User:Simonides/More morons

A whino assortment from the unwashed Wikipedia-editing hordes, with occasional exceptions

Vandalism

Stop vandalizing the Nagaland article. If you persist, I'll call in the Arbitration Committee. David Cannon 23:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. You're far out of your depth, not least because the arbcom will dismiss your case right away as you have made no attempt at discussion nor understood what arbitration is about. -- Simonides 23:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And apparently the dispute had to do with the map, which I just replaced in that article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:47, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, are you content with the new map? I've been asked to unprotect, and I'm eager to do so, if the map has been resolved. Please let me know on my talk page. If there are still issues, please let me know that, too, as the reasoning for the disagreement was obscure to me as an outsider. Geogre 23:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, I've gone back to the discussion page, and I now see what it is that you're objecting to. Would it be fair to say that your objection is not to Nagaland, but to the image of India that's being used there, and in pretty much every other India-related article that carries a map? If so, wouldn't the better discussion to be at Images for Deletion or editing images, since it's really a global rather than localized article concern? I'm going to unprotect the page for now. I have no knowledge or POV on the various concerns of India/Pakhistan, so my unprotection is not a comment on how I feel about the map. I do hope, however, that you are able to prevail upon the general community to get a better general India map, if that's the concern, and let it, perhaps, have shaded areas for contested regions or something similar. Geogre 02:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geogre, thank you for the note, I have replied at Talk:Nagaland. -- Simonides 23:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Confused chickens cackling

Hey there, just wanted to drop you a note to tell you that I appreciate and support the work you're doing in keeping the Template:In the news section properly formatted, correct and especially balanced. Good work, and I'm with you. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 22:47, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Simonides 23:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did you unilaterally add a requirement to the in the news section on the Main Page guidelines without first discussing it? To then use that unilateral change to justify deleting entries to the template seems morally questionable to me. Gentgeen 22:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It appears unilateral. Why not take a look at the (at least three) long discussions over several months that have gone into debating the content patterns of the ITN template before puffing up with moral righteousness? -- Simonides 23:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I see on Wikipedia talk:in the news section on the Main Page is a proposal by you in late June about adding the no more than one item per country requirement. The proposal was objected to specifically, and therefore no consensus to add it to the guidelines has been established. However, 5 months later you decided to simply add the requirement to the guideline and use it as an argument in an edit war. Gentgeen 23:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The less you look for, the less you'll find, obviously. There is another archived debate on the Template talk page apart from an ongoing one there and at the Village Pump. I have no intention of summarising it all up yet again, so look for it yourself before getting bombastic. -- Simonides 11:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, Simonides' proposal appears to be the logical result of a consensus about the inadequacies of the News page. Only one user seriously objected. - Xed 03:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. -- Simonides 11:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DO NOT unilaterally add "rules" to any page without a clear consensus (e.g. straw poll, or no serious objections in casual discussions) from the community first. Regardless of your opinions on US-centrism, "There should be no more than one story relating to the same country" is NOT Wikipedia policy. Do not add it again before obtaining a clear community consensus (which you do not have, for I myself and a number of users I know are very much against this addition). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The consensus has been requested repeatedly, and no effort has been made by frequent Wikipedia editors to acknowledge, much less work against this bias which, needless to say, the same frequent Wikipedia editors who "are very much against this addition" exhibit themselves. If there is some controversy over the rules, all the better, pay attention to the fact that something needs to be done and do it now, instead of twiddling thumbs and waiting months to debate or block or poll or vote or post or argue or etc. while the shit carries on. Just as importantly, don't try to bully less frequent editors into kowtowing to a minority opinion of right and wrong. -- Simonides 22:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not revert Template:In the news again. You are violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule. Thank you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't actually. Only two reverts made so far, others were edits. You might like to watch out yourself. -- Simonides 22:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, you've been reverting. You are violating the 3RR. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

And now it's protected. Please do not violate the 3RR - if people are reverting you there must be a reason. This should be discussed at template talk:in the news rather than a brute-force attempt at adding the notice. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you revert either Template:In the news or Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page one more time, I'm going to ban you. →Raul654 23:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

On what basis? Like blankfaze, neutrality, and other yellow bellied poodles, you would rather resort to bureaucracy than acknowledge a global Wikipedia problem and work against it. Self-satisfaction comes so much easier. -- Simonides 23:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Judging by some of your edits it seems that you think that your opinion is the only one that counts. Please avoid revert wars and discuss things more thoroughly. Even more importantly please avoid both directed and generalised insults. You've now had two pages protected because of your reversions - hopefully they can soon be unprotected and you won't add your opinion again without community consensus. violet/riga (t) 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your spirit, young lady, but I think you should clock up a few more worthwhile, long articles before strutting around to lecture me or anyone else here. Take care. -- Simonides 00:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Continue like this and I'll see you in arbitration. And as for "worthwhile, long articles" I think you'll find I have plenty to my name. violet/riga (t) 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do go ahead and find out what arbitration is all about. And I'm happy to know you have several worthwhile articles to your name, but that's not what I questioned. -- Simonides 00:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd, you don't seem to have "questioned" anything. I know about arbitration. I also know about blocking and will block you if you continue to add your own rules to the ITN and Current Events articles without discussing them first. violet/riga (t) 00:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I questioned your ability to be a judge of anything, to have written enough "worthwhile" (ie controversial but of a somewhat complex nature) articles to understand what was going on here. Your silly threats, and those of the admin before you, only consolidate what I have written above about your inability to defend your POV, taking refuge in petty penknife-brandishing to stay complacent rather than correct a problem that has been argued about for months but which no admin has bothered with. -- Simonides 00:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL I find it very funny when people try to judge a persons intelligence over the Internet. I suggest you read up what POV means, what a community consensus is and, basically, how to interact with other people on Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 07:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You demonstrate yet again your inability to contribute anything substantial to this issue. -- Simonides 21:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the place to decide policy and I've not tried to suggest a compromise - just explained that you are wrong and will not be able to force your rules onto everyone. Here I'm actually just talking about you and your inability to communicate in a sensible fashion. violet/riga (t) 07:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not only is it obvious to any literate person with adequate intelligence and exposure that I'm not wrong, but I don't need to force anything, and I have been communicating exactly what I want and and how I want to without any unsolicited advice, with as much or more sense than anyone of my respondents has been capable of. If this Talk page is not a place to discuss policy, I suggest you stick to a place that does, instead of getting increasingly inane with every attempt at a last word. -- Simonides 13:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Simonides, just also wanted to chip-in that I support your general intention of broadening the international view of ITN. It looks like you are swimming against the tide and perhaps the stress is showing. Fortunately tides can turn, although it usually takes a little time. -- Solipsist 08:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit war

Please refrain from continuing the reversions of the Wikipedia:Village pump (news) page. If you do it again you will be in violation of the three revert rule. I have explained on my talk why it's being done - you're just being very petty over whether it should be linked or included. violet/riga (t) 00:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh dearie, you should read up the guidelines like I suggested and so much will finally make sense! Like what you're supposed to be doing as opposed to what you obsess over - take care! -- Simonides 00:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Three revert rule. You are in violation of that rule and, under the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement proposal would now face a temporary block. violet/riga (t) 00:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I edited the section so that my comments could be seen as part of the discussion, which is how they appeared originally. Persist and I'll see you at the Arbcom page. -- Simonides 00:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You reverted three times, simple as that. You're being ridiculous about this - your posting on the VP was not harmed by changing it to a link, which is the much better way of sorting it out. Discussion of that topic should be at it's talk page. As it is, it doesn't really seem to have generated a great deal of discussion or support anyway, so I guess we'll just take it as your policy suggestion being rejected. violet/riga (t) 00:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you take it as does not extend to what all other people take it as, sweetie. As for who is being ridiculous, I think a look at your edits today - all centred around "what Simonides did" - should make it clear to the neutral observer. And your idea of "a great deal of discussion" for a section that extends far beyond the average screen length is quaint to say the least; but good luck with the rest of your stuck-on-Simonides day/evening. -- Simonides 01:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, you really are a sad case aren't you. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irony. -- Simonides 21:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just when I think this place is populated by sensible people I come across you. Please stop acting like a 12-year old child just because somebody disagrees with you. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess you didn't click on the link I provided. -- Simonides 20:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd love it if you'd follow this link to be honest. Oh, and how's the vote going? violet/riga (t) 21:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I wrote on your user page, Wikipedia talk pages are meant to improve articles; if you just want my constant attention, send an email, and I'll reply with my phone number and other contact details. That way you can shower me with your inanities 24 hrs a day in the hope that I'll stalk you in return! -- Simonides 21:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do NOT remove categories until the vote to keep/delete is over

(Notice: Please do not change the name of this original message to you as you did by inserting the belittling name of "== Do NOT rain on my Zionist parade ==" see what you did at: [1], as it is a violation of Wikipedia's functioning. Thank you. IZAK 10:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I know exactly what I did and I don't need a link to help me remember. And no, it is not a violation of anything. Kindly stop cluttering my Talk page with your time-wasting idiocies. -- Simonides 04:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, since you have placed the Category:Jewish Russian people up for a vote to keep or delete, please DO NOT remove the category from the pages in this category until AFTER the vote is over! I am reverting your changes until a consensus is reached. IZAK 11:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people it is well within the guidelines to remove extremely contentious categories. -- Simonides 12:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NO! Read what is says on the very same {{cfd}} sign that YOU placed on the Category:Jewish Russian people page: "This category has been listed for deletion or renaming. Please see this page's entry on the categories for deletion page for the proposal, justification, and discussion. Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered." Note well the plain English words of the {{cfd}} sign, and if you go ahead and "empty the category while the question is being considered" you are in violation of Wikipedia policies and will have this marked against you in a RfC and an eventual RfA if necessary. Be warned! IZAK 14:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly. No one "emptied the category", but I did remove the category from articles where it doesn't belong. And it's not a little amusing how you threaten me with an RfC or Arbitration, considering how many years you've spent being RfCed and RfAed yourself. -- Simonides 20:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not being "silly" and you well know it. Yes, I have been at Wikipedia a while, but so far, only very recently have I had exactly ONE RfC and RFA opened against me, both unresolved thus far as most people have been supportive of me and my ability to work in a NPOV fashion (which you seem hard-put to appreciate for some myterious reason best known to yourself.) You may think that I am someone else, but I am only myself, the one and only original "IZAK" on Wikipedia. Take care. IZAK 10:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"as most people have been supportive of me and my ability to work in a NPOV fashion"...Snort - yes, your pals in ignorance and prejudice, I know, Wikipedia is infested with them. Spin another. -- Simonides 04:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you "clustering" and "bunching up" Categories on pages?

Hi again Simonides: I noticed that when you edited some pages you "clustered" or "bunched" the names of Categories and Languages templates on some pages. This makes it very difficult to both read and edit the pages as one must then wade through the too tightly and too closely-spaced Categories and Language templates. To leave them in a readable and streamlined list makes it easier to see, read, and most importantly edit, such as when one is considering where to place the name of new Category and Language templates to a page. Here are two examples of what I mean: Thanks. IZAK 10:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With Ilya Ehrenburg you did this [2] :

- This is much nicer and clearer and easier to edit (ignore the one-line space between them, as on a "real time" page there would not be a line between them):

[[de:Ilja Grigorjewitsch Ehrenburg]]

[[Category:Writers|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:Novelists|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:Memoirists|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:Russian writers|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:Poets|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:Jewish Russian people|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:1891 births|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

[[Category:1967 deaths|Ehrenburg, Ilya]]

With Boris Pasternak you did this [3] :

[[de:Boris Leonidowitsch Pasternak]] [[es:Borís Pasternak]] [[eo:Boris PASTERNAK]] [[fr:Boris Leonidovich Pasternak]] [[it:Boris Pasternak]] [[no:Boris Pasternak]] [[pl:Borys Pasternak]] [[sv:Boris Pasternak]] [[Category:1890 births|Pasternak, Boris]] [[Category:1960 deaths|Pasternak, Boris]] [[Category:Nobel Prize in Literature winners|Pasternak, Boris]] [[Category:Novelists|Pasternak, Boris]] [[Category:Russian poets|Pasternak, Boris]] [[Category:Russian writers|Pasternak, Boris]]

- This is so much nicer and clearer and easier to edit (ignore the one-line space between them, as on a "real time" page there would not be a line between them):

[[de:Boris Leonidowitsch Pasternak]]

[[es:Borís Pasternak]]

[[eo:Boris PASTERNAK]]

[[fr:Boris Leonidovich Pasternak]]

[[it:Boris Pasternak]]

[[no:Boris Pasternak]]

[[pl:Borys Pasternak]]

[[sv:Boris Pasternak]]

[[Category:1890 births|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:1960 deaths|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:Nobel Prize in Literature winners|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:Novelists|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:Russian poets|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:Russian writers|Pasternak, Boris]]

[[Category:Jewish Russian people|Pasternak, Boris]]

Please don't fill up my Talk page with trivial questions that could be a lot briefer. The cats are put closer together to lessen the white space that tends to follow between links and the category bar, which can be excessive when there are too many categories, as those who have been here a while know. -- Simonides 04:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grow up and stop insulting people over the intarweb (here and on other talk pages). violet/riga (t) 09:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not old enough to belong to a special home like you, I admit, but it would be useful if you kept your nose stuck in your trashy time-wasting affairs. -- Simonides 16:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Simonides: I agree with user violet/riga that you need to be more "civil". I have been at Wikipedia two years, so I am a veteran. I am in the top 100 Wikipedia editors see Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits presently at 64 with over 10,000+ edits [4] and I was one of the first to utilize Wikipedia Categories on a lrge scale in Category:Jews and Judaism, so I can judge very well that what you say is not true! An average Wikipedia article uses less than "page" (I am not sure that we need concern ourselves with sacriicing "space", as usage is an imoprtnat issue, and there is no problem at all in having the listing of "Categories" and "Language versions" run down in a line rather than "bunch them up" as you have tended to do. So I would ask that you please stop it, because what you are doing makes it much harder for those of us using the categories to edit them with ease rather than having to wade through a "cluster" that is hard to unravel and makes errors more likely to occur. Thanks for your consideration of this issue. IZAK 10:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) The white space is an aesthetic, not a usage issue. I will continue to edit as I see fit, because cutting out white space on long articles makes it a lot easier to read the categories - the priority is the reader, not the editor. 2) I know you have too much time on your hands, you don't need to prove it. Use some of it to sort out the clutter, on the page and in your mind. -- Simonides 16:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Dear Simonides, the personal attacks and snide, arrogant remarks in your edit summaries have become tiresome. Please stop that, thank you. Wyss 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop the personal attacks, dispute-driven false accusations of poicy violations at the administrators' noticeboard and edit warring by revert. Thank you. Wyss 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct

The false accusations, personal attacks and misleading statements you have made about me on sundry pages of WP are reprehensible, abusive and disruptive. Please stop immediately.

I strongly suggest we avoid each other entirely for now, which would include even references to each other on user talk pages. A sarcastic or accusatory reply from you to this posting will be interpreted as further abuse.

Therefore, let's simply agree for now that we have no viable common means of communication and are sadly incapable of maintaining any exchange between us whatsoever which conforms to Wikipedia's written policy.

Thank you for your time and while I emphatically deny your accusations, I am sorry that we have been unable to find any way to collaborate on developing content for Wikipedia. You have my best wishes, however, for a rewarding and pleasant Wikipedia experience. Wyss 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)