User talk:Timeshifter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Timeshifter! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes). You should always sign talk pages (also called "discussion" pages), but not articles.

[edit] New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Incarceration rates worldwide.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Incarceration rates worldwide.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain. The November Coalition statistical graphs page says "These graphs are in the public domain." Near the bottom of the page. http://november.org/graphs - It seems there is currently no suitable category in the drop-down menu of the wikipedia image uploading page for this. Someone else had the same problem. See here. They were told it was OK, and to put the template {{PD-release}} on the image page. --Timeshifter 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incarceration

Thanks for your intervention. I don't think this is as serious as it might initially appear because it only happened, I believe, because an image link had two external links in it, which is very unusual. I've always been impressed with AWB's ability to deal with nested ]] and ], I will pass this detail on to the developers. I will also scan for other occurrences to check for other errors. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 09:13 28 August 2006 (GMT).

Yep, I found, I think, about 24 articles with two or more nested []s, only a few had ISBNs, so I was able to ensure the problem did not re-occur for this project. And of course programmers count "0, 1, many" so I hope that AWB will be made perfect soon! Any comments to my talk page please. Rich Farmbrough 11:06 31 August 2006 (GMT).

You said also that Smackbot caused the image not to show up due to 2 external links being in an image caption. One of the links was at the end of a caption. ISBNs were not a part of this particular problem. But are you saying that 24 images did not show up after that run of Smackbot? And has the problem been fixed? I need to know whether I can put 2 external links in a caption, especially if one link is at the end of the caption where the brackets stack up and confuse the bot. What about 3 or 4 external links in a caption? Does the problem only occur if one of the links is at the end of the image caption? --Timeshifter 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No I forget the details, but I think one other article had been broken, possibly. The problem with the tool has been fixed Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Nested_square_brackets_bug by the main developer and author of the tool, so apart from people using old versions, which won't last long (the tool itself will insist on being updated), you should be fine to put what you like. In fact you shouldn't worry too much anyway because it's easy to roll back an edit if needed. Rich Farmbrough 20:28 31 August 2006 (GMT).

Thanks. It looks like the problem has been fixed. The other note about it here on the same page says that the problem was occuring with just one external link in the caption too, if the link was at the end of the caption. But it has been fixed in any case.--Timeshifter 11:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo from sr: wiki

Yes, photo was taken in Belgrade, and it is Global Million Marijuana March first in Belgrade in 2005. Correct month i don't know but i can ask user who send that image about that. Licence for image is GFDL. --SasaStefanovic • 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just find out that MMM was holded in May 7 2005 in Belgrade and that there was about 50 participators. --SasaStefanovic • 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War infobox

Hey Timeshifter, sorry to be such a pain on the Iraq civ cas. I'm just trying to keep the infobox from becoming so long as to be unhelpful. Good edits to the Iraq civil cas, tho--very necessary and I'm glad there's finally someone who's making sure they're up-to-date. Publicus 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Were you the one who did all those great edits (such as mentioning where to get the info) for the Iraq casualties? If so, good work. Czolgolz 03:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I added some additional links to several Iraq casualty pages, and the casualty section of the infobox on the Iraq War page. Also added some links, and some more hidden notes with links, for the template page: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War, Image stacking

Can you descibe the problem you were having with "image stacking"? I never heard of this before and now the article isnt formatted around the picture, almost making it better to just remove the image for sake of layout and design. --NuclearZer0 13:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Body Count project

We cannot semi-protect a page to stop an edit war. If you are having problems you need to check out our dispute resolution process. Have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Thanks—— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me questions on my talk page.

--Timeshifter 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC). I have moved the anonymous editor's comment to the discussion page for the Iraq Body Count project article. This way other editors of the page can comment also. IBC discussion page:

• Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project#Discussion_about_anonymous_blanking --Timeshifter 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taba Summit

Hello Timeshifter, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Taba summit. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert. Your edit comment after deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page was "rv OR [original research], we can not add controversial and unsourced material because you seem to think it is 'common knowledge')". By the way that section was written by several people, not just me. I first deleted the more controversial material since it was already covered by another wikipedia page. I added "citation needed" tags. You didn't like that and insisted on deleting the remaining part of that section. So I added the reference links you requested. I added quotes, too. So I don't see how you can claim original research now. See the revision difference between when you requested sourced material, and my addition of it. You then deleted the requested sourced material that you asked for. You just blanked that whole section in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism: WP:VANDAL. See talk page at Taba summit before blanking again. --Timeshifter 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your later edit comment was: "removing pov, your sources do not support your conclusion so this is still OR." There was no conclusion made after I added the sourced material. The section then consisted only of quotes with sources. But to further clarify I just added this sentence to the top of that section: "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" Feel free to add more perspectives. --Timeshifter 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding citation requested tags does not give a green light to add original research. Furthermore, the references you added did not support the larger argument of the section, when you use references to prove a novel conclusion it is considered original research. It is a difficult policy to understand, I also had a lot of trouble with it when I first began editing wikipedia. Also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when it is obvious that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conclusion made after I deleted all the previous info in that section and only put quotes with references for them. Show me the conclusions in my last revision. BlueDome also asked the same thing on the talk page: "The section starts with 'The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:' I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?" And you have not discussed anything at all on the Taba summit talk page yet. --Timeshifter 22:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Here below is my last revision of the section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I had deleted all that was there previously. So there was nothing there from when you blanked the whole section. You did not blank this revision below. Amoruso did, though. 3 times in 24 hours. I pulled out and indented the reference links below, and put them in parentheses, so that people can see and follow them.

---

The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:

-

Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote ^[1]: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."

("Politicus Interruptus". By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom. Feb. 23, 2002.)

-

A PBS page ^[2] has this:

But they had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."

("frontline: shattered dreams of peace: the negotiations | PBS".)

-

From the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture David Matz writes ^[3] concerning a joint statement ^[4]:

The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 [2001]. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: “The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.”

("Trying to Understand the Taba Talks". By David Matz. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Vol.10 No.3 2003.)

-

--- --Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 03, 2006 to Taba Summit article

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

— Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting blanking vandalism can be done as many times as necessary according to WP:VANDAL. The only question is whether it is blanking vandalism or not. Amoruso was not engaging in any discussion on the talk page, so it is blanking vandalism. I think you should be blocking him not me. In fact I request a block of Amoruso and Leifern since they are tag-teaming in their blanking vandalism. I went through all the blanking warning templates up to the final warning. According to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism I followed all the instructions necessary to make this request. Leifern took over for Amoruso and is not replying in substance to BlueDome. And Leifern is blanking still without resolving anything in discussion first. That is the polite thing to do. Talk first, and then make changes, before resorting to blanking first, and then non-substantial discussion later. --Timeshifter 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else is blanking that section without discussion on the talk page. Tewfik blanked what BlueDome put up in that section. I believe this comes under some kind of complex vandalism guideline. The "complex" link on WP:VANDAL goes to this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation. --Timeshifter 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the edit history again. Amoruso started the reverting of the completely new material in that section in question. There was nothing old remaining in that section after I replaced it. At that point no one had reverted anything 3 times in 24 hours. And Moshe did not revert that completely new section. It seems the blanking baton was passed to Amoruso. Amoruso was the first person to revert 3 times. It seems that his use of the word "non encyclopedic" in an edit comment, and on the article talk page, swayed your judgement more than my honest attempts at discussion on the talk page, and my use of the official blanking templates on the article talk page and on Amoruso's user talk page. I also mentioned the blanking in my edit comments. I think you blocked the wrong person. And I am appealing for a ruling from other administrators on this. The use of the phrase "non encyclopedic" should not give license to Amoruso to blank 3 times in a row. His edit comments also said "3RR" and "4RR", which were inaccurate. So I humbly say to you, Nearly Headless Nick, or Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I think you have been fooled. Amoruso first reverted the new material in that section. Then he reverted it 2 more times. His 3rd time was the time where he left the edit comment "4RR". When I reverted just after that it was my third time. That I admit to. But I thought reverting obvious vandalism allowed breaking the 3RR rule. From the WP:VANDAL page:

Blanking. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

I believe a 2-word "non encyclopedic" edit comment, and talk page comment, is frivolous. And since Amoruso first broke the 3RR rule, I ask that he also be blocked for 24 hours, as I have been blocked. --Timeshifter 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

On checking the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page again I find this: "If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." I had not done a 4th revert. See the edit history and the above notes to see why. Amoruso had 3 reverts first, and then I followed with a 3rd revert. As I said above, I honestly thought Amoruso was engaged in simple blanking vandalism. He still hasn't really engaged on the talk page with anyone, including someone named BlueDome. BlueDome is not me, by the way. It seems there is a new series of blanking vandalism going on by Tewfik. I am not a part of that fight since I am blocked. Tewfik has not justified his blanking at all on the talk page. And it seems Leifern is not engaging honestly with BlueDome on the talk page. There are no conclusions as claimed by Leifern. See what I last had in the blanked section. It is posted higher up in reply to Moshe. Or go to this revision difference. --Timeshifter 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It seems I am being blocked past the 24 hour period. When I try to edit pages I get a message that says I am autoblocked, and that to get unblocked I should put this template below on the bottom of my user page. --Timeshifter 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. It happened because you tried to edit while you were blocked. Tsk tsk... -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Buried deep on another page is something about 24-hour autoblocking starting when one tries to edit a page while blocked. If one has never been blocked before, then one does not know that one can't edit a page until one tries to edit a page. So then one reads their user page and finds out that they are blocked for a period of time. In my case for 24 hours. Then I come back after that 24-hour period and find that I am still blocked. Only by much searching through many wikipedia pages does one learn of this secondary autoblock that extends past the first 24 hour block. This is a great way for a blanking team to discourage people and info they dislike from getting on certain pages. Get a blocking newbie like me (with around a thousand edits and very few complaints against me) to revert their blanking vandalism 3 times in 24 hours, and then have to run this gauntlet of unintended (on wikipedia's part) harassment. It is time to change the autoblocking system so that people know they are being blocked for more time beyond what the block states on one's user page. Also, the sections defining simple vandalism need to be rewritten so that it is clear that blanking is not really considered simple vandalism that can be reverted many times in a day just as graffiti can be reverted as often as necessary. Blanking vandalism has to go through the warning template system, but spread out beyond the 24 hour period in order to avoid 3RR traps. Any editor can feel free to copy this info from my user page and use it in discussion concerning clarifying some of these wikipedia policies. --Timeshifter 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't take my comment too seriously... :-) I know, the autoblock functionality is messy - it's actually quite difficult to understand for us admins too... Does the system really not tell you you're blocked before you try to edit? I didn't know that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking the autoblock. Yes, it is true that one does not know that one can't edit until one tries to edit. There is a "new message" note, but when one gets new messages one can ignore reading it temporarily if one wants to check some ongoing wikipedia projects. When one finally goes to read the new message and finds the block it doesn't say anything about the block being extended if one clicks on an edit button. It just says you can't edit. Anybody with simple curiosity will want to see what happens when one clicks an edit button. It says you can't edit, but does not say that your block was just extended further for clicking an edit button. Then one goes to find out where one can complain if one feels wronged by the block. As I did. I went to the admin's talk page and tried to leave a note there. I clicked that edit button to try to leave a note. No luck there. Then I went to my user talk page figuring that would be the last place to be blocked and I was right. I could click that edit button, and could edit that page. I suggest noting the autoblock timing in the same block log as the original block. I also suggest some text there explaining that the block will be extended if one tries to edit anything except one's user talk page. --Timeshifter 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe this is something we ought to bring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If it should be changed, it would have to be done by the developers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Fascism as an international phenomenon

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jkelly 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have exactly one edit on that page. That edit was to remove a large section of it. That is called blanking. The 3RR rule applies to you, too. I could put the blanking warning template on your user page, but you get my point. --Timeshifter 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The distinction between a vandal's blanking and the removal of text designed to push a fringe point of view is not a particularly subtle one. I strongly suggest that you ask yourself what your goal is in edit warring and if your current approach is going to get you what you want. Wikipedia works on the basis of discussion and consensus. You may be able to maintain the article on your preferred version over the short term, but reverting every edit you disagree with is just going to lead to long term problems for you on this website. You should take the time to read our content and behaviour policies and determine whether or not you can agree to abide by them. Jkelly 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You should follow your own advice. I don't blank. I edit. I rarely delete sourced material. You deleted a lot of material. Several people contributed the info and links for that section. I was only the most recent person, and I added very little to that section. Ronald Reagan is not marginal: "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981. I don't agree with that viewpoint, but I don't delete viewpoints I disagree with. --Timeshifter 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advise everyone to keep a cool head in this debate, and avoid duplicating material between articles. Currently, the same text about corporatism and the New Deal can be found in three different articles (Fascism as an international phenomenon, Fascism and ideology, and Corporatism). This is obviously a highly undesirable situation. Since we seem to be unable to decide which article to put the text in, I suggest working on a completely new article, The New Deal and corporatism. -- Nikodemos 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)