User talk:Sayerslle/Archive

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sayerslle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Parlez-moi de la pluie. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

I know that you've been discouraged. First I want you to understand that I am not attacking you and I do not think that you are or were an anti-semite or any of those disparaging things that you have attributed to me, because of my deleting material from various articles about Bosch's paintings. Please don't take all of this so personally. I think that you have been misreading and jumping to extreme conclusions. I respect your potential input as an important contributor, as Ceoil suggested try to write something out first and work with people at those articles where other people have worked very hard. It takes some subtle learning...no harm to you was meant from me...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:NPA. The rule is to comment on edits and not on editors. It's a good idea to listen to established editors. They want the best for the project and have a lot of experience as to how wikipedia works and its content requirements. Teething troubles for a new editor are not unusual, and, provided mistakes are learnt from and not repeated, there is no great harm done. Ty 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have learned from disagreements Ive got into. If I do venture on to talk pages, which I think I'll try and avoid really, I will keep it impersonal from now onSayerslle (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi Sayerslle, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Flm format

Ciao! Remember that film titles must be in italics.... say
''[[L'Ennui (film)|L'Ennui]]''.
Good work!

WikiProject Films

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) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! If you have any questions related to film articles on Wikipedia, feel free to contact me on my talk page! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for March has been published. April's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike’s Murder (film)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mike’s Murder (film), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Mike’s Murder. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Actually, the above bot pretty much answered your question.  :) We can't have any copyrighted material here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Debra Winger page

Hi! All fixed, but it was a really easy one. I just changed the link to Mike's Murder. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Jolivet

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Pierre Jolivet. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher

With regards to this edit this can be construed as a personal attack, or an attack on that editor's character. See my response Talk:Margaret Thatcher#How we avoid bias. Please avoid these attacks, "comment on the content not the contributor." Please take this in lieu of a templated warning. If you do have any questions, please leave a note on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I really think you need to take a step back from this article, you are far too emotionally involved as is evidenced by the edit comment for this edit. Your paranoia over the Globe and Mail seems a bit unfounded, it is the Canadian equivalent of the times.

If you want access to their archives, I would first ask the person who put the ref in, in this case Lachrie (talk · contribs) with this edit. He should be able to send you the article with it in. Ultimately it is up to The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material so it is up to Lachrie to prove that the Globe and Mail says what it says. You could always ask someone in the WP:CANADA project whether they have a subscription as well. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked Lachrie for the article? That should help clear up this degenerating mess. Woody (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He could put it on the Thatcher discussion page, I don't like to visit his talk page, he's kind of insulted me saying Ive wasted everybodys time and I've reacted. I don't think its a degenerating mess - it's just a sentence that looks dodgy to me. I think the article itself is degenerate, I'd like to argue each line, line by line, like street by street, like a literary Battle of Stalingrad, but whose nerves could stand the aggro of that?Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A no then? Given that you are the one who is questioning his statement, it is you who needs to actually ask him to provide it. And it is degenerating, the discussion is now utterly circular and degenerating into a battle of political ideologies. Woody (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Taking into account the earlier warning, please note that the next time you make personal attacks such as this edit, you will be blocked. There is no need to discuss somebody's religion, particularly when it has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. Please keep the discussion on the article. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered the COI aspect, but I hardly thought that I had a conflict of interest in this case. I thought it would be less drama to just tell you to stop rather than reporting it to a DRAMA board. I would not have blocked you as that would have been, but warning you was not in my opinion. I have no interest in the actual content dispute here, you have your opinion and your ideology and that is clear to see. If that ideology clouds things to the extent where you are acting outside of your usual behaviour, then perhaps it is time to take the article off your watchlist and go to another article. Woody (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alta Weiss

A tag has been placed on Alta Weiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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! 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

(particularly at Margaret Thatcher). --Happyme22 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falklands War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Justin talk 09:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

another right wing f....r. Sayerslle (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologised for issuing the warning in error on the article talk page. Please remove that personal attack and abuse, or I will raise this further. Justin talk 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

you accused me of edit warring, and when I added a citation needed tag, you said the article was already too long, but adding a ref doesn't take up any space, you told me to 'Quit it' in an aggressive manner that was out of order in my opinion, you cite freedman, as if he is God, and is the final word, you strike me as authoritarian and biased, thats my opinion, on my own talk page I've expressed this feeling , why is that not allowed? Sayerslle (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've apologised twice now for an error. So again I am asking you to remove personal abuse. Justin talk 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

'Follow your own path, and let people talk.' Dante Alighieri. 'Quit it..' ' Remove it..' Blimey.Sayerslle (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

your addition to McKay

Would you please come to the talk page and discuss your addition. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, thanks for that. Best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Margaret Thatcher

I am stopping by to let you know that I just reverted the edit you made, and I am going to explain why.

First, I am apolitical ... I have neither love nor hate for Margaret Thatcher. However, I found it a little ironic when you are accusing one editor of being biased for what is on his userpage, when your self description being : "I am a leftist" ... that's not why I reverted this edit ... I am just pointing out that this could come across as being a little odd.

The reason I reverted it is because the wording of the edit is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. I am not saying this doesn't necessarily belong, but shouldn't it belong under general foreign policy? Even if it should stay, there are a lot of inflammatory words. Are we all 100% sure that these people denied visas were "victims"? Were all of these governments "juntas"? I think this needs to be reworded. I would have taken a crack at it myself, but I am not in possession of the reference that was cited, and thus I am not sure how to properly render the source into neutral wording without losing the essence of what was being reported.

Further, you should be more cautious about calling other editors "cranks". This could be considered a breach of civility, and I would not want to see anyone here get into trouble. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

i've answered on his page, but I'm saying on my own page I don't like sentences like 'I would not want to see anyone here get into trouble.' I'm going to leave wikipedia, all these veiled threats, for just speaking frankly, and my edit is called a 'rant' when its factual, and that's the height of civility, and I call the goddam tetragrammaton or summat a crank, and I get threatened . I hate it. Sayerslle (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I too answered back on my talk page .... but I will leave the short of it here. I am not threatening you. If I wanted to threaten you, I would have left some templated message ... moved you closer to a block. Instead, I tried to just start a dialogue. There was an issue with your edit. You said you were going to fix it, and that is great. As far as "I would not want to see anyone get in trouble", that means "I would not want anyone to get in trouble" ... I don't want some other editor swooping in and templating you for perceived incivility, or for loading an article with non-neutrally worded edits. There is nothing veiled here, and I am sorry if you have misinterpreted what I wrote. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your page

You introduce yourself in third person and then relapse to first person. Just an observation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Yogesh, I don't know if you'll read this but I've been thinking about some of what you've been writing on the dickens page..'The Anglo-Americans responsible for the Holocaust' . 'Imperialism and slavery and semitism are white-Christian discoveries',, what are you on about? In classical studies at school we read about Xerxes, he had an empire before Jesus was born, and Jesus was born on the edge of the Roman Empire, pre-Xtian imperialism!, slavery I think often followed after wars when the defeated got led away in ancient times etc.. and to blame the Allies for the Holocaust is perverse. I think you'd do better to look for the causes of all the trouble in the world in human nature rather than 'anglo-america' . Empires come and go, but man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward. I dont even know what 'the Anglo-Americans invented semitism' means. Are you a kind of ultra-Hindu nationalist? Sayerslle (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Margaret Thatcher. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hi. I noticed on your third reversion that you added additional text to balance the paragraph, but the reversion still included the contested text and source. I know that the Margaret Thatcher article is often subject to heated exchanges but please try to gain some form of consensus before further reversion. The other editor involved in the dispute has also made 3 reversions and has received a similar message. Road Wizard (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been called pathetic, told I can't read or write, an edit that quoted a respected journalist was dismissed as a'rant' etc.. Still, I get the picture. Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality too you know . Sayerslle (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do know that. But any attempt to use one policy as a defense for a violation of another is to the eyes of most people rather pathetic. Honestly, I think the material is more relevant to the Thatcherism article, because it deals more with her politics than her biography, so far as I can tell. And, if you have been called all those things, maybe, just maybe, there is a reason for it? The relevant policy in this case is probably WP:CONSENSUS, and there does not seem to be any sort of consensus for such an edit. The reasonable thing to do, once the block expires, is to file a request for comment on the article and notify the relevant WikiProjects regarding Politics, Great Britian, etc. I think most of those projects probably have their templates on the talk page. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Something I rarely, if ever do, there is a 3RR report here [1]. I would suggest you consider a self-revert immediately. Regards, Justin talk 14:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what youre saying here. The Runcie edit is just an edit about the servive at St Pauls. Why would I revert it when Ive just written it? Sayerslle (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was a new edit I would have said nothing but it isn't. You're still introducing the same material as before just not all of it. You were invited to take the issue to talk, where you have done nothing but hurl abuse at other editors. I don't see anyone amenable to listening here. The warning was a courtesy notice, whereby you were given a 4th chance to avoid the need for admin intervention. Justin talk 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Block and unblock

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Margaret Thatcher. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: Please see AN3 report that led to the block (also, earlier redundant report). Abecedare (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sayerslle, just a comment from a uninvolved editor, you have clearly broken WP:3RR so your unblock request is destined to failure and you may as well remove it untill you have a better rationale. I would suggest reading the WP:3RR article and coming back with a better rational for unblocking, the first step to unblocking or a reduction in length would be accepting that you have done something wrong and the second step would be providing a rationale that you would not go forward in the same style. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i didn't break the rule - on the page where justin lists the diffs, the first was to put the neutrality tag on the article which was removed without consensus, the 2nd and 3rd diffs are the exact same edit..if my unblock request is 'destined to failure' thats because life is unfair not because I am a truculent and recalcitrant knave. Maybe i could do with a break from wikipedia anyway. A lot of the people, I just plain don't like 'em.Sayerslle (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well....I do understand how you feel, a 31 hour block is a nice little break, just if you accept and understand that you have broken the policy, a revert is any alteration of a good faith edit from another editor, and if you perhaps agree to stay away from the disputed article for a few days as this is your first block you could well have a good case for reduction. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just loked at the rule, and the point that it was any alteration, I didn't understand that. I think because I introduced new material as well, into the earlier disputed material, it all got mixed up and I felt the other editors were deleting the newer material unfairly. As its any alteration, I see the unblock request is destined to fail.Sayerslle (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle, if you volunteer to desist editing the Thatcher and/or Falkland related articles for the next 31 hours, and also affirm that you will attempt to assume good faith and follow the WP:BRD process in the future, I will be happy to unblock you immediately. You will of course be free to discuss the proposed changes at the articles' talk pages. Let me know if that sounds good to you; or if you prefer taking a break from wikistress anyway. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

o.k I will 100% keep away fom the thatcher and falklands articles for the next 31 hours, and attempt to assume good faith, harder that one, but I will try, and follow the brd process, yes. Thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back Sayerslle, if you have any questions regarding 3rr and the bold revert discuss cycle please feel free to ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account, per your request above. Hope you'll reciprocate the good faith (not only with me), and remember that editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a little advice from me......Try to stick to one revert a day per article...If you add some new content that is an addition, you can add as much cited material as you like. If you add something and someone removes it, do not replace it, instead go to the talkpage and ask why it was removed and if you still want to inset it, wait to see if a consensus appears in your favour. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry it came to this, from past comments I somehow expect you'll choose not to believe that. In the cold light of day I suggest you go back and read some of the comments I made earlier and realise I was giving you good honest advice. I dare say our politics aren't a million miles apart; that doesn't mean we allow our POV to skew articles. Justin talk 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Chatback

Hi, Sayerslle, I hope you are settling back in after the stormy weather, don't forget if you have any stress issues feel free to have a chat, take it easy, best regards from Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm much calmer than I was on Friday - I'm thinking of sticking with film articles for a while and a bit on sport maybe, some baseball edits. Sayerslle (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, those are cool places, articles like thatcher attract a lot of issues and you are better off out of there, when that kind of thing happens to me, I find that it is good to take the page of my watch list and move on, that way you are not bothered by seeing the edits there, the wiki is massive and there are a lot of relaxed places to learn your editing and debating tactics, enjoy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS November Newsletter

The November 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this link. [2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year!

Merry Christmas and happy new year! Thanks for sharing your views. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter

The December 2009 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Sayerslle! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Noémie Lvovsky - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews and images

It looks to me like the amount of quotes is too much and could have issues with copyright. I would recommend keeping maybe ten at the most (if that). For the images, usually non-free images can rarely be used for biographies. Although the movie posters look great, they don't really exhibit anything related to the content of the quotes, so they should be removed as well. It is difficult to write on book articles such as this, and although it would be great to have all of the quotes and images, I don't believe that they comply with non-free guidelines. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - of course I don't agree that the posters 'don't really exhibit anything related (!) to the content of the quotes', I mean the quotes are related to the films featured on the posters..but I think if I find a quote from Kael I think is very good I'll add it to the film article page rather than overfill the book articles.Sayerslle (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is that the posters themselves do not provide the reader with any connection between the quotes and the film itself. Unless she was specifically writing about the poster, it does not relate to the description of the characters, plot, themes, etc. within the film. It would probably be better off including specific screenshots where she wrote about an actor's depiction in a particular scene or how a character represented a particular theme. That's a great idea to include the quotes within the film articles. Many film articles could use expanded reception sections, and with a sourced quote from a book, that will help to improve the section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, 'the posters themselves do not provide the reader with any connection between the quotes and the film itself' - I'm sorry but thats gobbledegook to me. When I was growing up I used to like the encyclopedias with words and pictures, and the poster, the words are related to each other to my way of thinking. I don't like the way black kite swore in the edit summary, implied I was an idiot, 'it's not rocket science' etc.. I think he's just made the page less interesting to look at, and for what? To please his 'jobsworth' idea of something. The images and words are related - it seems quite evidently so. Anyway he says on his user page he has retired , so is he damn well retired or aint he? If I reverted back to the version with posters is that asking for trouble? Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I like pictures within articles as well, but unfortunately since we're pushing for free content, non-free images have to have strong justification to be included within an article. If I wrote a review for Avatar and commented on how a pivotal scene really brought out the emotion of the characters and defined the whole film, a reader of my fictional review would have no idea what the scene looked like if I just provided the movie poster. If I was a reviewer that wrote a book only focusing on what makes movie posters great and how Tropic Thunder's poster looks like a Vietnam War statue, it would be much more relevant to include the poster. Now, unfortunately, editors here sometimes have issues controlling emotions and the best thing you can do is let it go and continue on in improving the article. If an editor continues to not assume good faith or harasses an editor without just working towards consensus in improving the article, then you can report the editor. Anyway, images and other non-free content are difficult to work with here, and it took me a while to get the hang of it. If the reviewer wrote about a particular actor within the film, then we usually have plenty of free images that can be included in the article. If you have any more questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't pay for images, but if we were a published encyclopedia that sold our work, we would most likely have to pay for the images. Copyrighted images such as movie posters, screenshots, DVD covers, pictures of celebrities, advertisements, etc. are called non-free since the author has not released them to be used for any use. Wikipedia allows for only limited use of copyrighted image, citing the fair use doctrine (where for example, we can be allowed to use a small-size image or a small portion of a video for educational purposes). There must be a strong reason why a non-free image should be used with a developed fair use rationale included (take a look on the image pages for some non-free screenshots of some film/TV FAs and you'll see the fair use rationales). That's why if you look to most articles, there are not very many (or any) non-free images included (and those that do have a lot are from editors who may not know that much about non-free requirements). Fortunately, more and more authors are liking what Wikipedia is doing and releasing images under free licenses that can be used for any Wikipedia article. You can search through Wikimedia Commons where over 6 million free images are kept. You can use any of the images there for use in articles. For example, if the reviewer comments on Brad Pitt's work in a film, you can consider adding one of the many free images we have of him. Sometimes the images are not of the greatest quality, but as more and more images become available under a free license, we tend to get better quality images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I must again unfortunately also tell you that the images cannot be used as you've added them. It can be frustrating for articles if little or no free images are available (as is the case for most books, films, video games, television shows, etc. articles). I would be sorry to see you leave the film project because of the image policy, but I hope you realize that the image requirements do not just fall under WP:FILM, we just help to enforce it. Many projects are lucky to have abundant images, including those that deal with military, animal, and some biography articles. Now, yes some of the editors probably should have not continually reverted you without properly explaining the guidelines on your talk page. I hope that the above and some of the other comments have helped to clarify the image policy. I really didn't like it at all when I first started uploading numerous non-free images, but after learning about the image requirements, it has pushed me to help get free images for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for film articles, it is difficult to get free images, but as time goes on, more people will give permission for their use or they will fall into the public domain. Although you may not believe that the project is not trying to aim for visually appealing articles, just take a look at some FAs and their use of non-free images. There must be a strong reason to include them, and as they are being used now in matching up with reviews of the film, they just don't hold up. It's great that you're helping to expand these articles, but maybe it would be helpful for you to take these reviews and help to include them in the various film articles being reviewed. That would help to improve more than just the one article. If not, no worries. If you need any further clarification, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adrienne Posta

Please read reply to your comment on the talk page. Saga City (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I admire your repeated efforts to get some objectivity into this article. It remains one of the most censored bits of propaganda I have seen on Wikipedia - despite POV protests and mediation. Does the Vatican have a team to monitor and protect its articles? How are editors supposed to deal with this kind of problem? --Tediouspedant (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have clear reasons to object to the text on Africa - though I do share some of your concerns. There is no clear bias there or facts that you can reference to prove the existing text is wrong. You'd have a much better case in relation to the role of the church in the conquest of Central and South America. For real bias see the article on Conquistador - which I think should be deleted. --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit about Science and the Church to the end of the the History: High Middle Ages (7.5) section in NancyHeise' style. Lets see if she spots the irony ;-) --Tediouspedant (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeisel responded "The science bit is a little too much detail I think although I do like it." ROFL. --Tediouspedant (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

Please do not insert non-free images in articles where their inclusion does not meet our non-free content criteria. You're welcome to use our vast gallery of free images to help in illustrating articles, or - even better - help contribute to our library of free content, but please be aware that we have to follow fairly strict policies and guidelines when dealing with copyright material. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, the rules don't simply say "reasonable" use is permitted. Read the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria carefully. To be used, a copyrighted image must meet all ten of these standards. Please stop reverting edits which enforce our policies on non-free content. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

LOok at the article for Kael's book for 'Going Steady' - is it better to look at and read, with or without, the pictures. What do you gain by making it a mass of verbiage - nothing. What do you lose? Readabiity. It's less attractive to look at. If it has to meet all ten of the rules please spell out the rule I'm breaking, as you know the rules and I don't. Why are you so keen to makle an article look worse and less readable. If you revert again I'll probably have to accept the triumph of the jobsworth, but you know, whats the f.....g point of it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

You are continuing to violate our non-free content criteria, namely:

1. to insert non-free images in articles where there is no rationale;
2. to use non-free images for decorative purpose absent any critical commentary on that image;
3. to use non-free images more than the minimum necessary amount;

and to repeatedly re-insert those images by edit-warring when the policies have been explained to you numerous times. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is your final warning. Our policies on use of non-free content are clear. You will be blocked if you continue. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The text and images are linked. Do what you like - the policy is clear, but are you enforcing it correctly, reasonably, sensibly etc etc. Stick to math, you aren't reading with intelligence. Can you on your own block me, for what, trying to help the kael books pages. Its all just a mass of words, now with nothing to attract the eye, so will probably be less read. Thanks for your help pal, you tt. Sayerslle (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter

The February 2010 issue of the Films 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for the heads up. Actually, several of the images in The Crystal Bucket were totally fine, as they are freely licensed images, or taken from Wikimedia Commons (which has only free images). Unfortunately a few of the screenshots and film covers did have to go. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• A good rule of thumb is that you should take a look at the image's page. If the license is "Creative Commons" or "Public domain", then those mean that the image can be used anywhere, without restrictions. If it is some sort of "Non-free" license, you might want to ask for help before adding the image to another article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

31 hours off

31 hours off for you.[3] Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|because I complained about a false ues of a source? and with no discussion, arbitrary, gross over reaction.}}

Because you complained about a source? No. Because you questioned the integrity of your fellow contributors, and called them liars, fascists, and "little hitler."[4][5][6][7] But if you'll agree to stop abusing people, assume good faith, and deal with them in accordance with our policies, I'll unblock you myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. Thanks.Sayerslle (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Both you and Mamalujo need to stop edit-warring at Catholic Church. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Be aware that the working compromise now calls for everything from my version to remain intact except History, which has regained its former size. Further (major) changes should be discussed in the talk page. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of When the Lights Go Down

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is When the Lights Go Down. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When the Lights Go Down. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When the Lights Go Down

While perhaps understanding User: Duffbeerforme's removal of the dozens of mini reviews that comprised the article, I have determined that When the Lights Go Down has been itself been both praised and panned in multiple reliable sources for years.[8] I have added some citations to the article, and with the many many more that are available, feel that the book has an independent notability through GNG. Care to help add more reviews? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings & sorry!

Greetings Sayerslle - I just rollbacked your edit at Homage to Catalonia by mistake (my cursor was hovering over the page while I was scrolling and I clicked on the wrong link). Have restored. Sorry! --Technopat (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of sourced material at Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

That was indeed a rather large removal of text, which "tosser" isn't exactly much explanation of. - Vianello (Talk) 22:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting sourced text en masse with no explanation is not a way to go about things at all. Remember WP:BRD. You got the B, you subsequently got the R, now it's time for the D, not an edit war. Tidying up contents for a neutral presentation of arguments is fine, but deleting sourced arguments or assertions made by outside sources is not. I would suggest you add the additional material you added (the explicitly referenced parts, anyway), and discuss the removal or rewording of the rest on the article's talk page. - Vianello (Talk) 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So, now that we're back at this point, rather than removing material again, talk it out on the talk page. I am not going to answer personal questions, by the way, unless you can demonstrate they are relevant to Wikipedia policy. I've put up far too many times with people trying to find excuses to ignore me by assuming I am/am not part of one group/nationality/ethnicity/social cause/religion/bridge club. Unless the answer to your repeated question in some way affects the existence of policy on edit warring and/or WP:BRD, it is irrelevant. - Vianello (Talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If people belong to groups that they hide from others i don't like it. politics, the very word derives from the greek for a citizen, polites, is a world in which secrecy is poison, so here where politics is involved i think political/religious alignments should be declared and open thats all. its relevant here because I need to know if you are disintereted - mamalujo removed material, but you are telling me that i removed naterial. there was a balanced intro - then add to it if you want another side, but Mmalujo replaced it all with his pro-franco piece,Sayerslle (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Suffice to say (belatedly), I have absolutely no position on the issue whatsoever. However, the comment that you "need to know" if someone is disinterested does harken back to my concern that you are fishing for a reason to disregard. However, I am not taking a side in this. I understand what you are saying, and advise you talk it over rather than spinning the wheels back and forth. Where the conversation goes, from there, is no concern or business of mine as long as no policy is violated. - Vianello (Talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

d....ss

Mamalujo (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen O'Hara

Regarding this edit, I agree with your edit summary that it may be too detailed for the film table. The information itself is good and relevant, and would be a useful addition to the text of the article to expand the discussion of her film career. The main problem with adding so much into the notes column is that it makes the table unbalanced and places the emphasis on the notes, rather than the list of works. Rossrs (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Campbell

Just a heads up to say you should be careful with your contributions to Alastair Campbell. It would be useful if you could find the article you've referenced online and link to it, particularly as the subject remains a controversial one. You should be able to find it at the Independent website. Also remember to present the information in a neutral style. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Have checked it out and it looks ok now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Garden of Earthly Delights are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thats fair to warn over someting like this. It could very well have yielded useful info for that article. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arconovaldo Bonaccorsi

There's some useful information on how to change an article title at Help:Moving a page if you need to do it again in future. Essentially, you can usually move the page yourself to a new title. It leaves a redirect behind at the previous title, but if that redirect is unlikely to be helpful to anybody, you can put a {{db-r3}} template on the redirect and it an admin will delete it later. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at what to do -I was half listening to the radio, that's my excuse, but it could happen again I guess and I should know how to deal with it. Sayerslle (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Constance Amiot

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Constance Amiot. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Michel Houellebecq

Hi Sayerslle, please could you visit the talk page for Michel Houellebecq and give your thoughts on the issue of "Possible Copyright Infringement". I examined to see what edits resemble the web page identified by Jztinfinity and they seem to relate to your two edits on 30th august 2009. Regards, Phil Nolte (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I apologize if I offended you. What I meant what that your comments [9]) were difficult to understand and did not address the matters of Wikipedia policy raised by the nomination.  Sandstein  15:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I felt better for writing what I did, but then realised you were probably right. As to sources I just saw on Amazon a book by Prof Yonah Alexander that seems to be about the subject. I still think the article's creator is a POV menace but that's a different matter. Sayerslle (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the voters for the article seem to be mates too, evr so pally dontchaknow, bunch of planks IMO:)Sayerslle (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources & NPOV

Dear Sayerslle,

Britannica is, in theory, a neutral and accepted source. In its article we can read: "The revolution of 1931 that established the Second Republic brought to power an anticlerical government". In a section dedicated to anticlericalism in 1930's Spain, it is a very convenient citation, specially if this article uses the 1931 events as an example. If you don't like Encyclopedia Britannica as an accepted WP source (WP:IRS), there is another problem there. Certainly, in the historiography normally the 1931 events doesn't appear as a revolution. In fact, I would like to know which is the source (or the author) of this EB article. Nevertheless, for the moment, it's the only source in this article to speak about the 1931 events and anticlericalism. I think that its deletion it isn't a good practice. Maybe, you can offer other sources and works with a different POV or a POV more accepted for the historiography. For the moment, a reinsertion of this citation must be done.

Yours,

Vilallonga (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I add some other content and a clarification alert on "revolution", as a provisional solution. Yours, Vilallonga (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the author of this EB article is using another meaning of revolution, like Velvet Revolution, Orange Revolution, Cedar Revolution or Rose Revolution instead of the Mexican Revolution, French Revolution or Russian revolution of 1917. In WP article revolution, the definition of Aristotle points in this direction. EB is a widely accepted source and it should shows the most accepted historiographical POV (a NPOV, in theory). The best sources are, after this WP reliable source, main contributions of historians. The article shows a wide body of references, but, maybe, it needs a more intense use in order to prevent POV wars on a delicate subject. Yours, Vilallonga (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sayerslle,

I saw that you added a reliable book of Mary Vincent Modern Spain: the Problem of the State, 1833-2000. I think you don't use the correct name of that book in references. But, I must say that this is not a justification for the deletion of other references! I cannot understand why the presence of one source excludes other sources. I agree with the new text, this is not a problem. Also, which is the relation of this citation (" Yet the "definition of the Republic was always ambiguous. Never a single movement, [it encompassed] liberals, radicals, federalists, and even early anarchists. The Socialist Party was Republican, but only as part of a wider political programme. And to convinced monarchists, the Republic was an anathema - the Carlist militias were training in the mountains as early as 1931. The conservative Republican Ángel Ossorio y Gallardo recalled that mothers would reproach a childs untidiness with the words, 'This looks like a Republic!'.") of Vincent with a section about anti-clericalism?

I reintroduced EB source. Again, you cannot delete a reference if you don't like it. And EB is a reliable source of WP.

Yours faithfully,

Vilallonga (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of the book, looking at it again is 'Spain, 1833-2002 , People and State' - perhaps i should have given the full title in the ref - I didn't notice the 'People and State' part of the title - I don't think the section has to deal solely with anti-clericalism does it? There were more than religious issues to consider , so they could be alluded to - agrarian reform ,labour legislation, the vision different people had of what the new Republican nation should beSayerslle (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sayerslle,

Of course, there are more issues to be considered. But, we are talking about the anticlericalism section.

About sources: you don't have a clear method about using sources and references. Yhe is no gospel-source or source-written-in-stone, but every source has a place or utility. Your POV wants to delete a source that you don't like. This is unacceptable. You must read again WP:IRS.

Spain had a political revolution, through a municipal election. I explained yet in your talking page the meaning of revolution. This is the meaning used in EB. An article from EB is a source, another source to be cited in the WP article, no more. But when an user wants to delete sources to change the POV, we must defend those sources.

It is an appropriate source, because explains anticlericalism in Spain during II Republic. In a section explaining anticlericalism in Spain during II Republic, this source fits perfectly.

If there is no consensus in that point, maybe we need an arbitration.

Yours faithfully,

Vilallonga (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with "revolution"? "Revolution" is not a good or bad concept. In fact, when you think in revolution, you think only in Révolution Française, Russian Revolution and similar. Please, read WP article revolution. Felix Dies Nativitatis. Yours faithfully, Vilallonga (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that 'revolution' has nuances or whatever, 'the revolution in shopping trends' or whatnot, but I think the word was chosen for POV reasons in a way, that's all - why use a word with nuances when there is no need? Joyeux Noel..(is that the french ?) Sayerslle (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas (Col 1:16) History2007 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Pym

Nice work on An Unsuitable Attachment. Deb (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing from your user name that your first love is Lord Peter. Deb (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dare I ask whether you belong to the Barbara Pym Society? (I do recommend it - we have a lot of fun.) Deb (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The two titles you mention are not her best. However, I thoroughly recommend "Excellent Women". My other favourites are "A Glass of Blessings" and "Less than Angels". Deb (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tucson shooting

Hi. Are you going to add a ref for the Giffords quote? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

that was very widely reported that quote.. - kenatipo, another great admirer of kelly - Sayerslle (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kenatipo (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. the tea party movement, a faux-grass-roots political movt., most chiefly consisting of embittered white people.."seen as a group, 99.5% of us were white.. a shade too prosperous, too amiably chatty, to pass as the voice of the enraged grass roots..I asked one woman whether she'd been part of 9/12 as tea partiers call the great taxpayers march on Washington D.C. .no, she'd missed it she said and 'felt really guilty' about doing so, but she and her husband had been on vacation. 'We spent a week in Amalfi, then we toured Tuscany, then we spent a week in Rome..' Another woman, hearing my (british) accent, told me about and her partners second home in Torquay which they visited three times a year from their base in Atlanta and about their 35 ft powerboat...' etc J.Raban. Sayerslle (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be blasé, but thought it wouldn't survive this long. what with all the NPOV hawks around. it gets like the play hamlet and you figure its best to speak and act in riddles when the political talk and cnsorship is so degenerate and poisonous. Sayerslle (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsection

How about 'Political debate'? The paragraphs before and after the NPOV tag are very different in tone. KimChee (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I will wait longer regarding the NPOV tag. A fair number of editors are still very opinionated about that section of the article. KimChee (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Catherine Rihoit

The article Catherine Rihoit has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 03:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

You're discussed here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin

I wasn't talking about tirades on the Palin article nor on its Talk page, I was talking about the repeated attacks on the ANI page. And your claims of being able to tell what "side" I'm on are offensive and violate AGF. Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

the editor you supported, kelly, criticized 'manufactured political faux outrage', that is violating AGF too, ..the editor you were attacking was being harrassed by kelly, only reason he put that stuff at ANI , but you know I'm finished with Palin and her followers, real poisonous stuff.Sayerslle (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first editor to recoil from the Palin article in the face of the assiduous rejection of any important information that might possibly be construed as negative. (And when she ran for VP she was protected 24/7.) I also gave up. So your bruising experience at the talk page resonates with me.

The departure of any editor who shares your concerns about the article's balance is to be regretted, as it helps sustain the skewed status quo. But I doubt anyone with two brain cells to rub together takes the article seriously -- it's just a boil on the arse of WP. As I said, others before you have tried, and failed, to lance it.

I'm sorry to see another incisive editor walk away. But at least you'll be saved from headaches and high blood pressure.

Bon -- or at least meilleur -- voyage elsewhere on WP. Writegeist (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

- writegeist - buster seven - fc reid Sayerslle (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Luz

Hi, I think the Luz material you added is pretty good. This fellow seems to have spent his entire life on Matthew and seems to be the world expert on Matthew. So who is the best Luke expert in the world? Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Book Review

As promised:

• "Paul Johnson's study of Christianity, from his namesake Apostle to Pope John XXIII, more particularly in relation to the role in world history of the Roman Catholic Church and other institutional manifestations, can only be described as masterly. It combines a great wealth of scholarship, including many fascinating byways as well as the main highways, with a vigorous, confident style, a kind of innate intensity which carries the narrative along so that it rarely falters and is never dull." Malcolm Muggeridge, New Statesman (London)

• "His is a tour de force, one of the most ambitious surveys of the history of Christianity ever attempted and perhaps the most radical. In eight sections, with a great range of reading and a knowledge that is never made tedious, he tells the story of the rise, greatness, and decline of Christianity." W. H. C. Frend, The New York Review of Books

• "Paul Johnson, an English Roman Catholic, has given us the best one-volume history of Christianity ever done." Richard Marius, The Christian Century

• "That the history of Christianity can be lucidly surveyed in a single, comprehensive volume of 556 pages is no small accomplishment. To Paul Johnson's credit A History of Christianity neither skimps on significant details or wallows in scholarly fussiness. Johnson provides a panoramic overview of events which have shaped our twentieth century Western lifestyle far more than we realize.... For economy of style combined with a sympathetic understanding of the nearly 2000 years of Christianity's conflicts as well as its glorious achievements, Johnson's History is exceptional."Michael McCauley, Commonweal

• "It is astonishingly well done." J. Enoch Powell, The Daily Telegraph (London)

• "Johnson has written a readable and provocative history based more on politics, economics and social and cultural facts than on theology.... [He] bases his account on modern scholarship, achieves objectivity without aridity, arrives at the present age after examining the recurring cycles of religious response to situations."Robert Kirsch, Los Angeles Times

• "An ambitious, magisterial and ultimately positive book." Mayo Mohs, Time

• "A reliable if hard-edged story of the public church." Martin E. Marty, The New York Times Book Review

It's taken from the back cover of the book where they don't of course print any negative reviews. ma'at (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, quick question: Did Thérèse write "To Live by Love" on February 26, 1895 or 1896? By the way it is not even mentioned on her page, and it is her masterpiece. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree: the more you look, the more depth there is in all her writings. It is amazing. It all just sounds super-human. I think she had hints from above, so to speak. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcass

For what it's worth, the text looks like it was taken from the shark finning article. I have changed it to "animal" there as well. 166.205.137.142 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a shark is a fish, so I changed it. Sayerslle (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libya. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't edit war. I wrote that I removed a pro-gadaffi messsage on my own talk pages edit summary and he reported that too - - that was'off-kilter' according to the POV guy - now the guy has a pro-gadaffi userbox, - you know thats the kind of character one is up against but I won't edit war. Sayerslle (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: libyan flag

Hello, I just stated that on the article, because no law was issued on changing the flag and none of the international organizations have used the new old-flag. I am not pro-Gaddafi, but I am stating which flag is more correct to be use on the article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

i saw the airmen who sided with the rebels in Benghazi painting their helicopters with the tri colour flag tonight - benghazi is part of Libya - the article doesn't say ' Gadaafi's Libya' it says 'libya' - the fact is the green flag is the current flag , not of libya, part kind of 'part of Libya' the gadaffi controlled part - if the article is about libya, then i don't see how its arguable that there are more than one flag at the moment used as symbols for different parts of the country. while things are so changed from a month ago when the flg was unchallenged so to speak, i don't see why some are so opposed to showing both - that would nearer reflect reality and be more decent so to speak in my eyes. i'm afraid i have contempt for those who insist on it staying the way it is - that isn't meant violation of NPA it just flows from how I see things.Sayerslle (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you sail a ship under the tri-color flag at the moment you are, under international maritime law, operating a pirate ship that can be fired upon and boarded at will. The Green flag is the I.M.O.-accepted flag of maritime registry. Do you have contempt for merchant mariners who are, right now, flying the Green flag because international navigation law requires them to do so under pain of seizure of shipping? Berber1 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

noticeboard

You are the subject of a Noticeboard request here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extreme_WP:CIVIL_in_Libya_Entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berber1 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 February 2011 (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. The thread is Violation of WP:CIVIL on the talk page for 2011 Libyan civil war.The discussion is about the topic 2011 Libyan civil war. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow this. I quoted gaddafis words as he prepared to attack benghazi to point out the vindictive spirit he was capable of, responding to an editor who made out he was not a vindictive personality. i think you should try and build the encyclopedia and not waste my time. Sayerslle (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not find much wrong with the beginning part about Gaddafi, but what about "yeah, right , whatever you say Moscow ip. Moscow ips=Stalin's children"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

it was my way of saying has 'a taste for dictators' which this ip has and wouldn't deny presumably, liking gaddafi as he does. Saying he approved the shooting of the unarmed demonstrators. anyway, ever read Dante, 'go your way, and let the people speak' blocking me seems a bit draconian. Sayerslle (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moscow ip has written 'my brainwashed friends' today - is that an 'attack', king of hearts, eraserhead, . I find that quite offensive. Clive James said once ' you can only brainwash those who have brains to wash..'Sayerslle (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is an attack. However, that does not justify your own attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So have you blocked the ip for 48 hours too for his attack? Sayerslle (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack (as its aimed at a group, not one person), and its not as strong as your comment was - the IP user has been warned however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

my comment was nothing at all really just exasperated that he said gaddafi could not be fairly charccterised as vindictive, , when the talk when he was at the gates of Benghazi was very very vindictive, looks like he'll be back there soon, I wish Christopher Hitchens wsn't so ill, we need a sane commentator to fight all the pro-Gaddafi propaganda thats getting nurtured and fattened up - fat chance that that ip is going to give a toss about WP:NPOV either , - this is nonsense imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guy Gaucher

The article Guy Gaucher has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. joe decker^{talk to me} 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guy Gaucher

Hi,

In doing a bunch of tagging of new articles last night I blew it on this article, and I apologize. I had intended to use the BLPPROD template, which doesn't require me to enter a reason, which is how the mistake happened. I've corrected the tag.

The concern is just that it's a completely unsourced biography of a living person. Just add one (or more!) reliable source for some of the information in the article to the article., and it's good.

Agaiin, thank you for your patient reply to my error. Let me know if I can be of help. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Constance Amiot

The article Constance Amiot has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

You were in the edit summaries explained that the images do not have a fair-use rationale, a rationale that is required per a resolution of the foundation. You asked, and also there I explained that they need a rationale. In stead of solving, you keep reverting without solving the problem: write a fair use rationale - that is something that you are required to do as the person who is inserting, or wants to retain the images there. Additionally, you decide to throw in personal attacks (here). Something that you already have a (recent) block of 48 hours for, and something that you, as an established editor, should know that you should not do. Please reconsider your style of editing. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I said I thought they met the rationale , if they don't why don't you tell me why they don't and restore the words, which you lazily don't do - i can't resolve the problem, because you are the problem, and as for abuse, well, grow up, - 'you were in the edit summaries explained..' is pretty illiterate anyhow, are you qualified to improve the articles here? what is 'your style of editing' - vandalistic, illiterate, degrading etc etc Where , and how, anyway does one write a fair use rationale? if you just go away and leave the article alone, what happens anyhow? the images are part of the story of the article,seems to me you just go around causing trouble. Sayerslle (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And you were, repeatedly, told that "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - they do NOT meet the rationale, the images File:Malcolm muggeridge.jpg and image:POUM Obreros.jpg do not have fair-use rationales for the use on Homage to Catalonia - and that is the requirement.

It is fine that you think that they do, but if you are repeatedly told that they do not, and you even find it necessary to toss in personal attacks without first listening, and trying to understand the problem, then that does not bring us any further.

Regarding "Where , and how, anyway does one write a fair use rationale?" - that was the question that was also answered in the edit summary (twice, actually), but to be sure, see: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:FIXNF. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks to you I've got a week to read up on the policy haven't I - you were, repeatedly, asked to re-type in the Muggeridge words that were under the picture but are still too lazy to bother - so , you know, 'cast out the beam of wood in your eye before presuming to see to remove the splinter in your neighbours' - kind of thing. it seems pretty arbitrary what decides if something is fair use - i still think if you just left the article alone it would be ok and the sky would not fall in, but you seem very condescending and arrogant so you know best. Good day to you sir. You thought a picture of tati on the tati page was not right , so you know, and yes i know he was playing a part in the photo, but so what, its a photo of tati, and it is on the tati article page. you are a jobsworth Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not arbitrary - if the image is non-free, then it needs a rationale. There is a 4 year old resolution of the Foundation which was loosely enforced, but which now lately is getting stronger enforced.

I removed the complete image including the caption. Leaving only the words there would pull them out of context, and would likely be more vandalism than leaving them there (how should they be placed?). Note, I do not dispute that the image should be there, or that the words should be there, the only thing that is disputed is that it does not have the required rationale.

The point is not that tati is on the photo, and that that photo belongs there, it needs to be written down in the rationale, even if it is blatantly clear that it is correct. Again, a resolution of the Foundation.

I will go forward, and unblock you account. Please consider to solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do you write the rationale - on the images page?, where? i'd ask this on your talk page but I am still blocked. grazie. Sayerslle (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, there was still an autoblock active. I lifted it, should work now I think. Otherwise let me know.

Yes, for each use of each image you need to write a rationale on the description page of the image. Try to include a link in the rationale which points back to the article where you want to use the image, and make sure that it explains why it is needed on the article (just a 'this is a guy that lived in the village' would e.g. not be enough). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

German involvement

If you disagree with a published, reliable source, then what you need to do is find a similarly reliable source (preferably sources) which support your viewpoint, and then the article can be phrased to reflect the disagreement. Otherwise, removing sourced material is considered vandalism. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

i'm saying use more sources - otherwise it looks like you used one sodding book to write the article. removing sourced material is not considered vandalism is it ,always?, whatever the circumstances? anyway, i'm not a vandal. Sayerslle (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War - targeting of black people

Hi Sayerslle,

Thanks for understanding the need for the edits. And great work on the page.

Best regardsAkinsope (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for making it clear humanrigtsinvestigations was a pro-gaddafi blog - another editor pointed that out. i'd rather be a wordsmith than try and sneak in propaganda crap. Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't actually aware that Human rights investigations was a pro-Ghaddaffi blog until another editor mentioned it. It mixed up credible stories with propaganda crap. That's why I limited the actual article to credible sources. I have no love for Ghaddaffi at all, he has caused enough trouble in West and North Africa and I will not mourn his passing. Trust, my life would be much better without tyrants like Ghaddaffi messing up Africa.Akinsope (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan Civil War

My strikeouts on the talk page aren't ideological, I've watched this page ever since it was created. The discussions that were going on were almost entirely off topic and against the WP:NOTAFORUM guidelines. If people want to discuss a name change that's fine, but they should be doing it by referencing sources and Wikipedia policy and not by stating and re-stating their own assessment and opinion (Wikipedia does not allow original research). Also, some sources are referring to it as a revolution and I am not at all prejudiced to the page name being changed to that at some future time. However, the vast majority of sources are still calling it a civil war or a conflict, and given that the civil war/conflict/revolution is far from over I think it is too early to begin debating a name change. The name change has to follow the sources (WP:TITLE) not our assessment of what makes sense and/or when it is a good time to make changes. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

rebels

Hello, Sayerslle. You have new messages at Metallurgist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^ Do you want me to keep posting talkback or will you check it on your own? Metallurgist (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Jones and Son

The article Miss Jones and Son has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Miss Jones and Son – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a short-lived British sitcom that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gh87 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about The Wandering Jews

Hello, Sayerslle, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wandering Jews whether the article The Wandering Jews should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving The Wandering Jews, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your change to George Orwell

Your recent change to a digit in the George Orwell article appeared to be vandalism because you changed something and didn't explain why (i.e. in an Edit Summary).

I reverted the change and, fortunately, another editor fixed it and informed me of what you had done.

In the future, please supply an Edit Summary when saving changed to a page. Also, please be careful to only mark edits Minor when they meet the specific criteria outlined in WP:MINOR.

If you would be so kind as to do this, it would make some of your fellow editors' lives easier, especially those of us that frequently patrol recent changes.

Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a stupid edit, restoring a piece of vandalism, presumably not looking at what you are doing, and then lecture me, with a piece of condescending nonsense. What is that about? please allez-vous-en or something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was stupid, but no more so than an unexplained edit; I certainly was not "lecturing" you, nor was it nonsense. As many people have observed, unexplained edits—especially short ones—tend to be easily mistaken for vandalism. When I tried to discuss the matter in a friendly tone, you posted a rather vitriolic reply in the wrong place (there is a banner on my Talk page saying, in essence, if I start a conversation on your page, please reply there; if you start one here, I'll reply here).

I see from your account history you are already quite familiar with the consequences of edit-warring, insulting other editors, and not following WP rules/guidelines. Please refrain from calling me a "twat" and accusing me of doing things I did not. Such behavior is contrary to WP rules and can cause trouble for you.

What I'm trying to so here is improve the encyclopedia and I believe you have the same goal. My intent was to discuss something in a friendly, adult manner. If you are unwilling to do that, I have no intention of fighting with you. If you continue your bellicose behavior by personally attacking me again, I will bring this matter to the appropriate Noticeboard. Regarding your "allez-vous-en" sentence, Je ne comprends pas vos mots français. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

je vous ai compris. if you click on your version of the page , what do you see in the part of the article that the ip edited - a broken link, and an inaccurate , broken link, at that. that is the version you restore. i have no intention fighting with you, if there is no edit summary, does that absolve you of looking at what you are doing, giving a toss what you are doing, thinking about what you are doing, looking at the results of what you are doing. . if i've fought with people and been blocked in the past, which isn't great, its partly because I give a toss. 'if you would be so kind as to do this..' is not polite to my ears, it is excessive, and sounds sarcastic - if I'm wrong, I am so very sorry. Thankyou.Sayerslle (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you interpreted my writing in a way insulting to you; it was intended to be neither sarcastic nor impolite. I've seen people say, "Would you please do XXXXX next time?", and I've seen people say, "Next time, put a goddamned XXXXX in the article, dickhead!". Personally, I've never seen the latter form work very well and, besides, I was raised to ask nicely first. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is the admonition to Assume Good Faith.

I did look at and think about the change you made to the article. Having reverted a mess of vandalism in the preceding couple of days, your edit looked like someone had changed a number for kicks. The missing Edit Summary (most vandalism reverts say something like "Undid XXXXX" or "Reverted XXXXX") and the Minor label sealed it. I have placed a strong warning message on the IP's Talk page; perhaps it will do some good (but I'm not gonna hold my breath).

I encourage everyone to use the Undo (or Rollback) functions to revert vandalism—they help prevent misunderstandings. I'm not telling you how to do what you do, though; that's really not my business. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes well I didn't write 'look and think about the edit sayerslle made' - I said 'look and think about the edit you unclebubba are making - the change you've made, instead of thinking 'Looks like Sayerslle has done this for kicks ' - blimey, - in the meantime you left it like [5th arrondissement|5th arrondissement]] - how as a copy editor guild member can you be happy with that? If you spend your time reverting vandalism , and then add to the vandalism, that is pretty useless isnt it.I will try and always leave an edit summary. Sayerslle (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Die Tagepost

I wasn't the editor who cited to Die Tagepost in this article. So much for me "always find[ing] my way to those kind of sources". I simply reaffirmed that the article was in fact in the periodical. And I think I accurately reflected the material found in the book. The book wasn't the source for his membership in Amici Israel - Die Tagepost was. I am aware that the book described him as a supporter, not a memeber. Again, in discussions you seem unable to assume good faith and avoid ad hominem attacks. Mamalujo (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You reaffirmed which article was in the paper? the ref didn't link to an article did it? just a date - and for that date i could find no link to an article saying faulhaber was a member of amici israel. whats going on?Sayerslle (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was weeks or months ago when I checked itI don't think it's really necessary anyway. English Wikipedia's preference is for English language sources anyway. Regardless, it seems his role was more instrumental than that of a mere member. He was friends with the founder and the group became influential with his support.Mamalujo (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So what when it was - the home page will be the same - just go back and find it like you did weeks or months ago - funny how you find the german a problem now - 'more instrumental than a mere member' ! - er, no, a member is more committed - you're full of rubbish - the editor who added the reference is blocked - i just hope wp catches up with you and your bs. Sayerslle (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we really need the Die Tagepost source. It's in a foreign language, which WP has a preference against, and we have two other sources relating to Faulhaber and Amici Israel. Mamalujo (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For his being a member 1925-28 that was what you reaffirmed. and for that we need the tagepost article you reaffirmed, because i don't know anywhere else there is a source for his being a member. Which article did you see? Its a simple question - if you don't answer the mplication is plainly that you are corrupt, and it is another case of you abusing source material to fit your povSayerslle (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Sayerslle/Alban Schachleiter has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alban Schachleiter, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:DH85868993‎

Wikipedia:No personal attacks please. I see from your edit history you've had more warnings than can be easily counted so you already know the consequences of keyboard temper. --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Sarah Palin 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted 4 times now on Sarah Palin. Note that your changes (including the original) have been reverted by five different editors. You are in the wrong here. Horologium (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And your edit summary borders on a personal attack. Stop. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, i was adding some facts i heard in an interview with Nick Broomfield who has a film about her called You betcha - perhaps you should watch it , might learn summat, - said she has weird apocalyptic/ old testament based christian beliefs, murdoch and other bilionaires support her, she only agrees to being interviewed by pre-arranged questioners , has a very vindictive streak ( like some of her supporters maybe)etc etc - thats all i did - , stop threatening me , - if Broomfield was lying, then thats one thing, if he wasn't then i dont see why i did anything wrong - the page is probably controlled by a bunch of right wing palin supprters - thats not my fault - anyway , ive given up, you'll be glad to hear, i think edit summaries, even sweary ones, though not ideal,are far less a concern than the political control of certain pages. au revoir. Sayerslle (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Human, All Too Human, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Victorian (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) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Alban Schachleiter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ernest Hemingway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingfish (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) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Cristmas

Hope there are no hard feelings from years ago, and wishing you all the best. Wiki is a rough place, glad you survived. Always feel free to ask for help and guidance. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil. Certainly no hard feelings - I was pretty rude to Modernist really but I realise now he'd seen it all before. You have to learn to take criticism here - which I hate of course. Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Message to self:A tune for Christmas -my New Year resolution, to try and be mellower like this tune ,

[10]Sayerslle (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) [11][12]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Homage to Catalonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valencia (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) 11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Spanish Civil War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catalan and Basque (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) 11:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pope Pius XI and Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vitoria (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) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Flag

I'm sorry. You are right is a moroccan flag, but I think that the Spanish Republic flag is more accurate because the Spanish Army of Africa was part of the Nationalist army and the Nationalists didn't change their flag until the end of August. Sorry for my poor english. User:Ajfernandez2001

I think you are right, the red and gold flag is more correct. I was wrong, I'm sorry.User:Ajfernandez2001