Archives

User talk:Tarc/Archive0

yes. shitty site. good that you removed. Zeq 20:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've responded to a message you left at User talk:Pcg13#Rolling Stone album reviews. --PEJL 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. But the way it is now, isn't it still incorrect per WP:ALBUM ? Both the RS link and the Entertainment Weekly one should have something like "(favorable)" or "(mixed)" for a rview, rather than just a link? Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be better, but "incorrect" is a bit strong. Quoting from WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews: "If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank." --PEJL 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Thanks. Tarc 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tarc,
For your information : scholars share the events between nov47 and apr49 into 2 main phases :

Do you mind I correct the Al-Husseini article taking this into account ? Alithien 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.

Sorry. I see now the modifications are due to Zeq.

Nevertheless, your mind is welcome. Maybe you can be a mediator with Zeq.

Alithien 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I was looking more at the layout rather than the content with that edit. Will check later. Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support your edit: [1] If you need to get this guy blocked I'll fully support that. we must maintain standards and policy. Zeq 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Tarc 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulties making clear to User talk:Joebloetheschmo how to edit that article in a NPOV way. If you have time, take a look at the Hezbollah page... Count Iblis 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he just 4RR'ed himself already. Tarc 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that it probably isn't very proper to go around like this and put this note on article talk pages. Having said that, I probably would not have known that all that was going if I hadn't seen Avi's revert. Just went over to chime in, so it was good to see in that sense. But in my opinion, you should probably not do this, and you should revert that msg you just restored. Its just going to cause more trouble than its worth. Tarc 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled that this should be a problem. I'm constantly being reminded (often in aggressive, accusatory fashions) of all the major problems that have been put in my way (despite being largely cleared of most of them). I've even been accused of taking a "mentor" who was a sock-puppet - how outrageous is that?

Whereas telling people that a sockpuppet has been operating in an article they (presumably) care about seems a pretty basic courtesy. Also reminds people that integrity does count, sockpuppetry is punishable.

I don't need to revert anything I've done, another user has wiki-stalked me and done it already ... maybe they feel differently towards sockpuppets from what I do. PalestineRemembered 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point; its good that you are letting people know, but not good in the way its being done. As to what the "good way" is, I don't know, contacting select people via their personal talk pages maybe? I really don't think article talk pages are the best avenue to take. As for stalking...I doubt Avi is doing that. Lots of us have a lot of Middle Eastern pages on watchlists; that's how I knew about all this is the first place, from watching Hamas.

So, seriously, my advice is to relax. It looks like Isarig will be sanctioned for his boorish behavior finally. Between that and the Israeli apartheid ArbCom, there's hope yet that some of the people who have been doing serious harm to the Wikipedia lately might get reprimanded for real. Tarc 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:RageAgainsttheMachineRageAgainsttheMachine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GertrudBookCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny userpage template. I think Templates suck,too.--Onondagan opossum 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:School of Rock Poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thanks for your recent edits/reverting of redundant info etc. Keep up the good work! LordHarris 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosc (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, leaving aside the weighty metaphysical considerations of such a question, the simple answer is that I am one of many who is tired of seeing you vandalizing Tokyo and other related pages. If you wish to make changes to a heavy-use template, then the smart move would be to discuss the changes you would like to make, via the template and/or article talk pages. Tarc 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an anon who waltzed into this after seeing the "block" thing in the edit comment. I could care less about Cosc's vandalism, but I do care about improvement of templates, so there. 68.36.214.143 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am User:68.36.214.143. Other than that, who am I supposed to think I am? 68.36.214.143 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your help and your mind are welcome on Talk:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Alithien 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't worry about your language. However, regarding Zeq, it seems to me that the Talk page has limited value in pursuing your concerns. Personally, I think it's hard to tell whether somebody is acting in bad faith, and it's not always convincing to generalize from past behavior. My advice is to try to assume good faith and insist on justifications etc. Of course, I realize you have your own approach to stuff here (we've disagreed elsewhere), but I do think you might consider pursuing user-conduct issues elsewhere. Thanks, Tarc. Take care, HG | Talk 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, assume good faith is consistently used across the Wikipedia as a shield for bad behavior. A lot of people like to cite it in their self-defense, but they tend to pass over the "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary..." line. As far as I'm concerned, there is strong evidence.

As for the talk page, I realize that getting into it there is counter-productive. But people like that are so god-damned frustrating. The "recent calm" touched on in the ArbCom talk page will be gone in a heartbeat if this style of "I can revert, but you must explain yours" mentality rears its head. Again. Tarc 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about the irony betw the ArbCom talk and the recent intensity. HG | Talk 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I am asking you to avoid PA. You have deleted my first request [2] and ignored several others.

This time you calimed that I "you are (per usual) giving undue weight to a solitary source" - please back up your false accusation or appologize for attcking my GFA editing . Zeq 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted those because it did not involve you. It is none of your goddamned business to insert yourself into comments I make to another user, (re: [3]). That sort of busybody nonsense will be deleted on sight, without question.

• You have to maintain the NPA policy and I have full right to ask you to do so. Have you appologized already for making that attack on the editor you called vandal ? Zeq 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest that involves your own edits, I will not address this on my own talk page, and I ask that you keep all such conversations on the appropriate article talk pages. You don't need to come crying here every time I disagree with you, and I see no reason to apologize for such disagreement. So don't hold your breath awaiting one. Tarc 16:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will use your talk page to adress you, especially to point out when you make an NPA. The languge you are using now in this discussion (like "It is none of your goddamned business") is also not civil and I ask that you appologize for it and stop using such words. Thank You. Zeq 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have said that you will be receiving no such apology, as none is warranted or deserved. So now that your question/query has been answered, you can now cease this line of communication. Thank you. Tarc 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]