I would encourage you to archive your own user talk page, as it is so large. If you like, I could do it for you. Your user page is also a killer to load; would you mind if the tables were on a user sub-page instead? – Fayenatic L (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

"Your behaviour continues to cast aspersions on your own credibility." What on earth are you on about. I asked you a question: "where is the imbalance?" You completely ignored it and reverted me. I will revert you back until you offer some kind of an explanation. As for my credibility, can I ask how many books you've read on Mau Mau? Do me a favour and stay off the article if you don't know what you're talking about.
~ Iloveandrea ( talk) 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tending to the "List of World War II films" page. I've made a few additions under my IP address in the last few weeks, but more than anything, I use the list for personal reference myself, so I appreciate your efforts to make it more comprehensive. I had wanted to add Confessions of a Nazi Spy back when I added some others two weeks ago or so, but since the movie isn't about World War II strictly speaking, I thought I had better ask for confirmation from more experienced Wikipedians first, and I never got around to it. So I was glad to see you added it, since I believe that any film that shows any aspect of the world affected by the war either during the war, directly leading up to the war, or directly after the war should be included. Anyways, as someone who references this page on a daily basis, your work on it is appreciated. Thanks again. Tron55555 ( talk) 11:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the above article. Sadly, the answer to your question is likely that many Canadians simply do not recognize non-Canadian spellings as such, at least not when it comes to such spellings as "traveled" vs travelled". Meters ( talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of my time and energy went in to finding out who this mysterious Keller was. St Anselm ( talk) 20:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Have you made a decision on the Santa Santita article. I am not sure your reasons for delisting meet the WP:GACR, but the final decision is yours. Fair warning though, I will probably take it to a community reassessment if it is delisted. AIRcorn  (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yash t 101 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Dangerous Moonlight where the classic Warsaw Concerto was composed for the film, but far eclipsed the film about a Polish pilot in the Battle of Britain, a film which has now virtually disappeared. Another interesting tidbit was that due to the need to have aerial scenes, the producers obtained actual combat footage from the RAF. In The Final Countdown, the production team not only obtained the cooperation of the U.S. Navy in 1980, who handed over the USS Nimitz, the aircraft carrier's crew were enlisted as extras as well as a number given actual speaking parts. In The One Who Got Away, the near-doc accurately portrays the story of the ONLY German military personnel that escaped from an Allied POW camp. In Bombs Over Burma (AKA The Devil's Sister), (1943) American propaganda film, to depict the Chinese character faithfully, the star, Anna May Wong and other characters, speak Mandarin in the first few minutes of the film. Not too unusual, except that Anna was born in the United States and never learned Chinese; she only looked the part and all of her other roles (including silent parts) never required her to speak Chinese; she did it by rote. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Take it easy, just a Bloody typo eh. Thanks for fixing it. Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Following up on your post here: Wikipedia_talk:Related_information#The_author.27s_choice. There is an alternative solution emerging to the "navboxes are like Easter eggs" problem. See Epigenetics#See_also for an example. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 16:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. You've done a lot of work on this World War II film list page, and I appreciate it, since I reference the list regularly. I do have to bring up the issue of "The Last Circus", though. I removed it from the list the other day, and you undid the change, putting it back in the list. I watched the film in question two nights ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with World War II whatsoever. There is a short segment of the film that lightly deals with the Spanish Civil War, but even that is only the first five minutes of the film, and the remaining 95% of the film takes places in 1973. If we are to include any film that has any relation to fascism, even if it's completely outside the parameters of WWII, than this list would lose its value very quickly. You would have to include films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and many others than don't belong on the list. Anyways, you've put a lot more work into this page than I have clearly, and you're obviously a much more experienced Wikipedian, so I'll submit to whatever you decide out of respect for that fact, but I really hope you'll consider removing this film, because it simply does not belong on this list. Thanks. Tron55555 ( talk) 11:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I would like to contact you over my page. Lumpierre1 ( talk) 14:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

See Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Membership. Frietjes ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ruders operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Who? What? Where? o.O No idea what you are talking about buddy. Other peoples pages? Who you talking about? I really have no idea who or what you are talking about. And please, remember the Wiki rule on civility, using the words like screwing around assumes bad faith. Thank you. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Buddy, first of I still don't have any idea what mistake you are talking about. What page are you talking about? And second thing...thoughtless mistake? You are still assuming bad faith where there is none and are using inflammatory language. Please stick to Wikipedia's rule on civility. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ullmann operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pfitzner operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Somers operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Verstovsky operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wagner-Régeny operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Hahn operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pizzetti operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ravel operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Krása operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Lalo operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Einem operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Nielsen operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Goldmark operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Schubert operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Smyth operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Telemann operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I've moved your 'vote' and added a note to it here. That page, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions page, is set up for arbitrators to vote, and everyone else to discuss the proposals being voted. Please ask the clerks at WT:AC/C if you have any questions about this (I'm not a clerk, but the clerks will be able to answer any questions you have). Carcharoth ( talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your help, its much appreciated. I hereby award you with

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with the campaign box in the Second Transjordan article Rskp ( talk) 06:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

16/4(1) Says otherwise, but please talkback on my page. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did you find that Taylor was gay? That was the rumour throughout much of his early career but was completely unfounded, as Barbara Stanwyck could attest, as well as has been disproved by all of his biographies I have read. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC).

I've opened a discussion on Talk:Nureongi regarding the external link you added, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me -- are you seriously asking me about a ridiculously trivial edit ("travelling" to "traveling") which I may or may not have made back in January?? You need to learn to prioritize. Don't leave any further trivial or nonsensical messages on my talk page, please. Quis separabit? 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are banned from my talk page. I don't have time for nonsense, outdated or otherwise. If you do not abide by this ban I will lodge a complaint at WP:ANI. Quis separabit? 15:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, if it weren't for " Americans", whom you seem to dislike, you wouldn't have any Wikipedia at all. Some gratitude, please. I see from the message below however warning you about edit warring that you are immature and unworthy of any further time on my part. Reminder: Stay off my talk page. Quis separabit? 17:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than semi-blank the page as you did with Escuadrón 201 (film). Thanks! -- KTC ( talk) 11:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Italo Balbo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mo ainm ~Talk 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 16:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I just responded but this posting just wiped out what I had finished typing.

Varlaam ( talk) 18:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't seriously believe that's going to get you unblocked. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes.

But then I resent this whole process where 50-year-olds are not allowed to have discussions with people without Mummy showing up and sending us all to our rooms.

Oh, sorry, sorry. My mistake.

We don't all get sent to our rooms. Mummy singles out one of us kids only.

Are you surprised that I am cynical about this entire episode? I don't treat my subordinates in this fashion.

Do you recommend that I run for admin so I don't get blocked by my fellow admins?

Varlaam ( talk) 19:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I blocked one of my fellow admins fairly recently. The great-and-evil-cabal-of-admins-who-stick-together-in-a-band-for-the-sheer-pleasure-of-gratuitously-attacking-everyone-else conspiracy theory is about as true as most conspiracy theories. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

60 hours, Varlaam!? That works out at 20 hours per revert, yes? Reinforcement reminds us "As Skinner discussed, positive reinforcement is superior to punishment in altering behavior. He maintained that punishment was not simply the opposite of positive reinforcement; positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas punishment changes behavior only temporarily and presents many detrimental side effects." But hey, who would ever want to suggest you're just a rat in someone's administrative maze! Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy.

I did not consciously 3RR. Today is today. Yesterday is not today.

I have two punks shoving their private agenda in my face. Right?

I do not have an egg timer on my desk. Do you?

Sheesh. Have you told those two guys to stop harassing the serious editors who do actual work around here to the benefit of all?

Varlaam ( talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the quote "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Attacks in your unblock request and then directly under it don't help your case could I suggest you have a nice cup of tea and chill out, I see above you are attacking another editor also. Mo ainm ~Talk 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the POV pusher.

So get the hell off my page and go and read a history book so you will know something the way that I know things. Have you ever even been to Ireland?

I am a half century old. I did not die from the brain haemorrhage that put me in the ICU a year ago.

So is it all right with you if I speak my piece? I am not entitled to express an opinion but you are? Sonny?

Varlaam ( talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in Ireland now, I was born in Derry and have lived almost half a century here, and I know a hell of a lot about my home County. Mo ainm ~Talk 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Then that's a good thing. Great.

So in 1933 what is the city called by the world at large?

Where is a citation to demonstrate that in this precise and specific historical case, the Catholic name was being used in the newspaper articles, rather than the Unionist name?

If you have a citation reading "Derry", awesome. But there needs to be one, eh?

Until then, it should use the universal official term of the day.

And that was not "Derry".

My family has Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists and Jews in it. The last family funeral I attended was Buddhist with the service in Sanskrit. And my cousin is Native Canadian, adopted. I'm on everybody's side here. And my niece is Native American.

One of my schoolfriends from here got put in the hospital the day he arrived for a visit to Belfast. Wrong accent down the pub. Woke up in hospital. Late 1970s.

I wish the article to show what is accurate for the time period, as I already indicated.

Could you please check the newspaper archive in Derry and see how this was written up at the time?

C'mon, you guys. Sheesh.

I do apologize for taking the Lord's name in vain, however.

Varlaam ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to have missed the point. You were not blocked because your opinion about "Derry"/"Londonderry" was wrong. You were blocked for edit warring, and for incivility and personal attacks. Therefore, posting a passage explaining yet again why you think you were "right" in your edits is missing the point. For what it's worth, I agree with you on the "Derry"/"Londonderry" issue, but whether you were right or wrong was not the issue when considering your unblock request: the issues were whether you edit warred, whether you were uncivil and made personal attacks, and whether you had indicated that you recognised your mistakes and would avoid making them again. When your block expires, you are welcome to try to get the manual of style changed on this issue if you like (though, from my experience of the history of everything related to the Northern Ireland dispute on Wikipedia, you will probably be wasting your time: the present compromise is probably about as good as you will get). Wikipedia does not have a dictator or a parliament or any other individual or body to decide who is "right" when different people disagree. There is nobody who can make a definitive decision as to who is "right" according to some objective criterion. The way we have of getting round this impasse is that we accept consensus, and anyone who persistently tries to force their own view through against consensus causes disruption (whether they intend to or not), and is likely to be blocked. Of course, anyone is free to argue civilly and courteously to try to change consensus, but that is not the same as ignoring consensus and repeatedly editing against it. Consensus sometimes produces results that I am convinced are objectively wrong, but if, when I have explained my view, consensus is still against me, I sigh, shrug my shoulders, and move on. Among the three million and more articles on English Wikipedia, there are always going to be many with wrong information in them, no matter what I do, and I know I can achieve more by editing 20 articles where my edits will be likely to stick than by spending the same amount of time edit warring and quarrelling about one article where consensus (rightly or wrongly) is against me. I suggest that, if you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you take a similar line. You think you are right about "Derry"/"Londonderry", but others don't, and, in a collaborative project run by fallible human beings, we all have to accept that sometimes a decision will be made that we think is totally wrong. I have spent some time and effort in writing this advice, and I hope you will consider it. I believe that if you take it, you will both have a more pleasant and rewarding time here and, perhaps more importantly, be able to achieve more in your aim of improving the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly not attacking me, Varlaam. I must have missed the steps where you were invited to discuss, apologise and/ or compromise, with the possible threat of a topic block. Have you ever heard the quote "When you find yourself trapped in a Skinner box, stop trying to bite your way through a dead end?" Actually, I haven't either. But I still think 60 hours is way, way over the top. Regards. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with you, Martin.

I am venting. (Perhaps you noticed.) Varlaam ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your user page does not really give the impression that you are narrow-minded, reactionary bigot. I think you have a genuine historical point that is not adequately addressed by the MOS guideline for Londonderry/Derry (which was itself a compromise, it seems). I'm also a little surpised that your blocking admin has said "I don't know and don't care how many of your reverts were within 24 hours". Isn't that why we have clear policies? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, I am not the blocking admin, I am just an admin who reviewed an unblock request.) The point I thought I was making, but evidently failed to make clearly enough, was precisely that we do have a clear policy on this, and the clear policy is that edit warring is sufficent grounds for a block, whether or not the "three revert rule" has been broken. You will see that this is so if you look at the policy on edit warring. That is why I said that I didn't care how many reverts were within 24 hours: it doesn't matter, as there was edit warring anyway, which justifies the block according to the perfectly clear policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for describing you as a "blocking admin" when in fact you are the non-un-blocking admin. What does the phrase ".. on a single page within a 24-hour period" mean? Perhaps you could tell us what the time-frame is for edit warring that's not covered by 3RR? Does the reviewing admin have no scope to moderate the original punishment, rather than just unblock, or to apply conditions? or to request assurances? What was your reason number 2? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam, have a think about this. The WP:IMOS which effectively states that "here on Wikipedia we use DERRY" is completely at odds with the core policy of NPOV. The IMOS is being used by a small number of editors to push the POV that DERRY is right and LONDONDERRY is wrong. Their excuse is that having this policy prevents edit warring: Bullshit! What if it does? There are other ways of dealing with edit warring. What it does is to undermine the core NPOV policy; big time. It should not be allowed. MOS is no place to dictate a naming convention, let alone a controversial one. I suggest you put this up on the NPOV noticeboard, stating that one of Jimbo's core policies is being blatantly undermined by this excuse of a MOS. It allows the likes of ONIH and Mo Ainm to trawl the pedia and disallow all instances that are at odds with their POV. It's a fucking scandal. BuckingFastard ( talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wonder who that is? Socks ahoy!!!! Mo ainm ~Talk 19:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit! Am I right? Yes, you know I am, but you continue to take advantage of this reprehensible and illegitimate IMOS. BuckingFastard ( talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You got to laugh. Mo ainm ~Talk 19:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Try answering the question! Oh, you can't 'cos you've no fucking argument have you? BuckingFastard ( talk) 19:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tend not to have discussions with socks. Mo ainm ~Talk 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you think I'm a sock what are you doing here? BuckingFastard ( talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks a bit like the block hasn't really worked, and possibly just made matters worse. But we have to wait 60 hours to find out. Good job none of the other editors could be accused of gloating or baiting, eh? Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) It is half time in the football, match started again so I won't be feeding you anymore. Who is gloating? Mo ainm ~Talk 19:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The unblocked Germans, one imagines. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So welcome back. I think people here tend to forget that en-Wiki ("the encyclopedia where anyone can get blocked") is not the only one. But you may wish to have a look and/or contribute to the current thread here? Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-minor1|Géza Gárdonyi}} PatGallacher ( talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Given that your changes were reverted in January, its not really on to wait a few months and try again without any engagement on the talk page. Your previous edit summaries also AGF|lack the normal politeness expected between editors. Edit warring is not restricted to three reverts within a day, it can also apply to long term attempts to change things without engagement on the talk page. Your prior block record, including this article would normally mean that a repetition of behaviour would go straight to ANI. I suggest you exercise more care and engage with other editors rather than just assuming you are right and hoping to wait out the opposition ---- Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hedd Wyn. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. putting this in place per the rules, but I suspect you know you are breaking them ---- Snowded ^TALK 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Varlaam, it seems you don't really care much for talk pages or discussion, and you never addressed the matter at ANI, pointed to above. At the very least your disruption at Hedd Wyn (film) needs to stop: as I explained in the ANI discussion, if you make that edit one more time you will be blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 03:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 00:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

DTTR, bro. — JonC ^ॐ 10:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Varlaam, your comments on that talk page were inappropriate. RepublicanJacobite was correct in qualifying them as belonging on a forum. Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Varlaam. Thank you. 2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Absolutely not.

That is dishonourable.

I am a Master Editor III.

I have never deleted anything from my talk page or archived it, because that is dishonest.

I stand behind everything I have ever said, here or anywhere else, and I am not some squirming, contemptible worm of a sockpuppet.

As a Canadian engineer, I swore an honesty oath, and I have worn my Iron Ring every day for 29 years as evidence of that.

Varlaam ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (Toronto)

The article Easter Rising, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing this ^^^.

Hey, buddy, the Troubles were in the 1960s and 1970s. When I was a kid.

The Easter Rebellion was in 1916, 1916, 1916, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles 50 years later.

Is the article on the shamrock also subject to this "1RR"?

I think it is safe to say that part of the problem with your biased article is that you don't know what decade it's in.

Varlaam ( talk) 17:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what decade it's in. If you'd actually read the template, you'd have seen the bit that says "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", which means the restriction covers more than The Troubles but obviously related articles too, which the Easter Rising most clearly is. 2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't read that fully, so I'm sorry.

I was expanding the List of World War I films so I went to Easter Rebellion to check for any films about 1916, and, lo and behold, the very term "Easter Rebellion" is suddenly taboo.

I am not asking to rename the article from "Easter Rising". If that is the popular favourite nowadays, so be it.

But this event was a century ago, and it has been known by other names. (How can an event from 100 years ago be controversial?)

The lead paragraph should acknowledge the existence of other names. Especially when those names were used for decades and decades.

Why is that controversial and why am I blocked for doing the reasonable thing here?

I do not get it. I do not get it.

I was right in the middle of fixing a problem related to Canadian POW camps of World War II, and suddenly I can't fix anything now.

It is crazy when the serious editors are blocked for no genuine reason.

On my to-do list for today, before I got blocked, was to go over to my public library -- it's the reference branch -- and see what their sources say about this matter.

But what's the point now? I can't edit a Talk page now.

Varlaam ( talk) 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (Toronto)

If I am a little cranky or short-tempered, then that could be due to the fact that I had brain haemorrhage and a seizure and I am still not allowed to drive yet. (The Ministry letter is said to be in the mail now.)

And when I see an article that is clearly out of sorts, maybe I do get a little too intense about it.

My apologies to you, Varlaam ( talk) 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(No apologies for Jacobite. That man is insufferably arrogant and abusive.)

You are clearly making provocative edits and repeating the abusive language for which you have been warned before. If it continues then it goes straight to ANI for action ---- Snowded ^TALK 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am just seeing this ^^^ now.

Are you for real?

Seriously.

One of the sources on your precious page uses the traditional term "Easter Rebellion". It is already on the page.

My "huge sin" was to add it to the lead paragraph where it belongs.

So now I am blocked, and that article is just as biased and one-sided as it ever was.

I fix a POV article; I get blocked.

The "justice" system here at WP is a joke, the way it has always been.

POV pushers, like you, get away with murder and people who try to introduce objectivity and balance, like me, get blocked.

Why do I even bother wasting my time in this screwed-up environment?

I guess it's because I come from a family of educators, so education is in my chromosomes.

Sincerely, Varlaam ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And your provocative edits continue. I notice you've not bothered to post a message on the talk page. I guess your sock doing so is good enough, eh? --- RepublicanJacobite _TheFortyFive 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a fucking sock, and you are the biggest [redacted] at Wikipedia.

How come [redacted] isn't reprimanded for calling me a sock?

Varlaam ( talk) 17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

RJ, I have seen YOU, you [redacted], use the word "fucking" in your EDIT SUMMARIES.

Asshole.

How come you get to use the word FUCKING in your edit summaries?

Eh? Varlaam ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quotation from RJ, the biggest [redacted] in Wikipedia:

RepublicanJacobite 22:32, 3 July 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-28,599)‎ . . List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange ‎ (Undid revision 500543178 by The Uncyclopedian (talk)---You more than quadrupled the size of the article, but did not add a single fucking reference, that is unacceptable

Nice way to handle an editor who contributed 28K of text, you [redacted].

Varlaam ( talk) 17:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K ₃₀₃ 13:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reset for evading the block as 99.237.226.35 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Do it again and it will be an indef. T. Canens ( talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this include the concurrent Continuation War, Winter War etc. etc. Petebutt ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

This edit summary is not appropriate. You've been here long enough to know that. (And that's why I didn't slap a {{ Uw-wrongsummary}} template on your page, which can also be seen as incivil to someone with as many edits as you.) Horologium (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. I have replied here -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/ The Welsh Buzzard 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful edit to the new article One Hundred Years of Evil I've recently created, much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 17:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Dear Varlaam, I would like to show my appreciation for your multiple edits. I would like also to ask you to act on my behalf and to accept my edit request published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Dill#Edit_request_on_2_November_2012 I would appreciate you understanding. Best wishes, Daniel Dwdimov ( talk) 14:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard procedure is to respond to a senior editor, not to delete his bloody question. Eh? Varlaam ( talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: The standard procedure is to say hello first of all, no matter who you think you are (not). Either way, leave the others decide what they considerable more important than your "bloody question". Eh? J-B ( talk) 17:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Howdy! This is cool - I like it. Do you think it would be worth adding a papal coat of arms to the other side? My only concern is that those are for each pope and two were involved. Don't want to misrepresent anything. Would appreciate your thoughts. Stalwart 111 02:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Aaargh, my cover is blown...

I'm not sure about the provenence of the Oxfordshire flag with the Bull's Head. I have come across some suggestions that it might be the banner of arms of an earlier ancestor of the current Oxfordshire County Council. The Red Ox is one of the heraldic devices of the City of Oxford, so it possibly dates from some time when the county subsumed the city, though that's just speculation. Either way, given that the official flag looked rather nice, it seemed a shame that it should be represented by something that was both incorrect and rather tacky.

JimmyGuano ( talk) 13:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can tell it will surprise you to learn that if you look up the word organisation (or reorganisation) in the Oxford English Dictionary "The definitive record of the English language" (as self-proclaimed but its true unless you are into crosswords) you will be automatically re-directed to organization. I sympathise with you (note spelling) but when it is made an issue the correct spelling is with a Z (pronounced zed). I'm not going to change it back to how I typed the word, someone is bound to do it for us sooner or later! And then the process will start again . . . Regards, Eddaido ( talk) 08:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your to List of World War I films has been reverted. No-one says that Wales is a sovereign state, it is not. Wales is, however, a country, and three references have been provided citing Hedd Wyn as a Welsh film, including the British Film Institute. Please do not remove cited text. If you disagree with cited article content, please discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you, Daicaregos ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of World War I films. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daicaregos ( talk) 21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are blocked for a long pattern of edit warring and personal attacks, for the purpose exemplified for your edits to List of World War I films. The following diffs and their edit summaries should suffice:

• insult to Daicaregos
• first removal
• first revert of Daiaregos, while blocked: "Column is for sovereign states"
• rv. of Daicaregos: "Wales is not a fucking sovereign state, moron"
• rv. of Daicaregos: "Persistent nationalistic vandalism from single-issue editor: blocking of this editor is now officially requested"
• rv. of Daicaregos: "Reverted vandalism"
• rv. of Daicaregos: "Reverted recidivistic vandalism"
• rv. of Snowded: "You are the 3rd biggest "contributor", so-called, to this page due to the frequency of your obsessive vandalism"

In all this time (this goes back to July 2012) you haven't sought the talk page to discuss this matter until this abusive post, where you claim ownership of the page refer to other editors as punks and parasites. Your edit summaries and other accusations are unacceptable, and your block log sufficiently indicates your battleground mentality. I will bring the matter up at WP:ANI for further review by other administrators, but given your history and your ongoing abuse and editing pattern, I think an indefinite block is warranted. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review. Drmies ( talk) 16:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Varlaam, I'm officially on a Wikibreak now and have just popped in after an absence of a couple of weeks to have a quick look at what's been happening, and I hope you don't mind my offering a few words of advice - nothing new that hasn't been explained before (over the past several years), so it might not do much good, but I'm willing to have a go in case it might help. Now, I've never heard of you before today, so I hope you'll agree we have no previous interactions that could colour my judgment - I'm probably as neutral as you're going to get. Picking up on a few of the things you say in your unblock request...

• Where do I claim ownership?: You don't explicitly claim ownership, but in your very next statement...
• 2) This individual has been attacking my film list pages for 3 years... (my emphasis): They're *not yours*, and continually claiming them as yours *is* the ownership problem. Every other editor has exactly the same right to edit those pages as you.
• 4) Wales is not a sovereign state etc, etc: That's just continuing the content dispute, and that itself is not relevant to any unblock request. Looking back, it appears that other editors have been discussing the disputed content on the relevant talk pages, but *you have not*. Instead, you just dictate what the article has to say, and edit-war to make it so - and it's a slow edit war that has been going on for ages. This is part of the ownership problem again. The decision on what content goes into an article is *not yours to make*, no matter how many film bodies you have discussed it with - the decision on a content disagreement is made by the community through discussion and consensus on the relevant talk pages. You must not edit-war to get your preferred version in - not even if you are right! If you think it should be "UK" and not "Wales", discuss it on the talk page, present your evidence and arguments there, and try to get a consensus. If the consensus agrees with you, then you can change it to "UK", but if the consensus does not agree with you, then you cannot - it really is as simple as that.
• It took me 3 months working on it every day. Three months of a Master Editor's time.: Your "Master Editor" status means absolutely nothing. Firstly, those "awards" are just a bit of fun, and there's nothing formal or official behind them. Secondly, three months constructive work from a brand new editor would be every bit as valued as three months of your work, or three months of work from someone with a million edits. This is another aspect of the ownership problem - you get no privileges whatsoever based on your edit count, you are in no way senior to any other editor and have no more content say than anyone else, and the amount of time you have spent on an article gives your opinion no priority over the opinions of other editors.
• If you would assign blocking privileges to all senior editors, then we would not be having this discussion now, would we? I would have been able to give him a 3-day block years ago. In order to make him see reason, and not continue to ignore all rational and reasonable discussion: Well, that's part of the reason we don't give out adminship based solely on number of edits - blocking your opponent absolutely must not be used to win a content dispute.
• Now, as I say, I don't know if anything of this will help - but if you want to return to being an active member of this community, these are the things that you will have to address. If you continue to insist that you have some sort of seniority/expert priority in deciding what content goes into the disputed articles, you are going to stay blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! BTW, good advice above. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Varlaam,

Merge tags should not be placed on templates, but instead taken to templates for discussion. I've started the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3#Template:Monarch of the Glen. Please comment there. Ego White Tray ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

I answered you question on Talk:Battle of Poitiers. Hope this helps. Could not find anything more specific, sorry. Mugginsx ( talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

On 26 January 2011, you proposed a variant to the template; that variant has now been included. Here's the example which you included on that template's talk page:

Enjoy! APerson241 ( talk!) 12:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andorran Navy. Since you had some involvement with the Andorran Navy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). De728631 ( talk) 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

As one of the previous contributors to {{ Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Please refrain from adding incorrect info on wiki-cy. Trudeau is not yet sworn in, as pm. Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 06:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Graun operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pizzetti operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 14:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Have a great day! Foofbun ( talk) 07:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Telemann operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films based on military books (fantasy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films based on military books (fantasy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kirbanzo ( talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of book-based war films (future wars) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of book-based war films (future wars) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{ Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. Retro ( talk | contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sixteen years, and counting …
Varlaam ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)