User talk:Iorek85

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

---

1. July 2006 – September 13 2006

[edit] Cut-and-paste moves

Re this note you left regarding this edit, please do not make cut-and-paste moves. Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. – Chacor 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The international reactions page on the coup in Thailand

The Pakistan statement does not have a working link to the Pakstian country page here on Wikipedia. Seems to be something wrong with the country/flag template? Tried to fix it, no luck :/ It links to "islamic Pakistan" instead of just Pakistan.

RE: Hello again. I made a temp fix for this problem by redirecting the non-existing "Islamic Pakistan" page to the correct Pakistan page. Sorry, but my knowledge about editing templates is far from good. In reality it does not exist :) Yet.

[edit] Cleanup Lebanon

Hi Iorek, Due to the heated atmosphere currently prevailing on the page, I would like to get your input on the need for cleanup. It seems that certain sections, especially "Initial reviews" and "Targets in civilian areas," have become particularly unwieldy, to that the extent there are several lines that are extremely repetetive in different sections, and many passages that I would argue are too detailed to be included in the main article, but which rather should remain (which is where I believe some of them were actually brought from) in the appropriate subarticles (Timeline, Military actions). I also feel that in some these cases the detail added leaned more to one side than another, but that is more of a secondary concern. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could evaluate the need to shorten the "Initial reviews" section as you did with the "Targets in civilian areas," as I don't want to do anything else that could be percieved as biased by other editors. Let me know either way. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Put down the time machine and step away

Tsk, tsk! With this edit you single handedly relocated the migration 110,000 people from 1948 to "following" events in 1971. I wouldn't mention it, and clearly no one caught it for two months, but I've been arguing from this number like it was the gospel truth with User:Tewfik for the past week. The horror... the horror! -- Kendrick7 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will's section

Hi Iorek,

The reason that I removed the section Will added was that the link supplied (and currently referenced) was to an archived article. If you could confirm that it says what he claims that would be fine, but I'm uncomfortable with the way it stands now (where it seems to be unreferenced). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

Hi Iorek, Your [refactoring/archival] services are needed at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. See you around, Tewfik^Talk 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House

If you really loved the idea of Wikipedia, you wouldn't randomly go and change an article without reading through the archives and knowing what you are talking about. Show me something official that refers to House with the "M.D." You can't because all official literature refers to it as "House". Text on a DVD cover does not equal a name change. Thanks for playing. Billywhack 10:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, have a Merry Christmas. Billywhack 07:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the last consensus reached was that it is no longer referred to with the "M.D." Just because the DVD case has something on it, does not make it the title of the show. Provide some official recognition of the name or I will have to go above you. --Billywhack 12:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You have shown no proof. This is because you have no proof. Saying there is text on a DVD case means that is the name of the show is such a huge fallacy that I can't believe you continue to rely on that. Also, IMDB is not run by the producers of the show nor Fox. It can also be modified by fans. Therefore, it is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards to use this as "proof". --Billywhack 12:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that you just can't have any old thing that people call something in an article and say "also known as..."? Otherwise I could just edit George Bush's page and say "also known as Fuckin' Idiot and The Redneck That's President". --Billywhack 13:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of something on the title screen that is actually the name of the show:--Billywhack 13:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument fails to hold water. It is an example of a header or a prescription. What about the rectangle and the underline? Shouldn't those be included, by your claims? --Billywhack 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Rating

Thank you for rating the Aquinas College, Perth article, although in part i do not agree with it, i am willing to accept it. Im just not quite sure what else can be done with this article, it has all of the information, sometimes in great detail. Where to go to now? Thanks. Smbarnzy 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

By persistently changing "citizen" to "civilian" (oblivious of sources) you have violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule as you have reverted that within 24 hours. Please note that your change deliberately attempts to compromise the integrity of the article, and as such is considered vandalism as well. As for the article, the latest findings from the Lebanese government has listed only 1) national soldiers, 2) policemen, and 3) "martyrs". I have chosen not to report you. Please be aware and edit responsibly. Thank you. --Shamir1 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, please read carefully. It says WITHIN 24 hours, not a calendar day. And yes, you reverted that sentence three times within 24 hours.

[edit] Image:Green bridge July 06.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Green bridge July 06.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BrightLights 08:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case

Good evening (GMT time); I have accepted the above case - requested by you - on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I am prepared to commence mediation as soon as possible. I would like to start by enquiring if you wish for mediation to be conducted at the Mediation Cabal subpage, or on the article talk page.

Any further questions can be directed at my talkpage where I will happily answer, so long as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House

Report me then. At least we'll get some semi-official arbitration of the matter. IMDB is not a source. you might as well use wikipedia as a source for itself. Billywhack 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Mediation_Location

You are agreed the above case is resolved? anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Original Barnstar
For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/Israel-Lebanon conflict, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Iorek85 the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk]

Awarded: 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Lebanon conflict

Thanks! Hopefully it will let us organize a summary of the randomly placed casualty information together in one place, while letting us keep the infobox pithy. The other thing I noticed was there seems to be a lot of talk about allegations of war crimes committed by both sides in the article, but it is also pretty spread out (mostly in the Targetting of civilians section). What do you think about adding a section titled something like "Allegations of War Crimes", where we could organize the accusations made against both sides, and list the types of war crimes they were alleged to have committed? I think such a section would help consolidate the information spread throughout the article, similar to how the Casualties section has. — George Saliba ^[talk] 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Afterall, I think the targetting of civilians is just one type of war crime. Just renaming this section, then cleaning up what is there (it can probably be cut down quite a bit), and adding other relevant information is probably a best bet. Not sure when I'll have time to get around to doing that, but thanks for your feedback. — George Saliba ^[talk] 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image notes on Jennifer Morrison

You said: "Hi, I noticed you added the text "Promotional material from House is inappropriate and will result in an immediate block if used here." Seems a little harsh to me. I didn't think we blocked people for adding non vandalistic photos (non fair use or otherwise) on the first go, but you're an admin, and would know better than me. Is there new policy I've missed (not that I stay that up to date on policy)?"

In actuality, I think it would still be unfair to block someone on the first offence even if they are deliberately placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, as would be the case if they were deliberately adding an inappropriate image such as a House promotional image there. In truth, what I'm trying to do here is to come up with some wording that makes it clear to people that they are not to add such an image here. Every form of wording, including specifically noting "promotional images", has failed so far. I welcome suggestions for anything better. --Yamla 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)