User talk:Regebro/Archive2

Mediation of single-party state

Hi there, I've taken the mediation case for single-party state for the mediation committee. Please go here to start the mediation. Thanks. —Xyrael / 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. After speaking to a party of this case, I think it has pretty much faded into the background. For that reason, I will be closing the mediation soon unless you have any opposition to this. If so, please drop me a talk page note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominant-party system

Please consider revert your merge. [1] I don't think it is a good sign to merge the lists until mediation is fruitful. Cheers. — Instantnood 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss the issue on Talk:Single-party state. --Regebro 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [2] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [3] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Your comment as a member of the wider wiki community at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines would be greatly appreciated.05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Iceland

Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Telly Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing, Telly Awards, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards. Thank you. Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

The problem is alot of the stuff you deleted did have references, and that whenever i start to make some progress with him on the talk page you go and delete everything wholesale. Which means he then goes and ignores everything I said and we get these revert wars and accusations of POV. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)) ...and I'll go through and try to exercise the weasel words and POV statements from his edits, and then we can MOVE the paragraph to the appropriate space once the rest of the format of the article is improved. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Been making some edits, will tell you when I'm finished and you can look over it. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Well, so far you have been clarifying what he has been saying, and that's good. But its' still just as POV, so it's going to have to go away anyway. When you are finished I'll remove everything that is not MY POV, and then communists will come in a scream and we'll remove what is not *their* POV, and then there will be nothing left. :) --Regebro (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, the POV arguement applies to stating something that isn't sourced, or removing sources to an edit you don't like. A lot of the stuff he's trying to say, although not necessarily appropriate for the intro, is true and is sourced. He has sources and wikipedia is about verifiability, and he has provided that. Therefore it is unreasonable to wholesale remove it all. I have tried to edit out weasel words, make the arguement alot more neutral, and follow more accurately the arguements of his sources. Anyway, I'm finished for the time being. I tried to take a productive tact, and would be disapointed if you did something unprodictive to it. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

It may be correct that some types of democracy is more democratic than others, but it it still POV. And no, he doesn't really have any sources for that. --Regebro (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It not longer says some are more democratic than others. It says something that is neutral and true. I;ll stick a reference to something if you want: freedom house, the economist etc. all have system of ranking democracies based on criteria. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

It is POV and true. References won't make it less POV. ;-) But more references could indeed be good. --Regebro (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

from WP:YESPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez Dispens3r (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this, and repeat my earlier stance. The sentence is POV, or not NPOV if you rather like. --Regebro (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

88.8.104.231

We generally regard anything over a couple of hours old as stale - WP:AIV, as the header says, is for tackling vandalism that is occurring now. You say this has been going on for "years" - according to their contribs, this IP has only ever edited yesterday. However, if there is a more long-term aspect to this problem, involving other editors or IPs, then WP:ANI is probably the best venue to gain attention. Black Kite 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 3RR

Sorry, I didn't realise it including reverting differrent matereal. And I had reverted myself earlyer. Larklight (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong

I am sorry, I do not speak very well English. I would like to say many things to you but I do not know if you understand me.

I am not a "vandal". The Anglo-Saxons has many colonies and almost independent territories, but Spain does not have them. The Canary Islands, and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla are not "from Spain", they "are Spain", as Madrid, Valencia, Saragossa, Biscay or Corunna. Probably many Anglo-Saxons think that everything is equal in Spain that in the United Kingdom or the United States but it isn't.

Ceuta and Melilla are not "plazas de soberanía" from 1995. Is it Istanbul a colony of Turkey? Is it Alaska a colony of USA? Is it Kaliningrad a colony of Russia? I do not believe.

Are you from Sweden? I ask: what do you know of Spain? Probably you think that here we all dance flamenco, and we are going to see bullfights, and are every day in the beach... Evidently it is not real.

Please, do not annoy any more. I know much better than you the reality of Spain. Certainly, Why this reversion? It is a vandalism! These municipalities are in the "province of Almeria", not in the "municipality of Almeria". I insist: do not be a nuisance any more. A cordial greeting, and, please, forgives my English level. Granadin (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very much of what you do is vandalism, and you know it, as you have repeatedly been warned, but yet you persist. I have therefore reverted everything you do that is not an obvious improvement. If you want to improve Wikipedia, you need to follow the rules and procedure here, just like everybody else. It's that simple. --Regebro (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You confuse "vandalism" for "alteration of mistakes". I have made clear that Spain does not have dependences, that the whole Spanish territory forms a Nation and State. Some reversions are really a vandalism. Please, leave me alone. Both we want a Wikipedia without manipulations. Granadin (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not confuse anything. My reversions are not vandalism. I will leave you alone, as soon as you have proven that you are willing to follow Wikipedias rules. --Regebro (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

About English in the English Wiki

Regebro. On one side I understand and agree with your point regarding your insistence in that matter. On the other hand you should not try to force anyone to write in English on their own talk page. Some, like Granadin for example just aren't able to discuss certain matters in other than their native language and I wish you could accept and tolerate it as long as it is on a personal talk page (as I pointed out before). Of chouse I exempt personal offensive language used against users that don't speak that certain language and won't tolerate it when it comes to my attention and I gladly would translate such behavior. Hope you understand my POV and please think about it, regards --Floridianed (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I would like to point out that Enric (Naval) is very helpful in solving the "Vandalism" problem ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This was a case of Granadin writing a comment about me to another user, in a language he knows I don't speak. That is not nice behaviour, and as is pointed out in the rules, in this case you should try to translate. Enric is very helpful as he knows more abut the issues than I, and therefore can correct me when I undo to much. (I should point out that I lately only revert Granadins edits when I have a reason to think it's POV, and not as before, revert it as long as it's not obviously an improvement.) --Regebro (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regbro. Granadin layed out the issue to Enric and that's why your name came up, but he wasn't talking bad about you. He tryed to get his POV (at my knowledge his NPOV) out to someone who understands his language in which he can explain his view way better than in English. Please believe me in that and let me tell you that he really didn't painted you in a bad picture. You should remember me taking your side so there is no reason for you not to trust me. Honestly. And if you're not sure if you should make a revert you can talk about it to Enric who really seems to know about those issues and it wouldn't bother me at all if you ask me, about an issue or a translation. I'll do my best to help you out. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he intended. The point is that he was writing about another user in a language that user does not speak. That is bad form. I therefore use the standard wikipedia template to point that out for him. I have no trouble with his NPOV. I have trouble with his non NPOV, which is plenty, but happily diminishing, as it seems he gets more aware of the good he can do wikipedia by sticking to NPOV. The spanish articles clearly need somebody that goes through them and fixes the geography related stuff. --Regebro (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Translator

This one is a good translator. I said to Enric Naval this:

Eric, por favor, tú que sabes hablar bien inglés, explícale al usuario sueco que no para de incordiarme que Canarias, Ceuta y Melilla no pertenecen a España, sino que "son España". Muchos guiris se piensan que son colonias españolas... Ponen las banderas de Canarias, Melilla y Ceuta en artículos de África, como si fuese territorios dependientes, o algo así. Voy yo y lo corrijo, y me llaman "vandalismo nacionalista de Telefónica".... Increíble, pero cierto. Te aseguro que no tengo la menor intención de vandalizar esta Wikipedia. Un cordial saludo, y gracias por la mediación.

Translation/Traducción

Enric, please, you that you can speak English good, explain to user Swedish that not stop of annoying me that Canary, Ceuta and Melilla do not belong to Spain, but "they are Spain". Many guiris (tourists) think that they are Spanish colonies... They put the flags of Canary Islands, Melilla and Ceuta in articles of Africa, as if it was dependent territories, or something like that. I go and correct it, and they are called me a "Nationalistic vandalism of Telefonica".... Incredible, but certain. I assure you that I do not have the minor intention of vandalizar this Wikipedia. A cordial greeting, and thank you for the mediation.

Granadin (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Runtshit

Several pages regularly vandalised by this character have already been semi-protected; for instance, Anti-Zionism, Norman Finkelstein, Leninism, Uri Avnery. Others were temporarily semi-protected, but this has lapsed, and they are again being vandalised; for instance, Fourth International. Many more, including my own talk page, have had protection refused; see [4], [5].

This character has already vandalised over 400 articles, and always finds more to attack. Any article I edit is swiftly vandalised, and many relating to the Middle East and left-wing politics. I know who is behind this, but the use of anonymisers and proxies makes it difficult to prove, or to take any effective action. Since this has been going on for nearly two years now, with well over 3000 vandalistic edits, I don't think he will "get bored and go away". Any suggestions? RolandR (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Non mainland areas of Spain

I see that you have had a few issues with User Granadin I hope this link should clear up why he may hold his view point [6] (ARBAY (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC))