AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Dominique Strauss-Kahn: there seems to be a consensus here... |
→Dominique Strauss-Kahn: correcting stupidity |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:So when six different editors ask you here not to add personal details about the alleged victim, you claim they are acting 'against consensus'? Frankly, all this talk of 'repression', 'tyranny' and 'censorship' only makes your arguments weaker. And no, the New York Times does not determine Wikipedia content policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
:So when six different editors ask you here not to add personal details about the alleged victim, you claim they are acting 'against consensus'? Frankly, all this talk of 'repression', 'tyranny' and 'censorship' only makes your arguments weaker. And no, the New York Times does not determine Wikipedia content policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Your response is incompetent: actually what these editors have been mostly concerned with is the revelation of her name which is not included here; nine editors have favoured adding basic personal details; the claim that exposing the authoritarianism and imposing of POV that you and your cohorts abusively push is a weakening of my arguments is preposterous and peurile; and yes the nyt is a better judge than you fascists [[User:Wran|Wran]] ([[User talk:Wran#top|talk]]) 02:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Edit war notice== |
==Edit war notice== |
Revision as of 02:02, 18 June 2011
WP:FILMS Welcome
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Film_reel.svg/50px-Film_reel.svg.png)
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 February has been published. March'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) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected the issue on the page. If you indent a paragraph, the section is put in a dotted-line box. I've deleted the indent, and also fixed the external links so they display the web address. TN‑X-Man 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I'm glad to see you're interested in contributing. If you have any other questions, drop me a line. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. When you put a link like this (www.google.com), nothing happens. If you put in the whole address, (http://www.google.com), it'll hyperlink the text. If you put the address between a <ref> and </ref> tag , it turns the web address into a reference, which is the superscripted numeral at the end of a sentence. References are a different sort of animal. In order to get the superscripted number to display as a reference at the bottom of the article, you have to insert a {{reflist}} template at the bottom. It's a lot of which to keep track, but if you have questions, drop me a line. On my talk page, click on "new section" at the top. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This should be of help. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Editing an Article Title
It looks like you already figured out how to change an article's title - by moving the page. Just remember though - when you move an article, the old page still exists as a pointer to the new page. I hope this helps. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Mayotte
I don't understand your recent edits. The vote held in Mayotte concerned internal French political status, and has no bearing on the internationally unrecognized status of France's administration of the island. It simply means that a French-administered overseas collectivity will become an overseas department, not that the rest of the world has decided to recognize the territory as French. The United Nations resolutions on the matter are still relevant, and the African Union, Arab League, and Comoros have all explicitly rejected the referendum. You are free to note the result of the election where appropriate, but please do not change our more neutral definition of the country as a result. Dominic·t 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Let them eat cake quote
Wran, Merci for finding the correct word (worst recourse) in the translation of pis aller. My brain had arrived at *recourse* but I was not satisfied with it. Frania W. (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Night and Fog
Hey Wran, could you put more inline citations with the information you have for the Night and Fog article? The information is good, I appreciate you adding it back for it but we'll need page numbers and such for better citations. I'd like to try and bring the film to a GA status maybe someday. Do you have this information still readily available? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
the info all comes from Lindeperg's book which I dont have at hand, but can get again--eventually Wran (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring on Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Iliad correction -- Thanks!
Good job on correcting my correction. Ifnkovhg (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you've been involved, to a greater or lesser extent (yes, this is a form message), on the Iliad article. I'm planning a bit of a reorganisation, and would appreciate any thoughts on the talk page (topic is at or near the bottom). Cheers! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Printed or written, both were possible by 1400. Maybe if we could find a verifiable source... Superp (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Let them eat cake
Wran, your translation (worst-recourse) may or may not be better than the consensus version (last resort), but since there has been a discussion in which you participated[1][2] where other editors rejected your version, it is dishonest to put it back under the rubric "correction". Please have some respect for your fellow editors. --macrakis (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Plato's Heaven (τοὐρανοῦ τινα τόπον)
Dear colleague, let us show Phronesis, as Socrates used to say. We are here to serve the truth, and the reader's need to discover it. You stated that you have removed, otiose and prejudicial phrases, used by me. I have only used words of Plato from the Greek Originals. The only otiose and prejudicial here, is your editing in question.
The Platonic θεωρία ιδεών (theory of ideas), does not exist without τοὐρανοῦ τινα τόπον (heaven). Please do not edit before you do a thorough research.
Here are some references for your pleasure.
Starting possibly from: Plat. Phaedrus 246a περὶ μὲν οὖν ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς ἱκανῶς: περὶ δὲ τῆς ἰδέας αὐτῆς ὧδε λεκτέον
Plat. Sym. 211b ἢ ἔν τῳ ἄλλῳ Plat. Phaedrus 246a-c Plat. Phaedrus 247b-c Plat. Phaedrus 249a εἰς τοὐρανοῦ τινα τόπον Plat. Phaedrus 256b-d
and more..... for you to discover for your pleasure.
Thank you for your understanding
PS
Is the word 'world' besides heavenly, otiose and prejudicial too? If yes why? and if it is not, why did you omit it?DelianDiver (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
you have presented as fact a personal and extremely dubious interpretation of a highly controversial and complex subject: to begin with plato wrote mostly dialogues and thus NOTHING that appears in them can be staightforwardly regarded as his judgment and , in fact, many scholars don't think he believed in a theory of of forms or ideas at all. He says many contradictory things concerning their status or existence in different dialogues. furthermore your references from the phaedrus, eg, are from a speech attributed to stesichorus, and thus even further removed from plato then most of socrates' uses of the term, many of which have nothing whatever to do with heaven, so if there is such a thing as a theory of ideas it can certainly do without it, and if the exist they don't necessarily constitute a world.Wran (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Socratic method
Hi, Your recent change to Socratic method is interesting. Do you have a citation to add? Samohtar (talk) is wrestling with rewriting a difficult sentence, and perhaps you can help out? Nadiatalent (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Let Them Eat Cake
Regarding brioche - if you feel the need to challenge it once more, please contact a reviewer, administrator or simply another editor with an objective view to judge the situation. It would be best if you don't revert my edit, and I don't say that for any personal reason; it's simply that I've provided enough evidence to back the situation up. It's actually both relevant and important that brioche is clarified in this context, to provide insight into the particular case. Kfodderst (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
I reverted your addition of information about the victim. Please do not add identifying information about the victim without first discussing it on the article's Talk page. Even in discussion, you should not include identifying information.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thats three times you have added the name of the victim now - please take the as an WP:EDITWARRING - warning, please don't add it again without consensus support thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
there was no consensus to remove it in the first place; and what makes you the judge of consensus Wran (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- consensus be damned it is a BLP issue and it won't be going on the page. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- These "additions" are not appropriate. The link you used with the victims name was clearly intended as a way to "sneak" it into the article... so that's a WP:POINT problem right there. On top of that you piled original research, content sourced to a wordpress blog and a rant about WP censorship. You won't be surprised to know I reverted it. Please do not do it again, it is disruptive. --Errant (chat!) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There was no such clear intent nor did I do any original research: it's all in your prejudiced imagination. Stop interfering with the rights of readers to any publicly available info, it's totalitarian Wran (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- OR comes from the fact that you said X newspapers are reporting her name in the US, sourced to the article that names her. And yes, I feel there was clear intent (given previous comments from yourself about her name) given that you could have linked to the article directly rather than the search link. Discuss this on the talk please; there are multiple issues with your content, not the least of which is the Wordpress blog sourced quote. --Errant (chat!) 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have no idea what OR means; THERE IS NO SUCH INTENT: I sourced the only way I know how-- if you think there's another way, try it; I can't see any issues other than those I've definitively addressed; I eliminated the Wordpress blog sourced quote. Wran (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The name of the alleged victim is not relevant to the article - and I suggest you discuss this on that talk page, unless you wish to be blocked for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Wran. I deleted your latest restore of personal details about the housekeeper. I appreciated your restore of a blank of the Paris Match material but that would have been restored in any case. I see you've got real form here. It's simply against consensus. There's a lot of things the various contributors to this article disagree on but one thing we are quite agreed on is that personal details about the housekeeper should not be included. You will be blocked I think if you continue like this. FightingMac (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If you actually read the discussion you'd see that there is more of a consensus the other way; your dishonest efforts to censor info from readers that is widely available in the us media is contrary to the basic purpose of wikipedia and no more nor less than repressive tyrannical promotion of personal POV ; any deletion of properly referenced widely disseminated info can not possibly be anything else. I did no more than quote the ny times: what makes you think you know better than they do? The presumption should ALWAYS be in favour of info and against its suppression without clear justification Wran (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- So when six different editors ask you here not to add personal details about the alleged victim, you claim they are acting 'against consensus'? Frankly, all this talk of 'repression', 'tyranny' and 'censorship' only makes your arguments weaker. And no, the New York Times does not determine Wikipedia content policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Your response is incompetent: actually what these editors have been mostly concerned with is the revelation of her name which is not included here; nine editors have favoured adding basic personal details; the claim that exposing the authoritarianism and imposing of POV that you and your cohorts abusively push is a weakening of my arguments is preposterous and peurile; and yes the nyt is a better judge than you fascists Wran (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit war notice
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)