User talk:AzureFury: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 12 November 2010

This is AzureFury's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Iraq War

idk if it is you who keeps on reverting the article back to the 2007 casualty count but it is a neutral, up to date source which is verified by other sources and is correct please do not change! (USMCMIDN (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring at Political positions of John McCain.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries

Edit summaries are designed to help other editors quickly realize what your edits are without having to look at them in detail. Writing an edit summary of "correcting spacing" when you're really adding a major edit you know to be contentious is incredibly bad form and contrary to assuming good faith and reasonable wikiquette. Please don't do this again. Oren0 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reality has a strong liberal bias"...

...is actually a quote from Stephen Colbert. :) Always liked that one... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks, I attributed it to him. AzureFury (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely predates Colbert, but he's as good as any to attribute it to. II | (t - c) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Unruled Paper (film)

Dear AzureFury, had you read my statements on the talk page of the above-mentioned entry before adding npov to the tag? (On this talk page I have explained the reason why I have used the word "stellar", for example.) Whatever the answer to this question, have you seen the film? I have used what you have considered as pov without the slightest reservation: in my opinion (which you should not take lightly on this matter), the film is one of the very best ever made, not only in Iran, but anywhere on the planet. If you have not seen the film, I warmly recommend you to get hold of a DVD of it and see it; then you will realise that the film is simply mesmerising - it greatly helps if you know Persian (as I have said it elsewhere, one can write a book on the subject matter of the language used in this film; it is a very pure language, making it a delight just to listen to the dialogues; this is essentially due to the dialogues being very natural and honest expressions, free from artificial terms). Kind regards, --BF 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I left a long reply there to the comments about me. Thanks for letting me know, because I do not usually follow up every opinion I offer. DGG (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

That's why I'm hoping that there can be a consensus on which statements everyone agrees need to be changed, I've suggested two changes myself on the talk page. As for the page protection, see m:The Wrong Version. Also, I would really prefer that we not discuss the specific personal attacks that were made, as I'd like us to move on, but the "ramming our planes into Iran" comment was particularly inappropriate, and I don't see how in any way it was constructive. My real question is whether you would agree to some kind of mediation or not, because the page will be protected until there is a consensus, and I'm not sure if you and BehnamFarid can achieve one by yourselves. Khoikhoi 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, once the page is protected, it can't be reverted until unprotection, and as I've already said, unprotection will only come once there is a consensus. And if I protected to your version, I would get complaints from the other side. The bottom line is that the whole point of page protection is that the involved users are meant to compromise, which is why I offered the idea of mediation. Are you interested in this idea? Khoikhoi 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start an RfC or anything like that, will you allow me to first suggest a compromise version? (i.e. try to mediate) As I've said to BehnamFarid, I would like to keep this a content dispute and not let it get out of hand. The purpose of mediation is not to get users to communicate, but to solve editing disputes as outlined at WP:CON. Please give this a chance first and if it fails, then you can consider other options. Khoikhoi 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the coming days I'll be working on User:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper and User talk:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper, the latter of which I'll propose some alternate wording suggestions. You can see that I've already made a minor change here. Khoikhoi 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's not really our job to be concerned about who interacts with BF in the future. We don't need to act as "guardians" to make sure other users don't get into trouble. I probably wouldn't like it if someone was monitoring my edits to make sure that I behave. It might even be viewed as harassment, so IMO we should try to solve this dispute first and then simply move on. An RfC would be counterproductive. No need to get involved or monitor any future disputes BF gets into. He has been here since 2006 and he has solved previous conflicts (over image uplodads, etc.) by himself anyways. Khoikhoi 02:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't block people to punish them. Let me and other admins decide who gets to edit Wikipedia. All I can suggest is that once this dispute is over, please keep your distance from him and avoid any further conflict. Khoikhoi 02:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

AzureFury,

When a section is in violation of WP policies, as is the Conscription section, concensus is not needed for removal. Furthermore, I might add that you don't have concensus for inclusion even if this was not the case. The onus for inclusion is on the includer, and to this point you have not provided a valid reason why those two sections are important or don't violate existing WP policies. I would ask that you present your case on the talk page before readding the information. WP is not the place to insert your own reporting, which is what appears to be happening here. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AzureFury. I should have notified you that you were being discussed at User talk:Stifle. Your case drew attention because (1) Some editors who supported the 3RR complaint were not happy with the result, (2) it was unclear how to count your reverts properly. As for your question about disruption, your activities on that page did not seem to be a model of consensus-building. If you wanted to do better than that next time around, I'm sure you could. To the best of my knowledge, the case is now closed so far as admin actions go. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain, etc.

Wow, I'm all over your talk page now. I may have gotten a little bit aggressive but my opponents were not debating honestly, purposefully miscounting votes, omitting supporting statements, claiming consensus where none existed, etc. Do you think I was "disruptive" in my responses on the three pages involved in the John McCain dispute? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything especially out of order there. I would recommend you refer the matter to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Thanks for your involvement in Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Here is a response I got from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests . I think his answer is a little lame but I'm going to go ahead and start deleting some of the stuff he complains about (when the admin lets me). --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/b/tards

Hey AF,

Just saw you were confused on accounts of the revisions happening at the Large Hadron Collider (2000+ countries). Confidentially, I think 4chan's /b/ board is getting a kick out of it and is thoroughly vandalizing the article. -EarthRise33 (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing /b/, we probably need as much firepower as is accessible. They are like tuberculosis. I only came over because I got wind that they were giggling like a collection of teenage girls over the 'Large Hard-on Collider." -EarthRise33 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid attack

Although I can understand your frustration at Acid attack, please do not threaten to continue edit warring, as you did here. Such behavior does not facilitate harmonious editing of the encyclopedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read carefully, you'd see the text notes: "who have been accused of attacking and threatening girls in an effort to prevent them from wearing attire that they deem immodest. In one incident, the Jewish "modesty guards" were accused..." This comports to the source which specifies, "The act has been attributed to a representative of the so-called 'modesty guard' in this town where religious and secular residents are increasingly at bitter odds." Scythian1 (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see my point now. My main concern is not about religious motivation part (we can include such assertion for t countries where this kind of attacks are a social phenomenon), but rather the fact that this is a not really a general phenomenon in those countries named in the disputed line as well as Israel, as oppose to Pakistan for example, where these kinds of attacks take place on weekly basis. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. To be honest, I am not familiar enough with the life-style in Gaza or Srinagar to pass a judgment, but I am confident that this is not social phenomenon in Iran, Israel or even Lebanon for that matter. All of the documented cases of such attacks, I have read about, had taken place in in South Asia, Pakistan and Bangladesh in particular. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of this compromise_solution --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably sick of Acid attack but see if you agree with adding one last phrase I want to add.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_attack#One_last_issue:_adding_the_word_Islam --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block of BehnamFarid

Incivility is hard to block for, as what people consider incivil is dramatically different; you really need a ranting foaming at the mouth ALL CAPS FUCKTARD rant before everyone will be in agreement... BF was blocked for legal threats, which is much easier to warn for and block with minimum fuss, as we're supposed to do it on site. They get a warning, then they're gone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bach

Haha, funny. Even funnier: [1] (go to 4:17). Khoikhoi 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually haven't heard about that either. I was going to say WP:IGNORE, but I guess according to the policy you cited, this is fine, just don't paste the entire article. This is news to me though, I always thought you could do that. Khoikhoi 04:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RRR violation report

Please see the report WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:AzureFury reported by Tony1 (Result: No action). Tony (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Joke

Blogs are not reliable sources. Opinion pieces repeating the blog rumor are not an improvement. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bach

You're welcome. I was shocked to see so many negative comments. --Jashiin (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidant personality disorder Talk page.

I added a new reply to your question about fixed fantasies. (Talk:Avoidant_personality_disorder#Fixed_Fantasies) --Mark PEA (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist discrimination

Sorry if my editing/wording was bad. It was late, I suppose.

But I do know for a fact that military members and officers are NOT required to say "so help me god" in the oath. I am in the Air Force and it was greatly stressed when I joined that the words "swear" and "so help me god" are not mandatory. You're allowed to replace 'swear' with 'affirm' and you can leave out the 'so help me god' part completely. Hope this clarified it a bit. TravisAF (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that 'no religious test clause' basically prove my point? And leaving out 'so help me god' was reiterated both at MEPS and at basic training. So it's not like only the one guy at MEPS had half a brain. TravisAF (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it then goes right around and violates the religious test clause. I"m just saying that 'so help me god' is NOT mandatory and it's been r-enforced everywhere in the military for me. It's most definitely NOT enforced in real life at all. TravisAF (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Copied/pasted: Please review your edits. While you were restoring the OTHER IP's comment, you were also DELETING 96's comment, which was not vandalism. BOTH of you were at fault. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've reported both of you as vandals. Please stay off my talk page. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please see the 3RR report found here. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, everyone was wrong in this case. He wasn't intentionally vandalizing, but just thought that it was defamation. Explaining this to him, rather than templating, may have worked. Admittedly he wasn't being easy to deal with, but it isn't as if you had to edit war with him; you could have just as well asked for help from an admin earlier. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, he wasn't vandalizing. Sure, you could classify this as disruptive editing, but he didn't know, and it isn't like he holds a fringe viewpoint (quite a few people on the talk page agreed with removing the statement, albeit they didn't act on it). I guess what I'm trying to say is that he had good intentions; this just escalated more than it should have. A vandal, on the other hand, would have been maliciously removing content for no reason. I just felt I should explain this if only to explain to you my reasoning. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Take a look at the article

It's turning into a revert war again. Zero and Awesome (or whatever) have already reverted me twice, so obviously I'm not going to revert again. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Digital^Ninja 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the John McCain Revert Campaign, 2008 :) Digital^Ninja 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Vandalism

Yes, that's true. What are you referring to? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread my comments or just misinterpreted them. Where did I say that? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any diff of that? Still not ringing any bells. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I was just curious because I don't recall ever saying that. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

I've gone through Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and made a lot of changes so that hopefully the

can be removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have the hide to talk to me about edit-warring?

What do you call what you're doing? I'm trying to compromise here, but if this is your attitude, why shouldn't I just delete the whole section? My agreement to have it in the first place, and my working on neutral language, is in the spirit of compromise, and you're not making that spirit easy. Quit the tendentious reverting. -- Zsero (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question posed to Hadal

Hi AzureFury -- you asked Hadal about some edits at your IP. No edits show because the only edits have been deleted from the database. Here are the relevant items from the deletion log (December 2004). I thought I'd answer since Hadal is rarely active any more.

05:48, 15 December 2004 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Advanced black bee position
05:46, 15 December 2004 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . Cross sex position

Very few people retain an IP address for four years -- so unless you know you were editing from it in December 2004, Hadal's warning was not directed at you. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HR

I don't see Booga's edits as neutral, nor do I see any "neutralizing" or improvement by anyone else. What I do see is that the issues that had been previously been raised, have not been sufficiently addressed. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in the IRI

Thanx a lot for helping with the page. All that bluster and still not one specific examples ... --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea!

This could work out well! --Enzuru 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Discrimination against atheists. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. dougweller (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

In this edit you blind reverted the article you got blocked for being disruptive on back to a version you wrote from before you were blocked. On top of that, the only edit comment you left was "Vandalism," which is highly deceptive. Please take the time to read about our vandalism policy (and specifically the what vandalism is not section) before making any such claim. While you are looking into policies, you should also take a look at WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS, since your edits have major problems with all of them. Blind reverting the article back to an old version which you kow you do not have consensus to do and being deceptive about the reasons are both unacceptable behavior. Keeping up the same activities that got you blocked before is not a good idea. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Discrimination against atheists. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Verbal chat 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi, AzureFury, in regards the current edit war at Discrimination against atheists, I have been reviewing the situation. I don't feel strongly enough about the material to have an opinion strongly one way or the other, but it would appear that the consensus at the talkpage is leaning away from the edits that you are trying to insert into the article. Accordingly, could I ask you to no longer engage in the large reverts? A better way to proceed would be to engage in talkpage discussion, and build consensus. Or, instead of doing large reverts, try for very small changes. Add one or two well sourced sentences, and then wait to see if that's an acceptable compromise. If yes, perhaps try adding a bit more later. Proceeding slowly and carefully is much more likely to result in longlasting changes to the article. See also WP:BRD. --El on ka 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC template

Sorry I removed the template. Maybe I need to get glasses. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on January 24 2009 to Discrimination against atheists

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting

I've been watching and contributing for quite a while! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Against Atheists

I just want to say that I appreciate what you are doing in trying to improve the article. The problem, as I think you may have already noticed, is that there is a huge amount of systemic bias against atheists, and as a result there aren't many sources that Wikipedia would find acceptable. I don't have the patience to bang my head against a brick wall like you seem to be doing. This isn't the only page that is ridiculously out of touch with reality on Wikipedia. That's the reason I stopped editing pages myself. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy not an academic institution.--98.148.172.122 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foley quote?

There is a revised version of the Foley quote on the talk page.

Chingadiculous (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against atheists

I agree with you the section about Professor Zellner should stay and restored it. Slp1 took it out again in short measure and says he needs time to prepare his argument. I think it should stay till he can give good reason to remove it or has supporters but I don't want to be accused of edit warring so I didn't restore it a second time. I suggest waiting a day or so to see if Slp1 has got anything good to say or is just using delaying tactics. Slp1 is an administrator but will get into trouble if he uses administrator buttons in an issue where he is involved. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having "the" in front of provinces/districts

I believe that there is no "the" in front of names of provinces and districts in Afghanistan. Its like saying "the Orange County" or "the Washington state". Do you know something I don't? C5mjohn (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound odd at first. I have read several books on Afghanistan and they don't use "the". I assume its the same for other countries, but I am only fixing the Afghan ones because its the only one I know for sure.C5mjohn (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your NOR/N question

Hi, someone introduced your question as an example into a vaguely related lengthy discussion at WT:NOR#Logical deductions. You might be interested in reading from approximately WT:NOR#A look at the issue from a different angle. Hans Adler 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: War in Afghanistan External Link

AzureFury I don't know why you are saying the link I added was a dead link I tested it several times and it was working just fine. The link was: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/3/can-the-us-win-the-war-in-afghanistan

I won't revert the most recent edits to the external links section, however if there are going to be links to external articles I see no relevant reason to exclude the link above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.105.106 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding user 119.152....

He has made numereous edits that are totaly unreferenced. I reverted some of them but don't have time to do them all. I saw that you also reverted some of his edits so I think I should point out four more articles where he made unreferenced edits and you should revert him. These are: War in North-West Pakistan, Operation Black Thunderstorm, Second Battle of Swat (he even removed references here), War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (yes he did it again after you previously reverted him), Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, Taliban insurgency. I suggest that all of his unreferenced, and clearyly OR edits be reverted and he himself be block initialy for a 24 to 72 hour period as a warning to stop this behavior. Since he is obviously changing his ip I suggest a block range of 119.152.... Hope you take some action on this issue. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.199 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actualy just saw that in his edit to Second Battle of Swat his edit on the number of Pakistani soldiers killed and wounded was referenced (for once), but all of his other edits were not, so be watchfull when reverting him not to revert that referenced number. Thank you.89.216.236.199 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 89.216.236.199 appears to be an IP sock of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has himself been blocked for OR editing, sock puppetry and block evasion. I do, however, also regard 119.152x's edits as being nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algae Fuel

Hi: I didn't think it needed a cite. Reasoning: the article suggested that burned algae fuel only releases CO2 it captured from the atmosphere. It made this assertion without a citation. But depending on how 'cultivated' algae is grown for fuel, some of the CO2 it consumes may come from 'sequestered' sources (e.g. water in oceans, lakes, soil ... ), not just from the atmosphere. This is not research, but reason. Maybe you could suggest a better way to word it. I'll see what I can find, maybe you could request a citation for the statement that led to my reasoned revision?Twang (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Here's the part (toward the end of) the lead section I think needs clarifying:"The production of biofuels from algae does not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), because any CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the algae is returned when the biofuels are burned.". Then I modified the beginning of the following sentence with a qualifier, then appended my reasoning.

Well shucks ... if we're not allowed to reason any content any more *sigh* then I'll modify my strategy. I'm going to revert that section back the way it was and ask for a citation. If I get a chance I'll dig into the topic (I've got a background in energy alternatives ... taught it once) and provide a referenced resolution to the question. Thanks for pointing out the 'no original thought' to me. That's ironic, but then, that's why I largely stick to cited corrections & factual additions these days... don't want to get into extended haggling over microdetails or POV.Twang (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, requested citation, discussed in Talk. Thanks for pointer to WP:NOTOR - that's just the kind of theological hair-splitting I left the monastery to get away from. ;-) Twang (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War in Afghanistan

http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx Casulities are 1531 Canadian casulities are 133, not 134.German casulities are 34, not 40. So, if you write Others coalation casulities: 367 then it become better than writing single single country casulity which is wrong on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.168.178 (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Wounding are 7,874 because 4434+2864+360+132+84=7,874 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.168.178 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expert in editing, i doesnt know how to make refrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.168.178 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acid throwing

Re: [3]

I don't have a cite -- I just noticed that the Ameneh_Bahrami page said it, and thought it important to add here. However, I now notice that page is missing any citation for the claim. CNN [4] seems to indicate the opposite is true. I've tidied up both articles. Vishahu (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA notice

Hello, AzureFury. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding your uncivil behavior. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Iraq War. Thank you. --Abusing (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lang Vei

Hi - the battle started at 1am, but doesn't seem to have finished until the next evening. Not sure if this therefore counts as a 'night battle'; I suppose 'night attack' is more accurate but doesn't convey the length that 'battle' implies. Either way, it was an interesting event. Little grape (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yup, de-orphanizing Night combat sounds good - would be nice to see that article grown substantially with a lot more info about strategy, tactics, and examples of successful/unsuccessful night attacks (e.g. going right back to the 1stC when a bunch of Scots nearly wiped out Rome's 9th Legion). It's an interesting subject, but I don't really know enough about it to contribute in any significant way - apart from dropping in some examples. Let me know if you want to get stuck in? Little grape (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - couldn't find the battle on 'scots romans' until I googled 'caledonians 9th legion', which gave good background. I didn't realise that the losses were so bad that the entire legion had to be reformed from scratch, and that the *replacement* 9th Legion appeared to have been wiped out some time later.

Also, re Lang Vei, I was looking for accounts that tell the story from the Vietnamese point of view - there's lots of stuff on various heroics by Americans, but nothing about how the battle was planned and executed by the Vietnamese. This would tie in nicely with your Night Combat, because clearly it was an attack designed to use the night as a tactical advantage. And the use of tanks was a fairly radical departure in that context. I'm guessing the US forces must have been aware that tanks were in the area, because there were around 100 LAWs rockets issued to the base, but the preparedness for armoured attack is also not really covered in the article except to say they 'weren't ready' for such an attack. This doesn't make much sense - if they were issued with a huge ile of anti-tank weapons then they *must* have expected such attacks? Again, it would be useful to hear from the Vietnamese on their opponents preparedness or otherwise. Normally of course, the history is written by the victors - but not in this instance! That's probably because all the US vets speak English and use the internet, while the Vietnamese have a language barrier and no AOL..... Little grape (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd - the 9th Legion seems to have got a kicking everywhere it went. No, not the same battle. Clearly there are now (at least) three in Britain we know about. The first was in Scotland, where a night attack took place on a fort, the second was when the 9th was reformed and marched North into Scotland, never to be seen again. The third involved Boadicea, who was a warlord(ess) way to the South, who seems to have given the 9th (it's THIRD reformation?) another kicking.

Reading more about the first attack, it seems to fit very nicely into your Night Combat article, because it succeeded only because it was carried out at night - an advance unit snuck in the fort, opened the gates, and the hordes rushed in. Classic! They appear to have succeeded because the Romans couldn't even get their armour on in time, let alone form up in any sort of defensive phalanx. Interesting. Little grape (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I suggest you start a request at the Proposed page moves. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

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

Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion on incivility blocking

Hey Azure, we've finally started getting some actually policy on paper! However, I'm not really sure we've incorporated your concerns into our introduction. Did you want to make any suggestions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks#Actual text? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AzureFury. You have new messages at Samwb123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

War in afghanistan

I think you undo my update on war in afghanistan. Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jesh-e-Mohammadi and Hizbul Mujahideen only and only fight against indian military in indian adminisrated kashmir.

Remove their names in the list of militants groups fight against american forces in afghanistan.

And 2nd thing the Islamic emirate of Waziristan onnly and only support Afghan talibanss and fight against american forces in afghanistan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban Islamic emirate of waziristan is a allies of Afghan taliban.Majority of militants of IEW live in north waristan and their number is tens of thousands.And mostly drones strikes are also in north waziristan that means IEW militants fight against amerian forces so as a reaction american forces attack on IEW by drones attacks.

Their are several other militants grops in Pakistan which fight against american forces for example.Punjabi talibans, tahrek-e-taliban karachi etc, etc.Some just support afghan taliban by sending money and weapons whereas some militants groups go to Afghanistan and fight aginst american forces.Some militants doing both things.But i doesnt mension them on the war in affghanistan article because some other people remove the correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help.(Nick-D remove all my edits all my struggle to make wikipedia better)

Nick-D is now out of control.He want to stop me to saying this.He remove all my previous information from these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 Whats your reaction.He said that all information is copyright violation.What a new propaganda.From 2 months he doesnt watch copyright.He only watch my copyright yesterday.He only block my user.Yesterday he block my user becausse of a copyright violcation.I just make a paragraph into a sentence.SO he see that i violate.He quickly block my user and today he remove all data which i write. Anyways i have record of Afghan security forces casualty from January 2010-present. But i have no data of civilian casualties. If Nick-D type peoples are on wikipedia then wikipedia will not promote. Nick-D doesn add any information in those articles which i edit.He just watch my activities.And search as small mistake which block my user. Stop Nick-D before he remove any other previos data from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.25.99 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're editting in bad faith, but you are making many bad edits. Copyright is when you directly copy someone else's words and use them as your own. In other words, you were blocked because you copy and pasted information into the article. We have to type it in our own words on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't think you speak English well enough to function on English Wikipedia. You might consider working on Persian Wikipedia or Arabic Wikipedia and learn the policies there. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make this new user because Gameboy1947 is now useless user.Now i first really want to learn rules slowly.I mean not learn rules, i want understand rules and 2nd thing i want to improve my english.i also want to learn how to edit in wikipedia with different commands.

Anyways i speak in Urdu.Our country's naational language is Urdu.English is also a major language in our country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

This is my user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TombChronicles

Please help me to make my user page and talk page.

Whats the message means.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TombChronicles&redirect=no

My user again blocked

These are the works which i have done on wikipedia with this user.I doesnt edit anything.I first honestly talk to Nick-D and then you to teach me rules and immprove my english.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TombChronicles

Nick-D block me again.If i doesnt post this mesage to Nick-D user then maybe he doesnt block my user because he doesnt know who i am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick-D&diff=prev&oldid=344101919#I_want_some_help.

I post message on Nick-D user in which i explain that i change my mind from edditing to learing rules.I doesnt edit anything until i become expert in wikipedia and understand all rules, policies and edit commands.

From last 2 weeks Nick-D doesnt talk to me.And day before yesterday he block me because i violate copyright rules.He remove all my edits on those pages where i mostly edit.You said in your comment on your user page that i copy paste.I doesnt copy paste whole news.I copy maximum 1 or 2 line of news in 2 articles.I also write some thing like in some news they write Indian kashmir, which is totally wrong.So i correct it by myself, Indian occupied Kashmir or Indian administrated Kashmir.You can also see the last information on the page in which a user write whole news contain 13 lines with 9 refrences.That news is not so big as user write.Several times i write news in two lines and one refrence but someone undo my works.Anyways all other user on below page follow copy paste rule.You can see my data which i written by going to History of Page and click Undo on Nick-D activites to remove my data by saing Copyright violation.And tell me is data is precious or just rubbish.

In some articles you was also help me.Now all pages looks like old and doesnt edit by someone because all my data which make the articcle refresh has now removed.But if you watch my activities, on 3rd article(Afghan security forces fatality) you can see that how much i make better this page.I make this page easy, small andd contain all information.I also want to make other two articles easy but my user blocked.Think if someone is behind you on wikipedia and one day he block you (by your small mistake which is mistakely occured) and remove all data which you written and block all your ways.Whas your reaction. 119.152.65.142 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you edit in good faith. However, I don't think you can function on English wikipedia until your English improves. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to learn to speak a language. I think you should stick to editting in your own language until you master English. Then you can consider coming back. Take a vacation from English wikipedia for a few months and try to improve your English. When you come back, let me know and we'll talk again. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you doesnt read my full massage.Please read full message.

And check my edits on all three articles which i mension above.

In some pages you also help me.I think in Afghan security forces casualty page you help to make article smaller contain all information and easy o understand but now as Nick-D remove all my edits.That page is again become rubbish.Too much difficult to understand.

This are my edit history of Gameboy1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gameboy1947

I start edit on wikipedia on 14th december when i heard in news that 16 Afghan police killed in 2 different location.So i think that i saw the article of Afghan security casualties on wikipedia, then i think i should update that article.And that is the page where i start my edditing.This is history of page from14 December 2009 till present mostly edits are mine.Even i add some more casualty information of older months from September-December 2009.This is history of that page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan&limit=250&action=history 119.152.134.168 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message. I've been keeping track of your edits, some are good, some are bad. Your english is so bad that you don't understand why your bad edits are bad. That is why you can't work on English wikipedia. We have try repeatedly to explain the rules to you but you don't understand. What can we do when you continue to make bad edits after told you not to? As I said, take a vacation and come back when you understand English better. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only and only edits casualties section of war in Afghanistan.Afghan security casualty, civilian casualty.Anyways if you tell some more rules like this one(119.152.91.234 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))Then i understand wikipedia faster.Anyways whats my edits are bad.Anyways if you watch several other people activities on wikipedia then you also find several user using copypaste with no changing.I also use this method but i do some changing.I only copy that sentence of news which tell that where the incident happen, how much loss and whats going on there.Some user coopy whole news and paste on wikipedia.Like go to the timeline of Kashmir conflict in Kashmir page.Their you see several too much big incident explanation.Actually that user who write that use copy paste method from news.And on Afghan security casualties i several time i doesnt use any of copy paste method.If i use copypaste method then every incident contain 4-5 lines.But i write casualties and their place and during blah blah.So i write the incident in only 1 line.If their are more than 1 incident then i write Several talibas attacks in country kill__ soldiers and__ policemen.Is this line is from copy paste method.I think no.And one thing that copyrights in our country is totally different from copyright from here.119.152.91.234 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in ever being unblocked, the first step is to stop attempting to evade your block. If you would like to be unblocked your only option is to stop editing and email the Arbitration Committee in a few months using the instructions at Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeal to the Arbitration Committee and convince them that you now understand how seriously Wikipedia takes copyright and that you will use sources accurately - there is no other way that you will be permitted to edit again given your major copyright violations and misrepresentation of sources (both of which are taken incredibly seriously as they can lead to serious legal problems). I agree with AzureFury's comments; you're a highly productive editor, but you simply don't appear to be able to understand what's going on here and what is required of all editors, and repeated efforts by myself and other editors to provide you with guidance have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.At last you agree to talk.But one thing when they watch my user blocked several times they doesnt hear any of my comment.Its 50:50 chance for unblock my user.I think it will too much difficult for me to convence them.Anyways i try.If i unblocked then i first learn and understand rules and regulations of wikipedia, then improve my english and then i edit any article.Sorry for one thing that i edit some articles with this user.If you want to remove my edits then remove.

I send a message to arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org.I send this message.

My user is Gameboy1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gameboy1947

My user was blocked several times because of different reasons.My user blocked last time because i violate copyright rules.

All of my blocking is because i doesnt read rules carefully.But now i am serious about rules.So can you please unblock my user.Now i promise i doesnt violate any rules.Because during blocking i realise that i am wrong, i violatte the rules several times.And now i am serious about rules.If i will unblocked then i my first thing is to learn and understand rules, then improve my english and then edit anything on wikipedia.

So please give me one more chance.Please unblock my user.

Sorry for my rough english.

Thanks

Their reply is also too much fast.

Your mail to 'arbcom-l' with the subject

   User:Gameboy1947

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

   Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive

notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL:

   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/arbcom-l/f59be93508dbfce0e41a056a5e18b543c54aeb66

I really want help

AzureFury, i want a help from you.It doesnt related to wikipedia.

I explain, now i mostly go to my medical store alongwith my father.As now-a-days i am interested in medicines.But my father is not expert in medicines.So we use a book named Redbook which contains all information about medicines but that book takes 10-20 seconds to search a medicine.As customer is always in hurry so he disturb with this searching.So i search on internet and find this amazing most easiest, one click and all infrormation website.

http://epharmaguide.com/RBOnline/Default.aspx

But after a weeks our internet will cut off, befor cut off we want that software, website or whatever it is.Please tell me any link where i can download that.Or tell me any software which download that website in fast speed.I already use a website downloader software(httrack) but that is too much slow after 8 hours 900Mb (my internet speed is 1mb which means approx. 3gb in 8 hours).And then load shedding and when light returns i cant resume that because no resume facility in that software.Please check that software.Maybe their is any resume facility in that software.If so then please help as early as possible. I just want that website either in software style or in website style or in any other style.I want to download that thing which is really too much important for us.Please help.119.152.154.240 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people make websites so that you have to come back and view them again, so you can see their advertisements. I don't think there is a software version. I don't know anything about medicine or any medicine related programs. You will have to google that yourself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban active fighters strength

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gameboy, your attempts to circumvent your block are not going to be successful and all you're achieving is to waste your time and annoy other editors. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, have you hear a story of that spider who fall again and again from wall but at last that spider success to reach the roof.I limited my edits only and only on casualties figure.No more edits.Sometimes i edits some others things.The casualties figure which i posted is according to their refrence.Like on this page.If you want to conferm then visit all refrences of this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan

These are old figures because you remove edits whenever i edit and up to date that page.If you just click first undo option undo then you see lastest figuures of that page, which is totally correct.

No else one on wikipedia is similar to you.I mean you are watching me so badly and undo my eidts without watching or reading that edits.

You doesnt edit any of war in Afghanistan article, you just undo my edits in war in Afghanistan articles and its sub articles.Even on talk page.If i post any comment on talk page like this once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan&action=edit&undoafter=350924674&undo=350948956

I think you have not concern of any war in afghanistan and its sub articles but you just watching that page to see where i edit and undo my edits.

Please forgive me and edits your page and dont watch these war in afghanistan articles.These articlea are not for you because you make these articles older, trash like this once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

I make that article so easy, small, and understandable but you make it again dirt.

If you undo first option of history of that page then you see that how much i update that page which is now looks like dead page.No one update that page.If you give me a chance then i again update that page daily and that page again looks like fresh and easy.119.152.31.150 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually have a choice about whether you're blocked or not. You were given lots of chances, but blew them. Please stop wasting your time. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Casualties Update

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

1707 killed(US:1032, UK: 279, Others: 396)

8,938+ wounded(US: 5,393^[1], UK: 3,545^[2])

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.83.251 (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contracter casualty figure from war in afghanistan

Please remove contracter casualty figure from war in Afghanistan(2001-present).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Please remove contracter casualty figure because that figure is according to 2007.And no one knows correct casualty figure of military contracters.There are more contracters that military, so contracter casualty figure is also higher than military casualty.And the source of that casualty figure is also looks like old and fake. Blackwater and other contracter companies also doesnt announce their casualty figure.And their casualty figure highlight when a military soldier killed alongwith a contracter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.83.251 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian claims of unreturned funds

I am not sure I understood your objection exactly. If the U.S. has issued a formal reply to the assertion then I think it would make perfect sense to include it.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already mentioned US denial of funds. We don't need to mention it several times. WP:UNDUE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually placed it in there once and it was subsequently removed. I then placed it in the Iran section using the logic that it was an Iranian assertion about the United States, but it was again subsequently removed. As far as I am aware, the history currently mentions the cutoff of fuel and pressure, but does not discuss the unreturned funds.

If you can point out specifically where the US denial of funds appears in the history, then I would agree that it does not need to appear multiple times. Not out of WP:UNDUE, but more just out of redundancy.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought the mentions of fuel and funds were the same thing. I should read more carefully. I've restored your text. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all.

The article has had a fairly large volume of edits, so I found myself getting somewhat lost in the edits as well. At this point I think I'm just going to give it a chance to sit awhile.--149.166.35.219 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About my April 2010 edit

I didn't needlessly remove material, because the material in question was in fact already in the article, word-for-word. Just search for the phrase "In Egypt, intellectuals suspected of holding atheistic beliefs have been prosecuted by judicial and religious authorities" in the original edit [5]. As you can see, this phrase appears both in the "Islamic Countries" and "Africa" subsections of "Modern era". It seemed to me that someone had intended to move it, but forgot to remove the original. I removed it from the "Africa" subsection because it was the second, and occurred by itself, unlike the one under "Islamic Countries," which fits nicely within an existing paragraph. I hope this clears up any confusion. --76.20.49.251 (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

An ANI discussion has been started that involves you. You may wish to go and leave a response there. Silverseren^C 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for being bold and speaking up - your contributions are improving the encyclopedia tremendously. Noleander (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though you probably deserve it more than me for putting up with these editors for months. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWK real name

If as we suspect the conservation society article gets nuked can you simply delete the real name article - it's previously been done to avoid association between his real name and the meme as per BLP. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghyslain Raza listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ghyslain Raza. Since you had some involvement with the Ghyslain Raza redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke quote

Hi there. I noticed that you have on your userpage a quote from Edmund Burke: "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." This is actually a misattribution: although widely attributed to Burke, there is no record that he ever said or wrote it. (See here on Wikiquote.) It's a nice quote, and I broadly agree with the sentiments it expresses, so feel free to keep it on your userpage; but for the sake of accuracy I advise you to remove the attribution. :) Happy editing. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the questionable nature of the attribution. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metalocalypse episodesI know that for some reason you had a problem with my action of improving spelling and grammatical errors and making the plot summaries more to the point. I would like to remind you that a plot summary is just that: A summary, not an account of every insignificant detail. For a show like that, which has mostly ten minute episodes, there's not really any reason to go into that much detail. If you really have a problem with how I summarized the episodes, why not improve summaries yourself? :-) Let the internet know how YOU would describe an episode of that show from an NPOV! At the very least, you have to acknowledge that typos on that page need fixing. I don't think there can be any argument about that. 71.251.131.210 (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I discussed this with Project Television. The recommendation on plot summaries for episodes is less than 300 words, which almost all of the summaires are, except a few including the season finales. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]See the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_12#How_detailed_should_plot_summaries_be.3F AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]First notice to restore Defamation of religions and the United NationsIt seems you have misunderstood or forgotten the outcome of the Article for Deletion process here. The majority of editors there said that they wanted to keep Defamation of religions and the United Nations. You have deleted the article's content. Deleting the content is not keeping the article. By deleting the content, you are editing against the WP:Consensus which came out of the AfD-process. Editing against consensus is a type of WP:Disruptive editing. You should restore the article to what it was at the end of the Article for Deletion process . If you have a specific, reasonable complaint about a sentence or statement in the article, complain on the article's Discussion page. Do not repeat the absurdities you offered during the AfD-process. Reply on this Discussion page to respond to this message. PYRRHON talk 16:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I can find a number of places for you to shove this "warning." Check the WP:AFD again. The consensus was that the topic was notable, not that the article was acceptable. Most editors wanted a rewrite of some kind, which is what I've done. I also did post on the talk page a full week before I revised it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Personal attacksI removed a personal attack which you posted to Talk:stoning which you have now restored with another personal attack. I will again remove your posting and if you restore it I will request that you be blocked. If you wish to rephrase your question in a civil manner, then I will be happy to reply. TFD (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]*Yawn* report me. Calling you a liar isn't a personal attack if it's true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for changing your comments. Actually calling people liars is a personal attack^{[citation needed]}, even if it is true. It is much better to ask people to clarify their comments, or to use more parliamertary language such as "you are mistaken". TFD (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I didn't change my comments. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] AzureFury! Don't ever again delete my comments from an article talk page. You have no right do do so. Do it again, and you will be blocked. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your comments had nothing to do with improving the article. If you want to do something about my supposed incivility, report me to ANI or Wikiquette. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh that's cute, while you were restoring your comment, you deleted mine. I guess I should expect that from you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]3RR warningYou currently appear to be engaged in an edit 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AlexanderPar (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]FYI, If you break WP:3RR, I'll retract the request for page protection, and will file a 3RR report against you instead. AlexanderPar (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Huh durrrr I know how this childish little game is played. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Defamation_of_religions_etcYou are invited to respond at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Dispute_re_Lead_section. PYRRHON talk 02:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Administrators' Noticeboard / Edit warringYou are invited to address a complaint about your conduct here. PYRRHON talk 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]CivilityYour ad hominem comments at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations are not helpful. I realize that you are upset. I know how vexing it is to have someone come along and destroy many hours of work. Since you have been trying to destroy my work from 15 June 2010, I believe I have more reason to be upset than you. I am willing to create a new lede, and to have you contribute to it if you will contribute constructively. If you want to work with me, I will let bygones be bygones. If you persist in going your own way and in spoiling the article, then I am going to give you a hard time—a very hard time! Think long and hard before you choose what to do. PYRRHON talk 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]List of Metalocalypse episodesI tagged it for a speedy deletion. It's chocked full of copyright violations and I don't have the time to comb through it again AND stay on top of it so that it's no reintroduced. I hate to have it deleted but I don't see another option at this point. I see you're involved with it so I wanted to give you a heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Help with new articleI've created a new article Criticism of the Talmud, and if you have some time, I'd appreciate it if you could look at it and see if you can identify any shortcomings (lack of neutrality, etc), so I can address them. (Or, of course, you are free to edit the article yourself). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Which part of my edit was "original research"? The fact that atheism is associated with communism is copiously cited on the page. That Franco declared war on atheism can also be copiously cited. I said "starting" in my edit summary. Can't I have a chance to expand the section over time? Or are you going to obstruct me every step of the way if I don't cite every sentence? BillMasen (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]At no point in your section did you even write the word "discrimination." You have no sources from atheists alleging discrimination by "right-wing dictatorships" which is a connection that, at this point, has been made entirely by you. You don't have to source every sentence, only things likely to be challenged, such as this. If you wish to continue writing the section, I think using "right-wing" and "left-wing" is a poor choice, as those terms have opposite definitions in the US and Europe. Further, don't assume our readers are familiar with the players in the Spanish Civil War. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Lancet study pageHey Azure, this is a peer-reviewed article directly on the topic. Your first blanking of this relevant ref'd material just asserted a POV that you don't like it. Then you started asserting it's being overwheighted by being mentioned because i didn't cite 'third party sources' - this is ridiculous as it's already a relevant reliable source and tons of other material on the page, such as the Tirman para directly above, does not require other sources. This is a double standard. Then you start changing the wordings from what the paper says to what you want it to say instead. Cut it out with the POV-pushing and spin already.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]November 2010You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]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.I note in particular, you made no attempt to actually talk about the issue. In fact, you removed the editor's only attempt to discuss it with you [6]. That's not cool, hence the block. As it says above, if you think this is unfair, feel free to request unblock. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). AzureFury (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have made two reverts to the page in question, and then afterwards made good faith efforts to find a compromise wording to the article, while never deleting the text that was in dispute. I reverted 1 completely non-sensical accusation of "misleading edit summaries" on my own talk page, while leaving another comment incoherently accusing me of POV pushing by simply including more information from the sources that the other editor added. I have not violated 3RR, and I have not been editting aggressively in any way. Decline reason: You were edit warring on the page, and not discussing on the talk page. Stephen 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.I believe your statement above is wrong; would you like me to provide diffs? When I gave the diff above of you removing the comment, I probably should have explained better: it was my way of saying that you clearly saw there was an intent to discuss (seen in the thread above), but you didn't engage in it before reverting, warning, and reporting. Does that make sense? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]I never edit warred in this entire dispute. You see multiple edits of mine that have been reverted and you assume that I am edit warring? So your reasoning for blocking me is that I have attempted 3 different edits without reverting to restore any of them, each a good faith effort on mine to find a solution, and because I didn't use the talk page I am an edit warrior? How do you define edit warring exactly? What is the point of WP:3RR when admins like you block for any reason at all? Why would I legitimize a completely baseless accusation that I have given "misleading edit summaries" ? Why would I bother responding to accusations of POV pushing when I am adding information from a source the other editor provided? Are you incapable of looking up these diffs yourself? Is it just easier to fire away some blocks and maybe consider unblocking later? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). AzureFury (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I never edit warred. I made two reverts before the new source was added, and two edits after. Two different edits. The first[7] was considered too POV, so I tried another revision with more neutral language.[8] Where was the aggressive editting? Where was the edit war? Where was I over-riding the edits of another without attempting to reach consensus? Are we just blocking both editors now whenever we see multiple edits on the same page? What more do I need to discuss to understand that my first revision is considered POV? Is it a requirement that I make sure that my name is in the history of the talk page so that I don't get blocked? My understanding was that no good faith edits towards a consensus are edit warring. Decline reason: Clear edit-warring. You don't need to break WP:3RR to be edit warring. The WP:BRD cycle is clear, follow it. The dispute resolution process is also clear. If you try once and it doesn't work, then you must try and obtain consensus, not just re-write and try again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.For the record, my counting was done like this: 1 2 3 4. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]How is [9] a revert? Is there a rule that says I'm not allowed to make 4 edits in 24 hours? Are you admitting then that you have not even reviewed the diffs, but simply counted the edits since the dispute started? Even if one were to ignore the good faith effort on my part to write a better version with what I saw as relevant facts, and consider that 4th edit a revert, that's three reverts. This is so embarassingly unambiguous. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that my actions were in worse faith than his? He actually had 5 edits that "reversed completely or partially" my contributions, going so far as to change "allege" back to "conclude"[10] (even though conclude is not a word used in the source). So he has 5 edits maintaining his version of the page, while I have given ground three times. He has thrown around uncivil bad faith accusations and I deleted the most egregious of them on my own talk page. Your conclusion is that my actions were not only bad, but worse? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). AzureFury (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: OK, I have looked into this. I see two edits that are clearly reverts and two edits that were reverted as POV pushing. Arguably those last two edits may be attempts to be constructive, but without discussion on the article talk page, the back-and-forth visible in the article history constitutes edit warring. I advise you to simply wait out the block; be aware that too many repeated unblock requests may result in an extended block. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please include a decline or accept reason. If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.From WP:BLOCK, "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block." Why do I have to quote policy to admins? Is it your argument then that good faith edits not accompanied by comments on the talk page are blockable? Do you realize that the editor accusing me of "POV pushing" was himself blocked for edit warring over this topic? Yet you use his word as evidence of my bad faith? Am I to understand that I am limited in the number of attempts I may make to find a compromise in a single day, or some time span? If these edits had been made over 48 hours instead of 24, would it still be blockable? If I had responded on my or the article talk page saying, "It's in the source" (as I had indicated in my edit summary) would my edits still be blockable? If I had messaged him on his talk page asking him to stop POV pushing, would that have been considered "discussion" ? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]You had clear cut reversions twice, and two other edits that changed the wording of the same text to gut its original meaning. In essence, you removed text on 4 different occasions to be more akin to your liking (whether by outright deletion of it or by redacting it to say the opposite of what it originally said). In my book, that's the equivalent of 4 reverts. Worse, no, you didn't use any talk at all, save to drop a template on the user you were edit warring with. And yes the user did attempt to discuss with you; it's in the section immediately above, which you ignored entirely (false warnings given by this user on a different edit are another issue entirely and have to do with you not discussing with him: that is a red herring). To address your final point about "good faith" - I see no reason whatsoever to assume greater faith on your part than of a new user who attempted to discuss it while you didn't. Finally, to address the point of "don't block if in doubt" - how about "don't edit war if in doubt [let alone play around the line with 3RR], especially if you've been blocked for it 6 times before and told repeatedly that you're being obstinate and need to knock it off." If you can't see the problem with that after an explanation from four admins (on just this occasion: neverminding the other times you've been warned), then you either aren't listening, are dense, or you have a personality type that disallows you to extend the same good faith to others that you expect in return (which would be very problematic for your continued editing of contentious articles on Wikipedia). I've addressed this quite directly, and frankly more directly than I think should be necessary. I also might point out your lack of humility on the issue is only ensuring that your requests are being denied (WP:GAB). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Your incompetence is unbelievable. That an edit is "more to akin my liking" does not even remotely come close to qualifying it as a revert. Maybe I should stop reverting vandalism when I see it because that is "more akin to my liking"? Maybe editors shouldn't edit at all because those they inevitably find themselves making articles "more akin to their liking." Let me quote WP:REVERT for you: "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." I just can't wrap my mind around how wrong you have managed to be. You are living proof that RFA is broken. And these unblock requests are a demonstration of the ignorance and laziness of admins.I guess I am no longer surprised that you are sympathetic to the incoherent, child-like complaint issued on my page. The grammatical errors present are about the intellectual equivalent of equating "more akin to my liking" with "revert."So really, pat yourself on the back secure in the knowledge that you are the decaying part of the system, making it more conducive to bad faith editting. You checked the diffs, and counted the edits. Mission accomplished, right? Let's ignore whatever fallacies might remain in the article and move on to the next case. You are the lubrication that allows outright fabrications and omissions to slip through the cracks of Wikipedia. Be very proud. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]I was thinking of going back and reviewing it again to make sure I'd missed nothing, but based on that? Yeah, not happening. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Lol, I was thinking to myself, "What's the most childish thing a person could do in this situation? Maybe pretend like it was the last comment that was the final seal on the block?" You disgust me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/19DC9D5F-1390-4F4E-866C-6365CEE48F0A/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15march2010.pdf

[1] ttp://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf

[2] ttp://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/19DC9D5F-1390-4F4E-866C-6365CEE48F0A/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15march2010.pdf

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 22:46, 12 November 2010 edit Magog the Ogre (talk \| contribs) Administrators 100,658 edits →November 2010: re ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:14, 12 November 2010 edit undo AzureFury (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers 3,647 edits →November 2010 Next edit →
Line 612:		Line 612:

	I was thinking of going back and reviewing it again to make sure I'd missed nothing, but based on that? Yeah, not happening. [[User:Magog the Ogre\|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre\|talk]]) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)		I was thinking of going back and reviewing it again to make sure I'd missed nothing, but based on that? Yeah, not happening. [[User:Magog the Ogre\|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre\|talk]]) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

			:Lol, I was thinking to myself, "What's the most childish thing a person could do in this situation? Maybe pretend like it was the last comment that was the final seal on the block?" You disgust me. [[User:AzureFury\|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']] ([[User talk:AzureFury\|talk]] \| [[Special:contributions/AzureFury\|contribs]]) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)