User talk:Srushe

ROTHSCHILDS AND THE ILLUMINATI

Why are you removing my posts concerning the Rothschilds and the Illuminati? Let's have a discussion about it. I can show verifiable proof that Mayer Amschel Rothschild was involved in starting the Illuminati.71.164.179.65 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I have been asking is that you provide a reliable source. Until you do that though the information can't stay. The principle is that you provide the reliable source things can be added, not that you add and demand I provide a source to refute you. srushe (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle

Hi, thank you for your attempted correction to the Bugle. Unfortunately however, your amendment is incorrect. The correct site it the one I linked to. The other is an unofficial page.Kriskina 08:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriskina (talk • contribs)

Sustainable Fashion

I updated the article to show the controversy of sustainable fashion and how 4-rth tries to mitigate this. We shall see if they are successful at this. My research on this sustainable fashion company and others is spanning the next 6 months.

You may not find this notable, but many people in the environmental world and the fair business world find these types of business to be notable and admirable, even counting their greater or lesser degree at environmental success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kminiter (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking?

Thank you for your concern. There is, however, a difference between attacking and constructive criticism. Darkshark0159 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on User talk:Old Moonraker

Thanks for your intervention on my talk page—I appreciate it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Corlen

Corlen is alive and well, thank you very much. To be honest, this was an experiment to see how the administrators of Wikipedia would react if I created a page which they cannot alter, defaming them with ridiculous and immature bullshit I wrote while bored, and then replacing every single link I came across on Wikipedia with a link to said page. I do these kinds of things to test sociological crap in human beings because social engineering and manipulation are a favorite hobby of mine. Seems as though it failed however because I highly doubt any of you even bothered to check the external link I was spamming. I was at least hoping for a personal response via E-Mail, however... Oh well, this affair is over with. I could care less whether you take this as an apology, excuse or straight out lies since nothing I write will change your mind(s). Then again I guess you guys truly believe in freedom of speech since you didn't complain at all if you did read it. Keep up the good work anyway, I have no quarrels with you. Cheers. 75.165.204.242 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRN

We have discussed the inclusion of FRN in the article Railfan on the associated talk page. We agreed to include it in 2006 because the term is used in the rail industry. See Talk:Railfan/Archive 1#FRN. Slambo (Speak) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac

Thanks for being on top of the guy vandalizing the Zodiac Killer page. I've had to correct two edits of his today alone. Udar55 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicability of CSD G4

Hello Srushe. Thanks for the newpages patrol! Regarding Image:Treasuremoment.jpg which you tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, I just wanted to drop by to tell you that CSD G4 only applies to pages previously deleted after discussion, at an XfD forum such as at AfD. It does not apply to pages that were only previously speedy deleted, as this article was. Note also that even when an article was previously deleted on the merits, G4 is only applicable where the reposted article is substantially identical to the deleted version and any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the explanation. I'll bear it in mind. srushe (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shearer and Milburn

Hello,

Thank you for you're recent comments regarding y contributions to wikipedia.

I have restored my comments with founded links as requested. Profuse apologies for not stating them before.

I would like to suggest that you research one's comments in future before deleting themm. In the event that you cannot trace a link, then neither will the original poster. Whilst the fandom that supports Alan may ignore comments about Milburn's actual record, wikipedia must offer fully accurate information.

Regards,

Toon —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonIsALoon (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt at lightening the mood =]

I'm sorry for adding light-hearted sarcasm, I thought it might gain a chuckle and save a couple of trees, Lol?

I didn't mean to be a vandal only a comedian, if you tell me you had a chortle at my edits I will quickly stop and be a good boy,

=] xXxXx

North Sheen

Thanks for reverting. There was nonsense of a similar nature put into the article some time back.--SilasW (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Thank you for making a report about 69.19.14.17 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Boards.ie, you will be blocked from editing. 89.125.63.146 (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny man. As you well know you're the one who is doing the vandalising. srushe (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert to Roma people

Could you explain why you classed Olahus's edits as vandalism? There appears to be an ongoing dispute on that article, but I'm not sure either side can actually be described as vandals. --Molotron (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he called me "vandal" by mistake. However, I'm going to change his edit because it consists in

Deletion of sources.
Falsifying the information from the quotings/citations.

I supposse the resons of his edits might be one of those 3:

An unintended mistake.

or

An intended action caused by an antiziganist feeling.

or

An intended action caused by a Turkish nationalist feeling.

However, there is ne reson to keep his edits, but I hope he is going to revert his own edits without expecting other users to do it. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what happened there. I remember reverting it but all I remember in the diff I saw was some excess text within the citation which I meant to remove. Sorry about that. Maybe I just needed to wake up a bit more this morning. srushe (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the footnotes contained a quote from the original text, which was not in English. It should probably be translated into English, but I think it was meant to be there to serve the citation. Molotron (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense then. I was confused as it was in the url part of the citation, from my (admittedly) uncertain memory of events. Cheers for the clarification. srushe (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srushe, if the issue is solved, please undu your edit. I would do it, but unfortunately it would be already my second revert for today on this article and in this case, I won't be far from breaking the 3RR. The problem with this article is that it is often vandalized by various "new" users who are trying to remove the estimated data from the infobox. I presume that there is only one single user with various sockpupptes who edits from different proxies.--Olahus (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Science & Engineering

Hi, just wondering why you deleted the "Sign up for the free Science.ie" from the Irish Government's initiative page - Discover Science & Engineering. Thanks, 2008CM (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drill Meet

Drill Meet page- I understand that I should not post a working document, that I should create a document that encompasses all of what the page should say and then post it. Correct?JKM (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drill Meet page. This page better explains the whole proces and that is why the Exhibition Drill page contents were moved to the Drill Meet page.JKM (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a much better page :) srushe (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, srushe.JKM (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James White (author)

Hi, thanks for the message. I was surprised to see a reaction only an hour or two after I'd started. I recently got hold of a bunch of Sector General books dead cheap, and enjoyed them so much that I thought I owed the man a GA. Since there's also an article on the Sector General series, I've switched to improving that first,as I can then summarise it in the article about the man himself - and intend to get Sector General promoted to GA as well.

A few things I could do with some help on - please respond at Talk:James White (author) if you can:

Did he write any other stories and or books that could be treated as series? If so, it would be sensible to create / improve articles about these as background for James White (author).
Was he notable for anything outside SF? Since you are also a Belfast resident, you might be better placed to pick up that sort of thing.
Any articles or books/chapters from WP:RS that can be cited? Especially stuff that's not on the web. PS I find Google very good value for money :-)
Anything else you can think of? --Philcha (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I've improved James White (author) and Sector General as much as I can with the sources I've found. If you have any other ideas or sources, please post them at the articles' Talk pages. --Philcha (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Fashion

Hey,

My name is Kevin, and I just noticed that you've recommended a page I just made for speedy deletion: 4-rth. I'm interested in environmentally friendly businesses and practices and was going to create a few such pages to give a layer of reality to the sustainable fashion page. Right now the sustainable fashion page is descriptive but doesn't show that there are companies working toward this end, with greater or lesser degrees of success.

Why would the 4-rth, or any other company that is working within the context of a larger movement, be deleted, but something like Ginch Gonch, which offers no social-cultural context, not be deleted?

Thanks (PS, please forgive me for still learning the tricks of wikipedia)

I updated the article to show the controversy of sustainable fashion and how 4-rth tries to mitigate this. We shall see if they are successful at this. My research on this sustainable fashion company and others is spanning the next 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kminiter (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the 4-rth article for exactly the reason it states. I fail to see why it is notable. The article doesn't give any reason for notability, it simply explains what the company does and why. If notability can be demonstrated then I'm all for the article staying. srushe (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Violence Prevention Fund

Hi Srush - I was in a middle of a rewrite of this when you tagged it for speedying. I think I have addressed the concerns about blatant advertising although the article could do with some more sources for notability purposes. If you disagree could you point out where you think it is still overly promotional and I'll try and rewrite that too. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove

The part from Joe Perrys page about his knee? That was not made up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgcat (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of graphic designers Vandalism

I see that you have reverted one edit by 190.133.140.54 in the List of graphic designers. Also look out for 149.254.58.26. I've just removed theirs and placed back the hidden message they removed. This is just to let you know in case this is going to be an ongoing thing on this page.--BSTemple (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey, I apologize for that little incident. Just ask me before warning me next time. Thanks! =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been the first time you had added it, maybe. It wasn't, so no. You know not to vandalise, you have been told before. srushe (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers Nicknames

How are my edits not constructive? Rangers are known by all these names in Glasgow. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nicknames section is not for disparaging names used by supporters for another club. It's for names the team is commonly known as generally. As a Manchester City fan I know of lots of names commonly used among City fans for Manchester United, however none of these would be included as nicknames on the United page. srushe (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, that's a genuine question. I for one would be curious to know what names United are known by in Manchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol City FC

City were 4th in 2007/08 - your last edit left the infobox with the information that City were 4th in 2008/09 which is not correct, 14 games left. Just thought I would let you know, why I reverted your last (of 2) edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic

Oops, missed those ones! Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Britain

I am discussing it. You don't seem to want to. Wallie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you only started discussing it after I reverted your change. If you also care to check that talk page you'll see that there has already been a long discussion on exactly this topic. I don't have to be involved in discussing the topic to see that you are making a change which goes against consensus and for which you've already been told to discuss on the talk page. Put your case on the talk page and if the consensus changes the page will change to match that. No-one disputes that other nationalities were involved in the Battle of Britain (including people from my own country), but the consensus is a British victory. srushe (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Links to IRA songs on IRA page ?

I'm not sure why they would be classed as irrelevant considering it was part of history and these songs are part of IRA history also ?

Ryangiggs69 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't add anything to the page. They could be viewed as promotion pieces more than anything. srushe (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could be viewed as promotion pieces ?

Are you having a laugh, in plain English what do you mean. Promotional purposes for whom ?

Ryangiggs69 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They serve merely to promote a cause. They add nothing to the article. A documentary from a reputable source would be a good link as it would add extra depth to the article, these videos add nothing to the article. srushe (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links are in breach of wiki external links policy. BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE sanctions

The Irish Republican Army article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. BigDunc^Talk 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea FC edits

Thank you for the assumed good faith with my supposed clean-up of Chelsea FC. Isn't the English language marvelous, useful, and diverse! I have recently been to Thailand as a tourist and found that many could communicate simply in English; my Thai is almost non-existent by comparison. I also recently discussed the English spoken in Texas with someone who had been learning Spanish and travelled for some months through South America, finally getting to Houston, and found that making sensible conversation was easier in Spanish. I have learned about the English used in the UK; thank you. - Peter Ellis - Talk 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About User:67.149.21.173

Okay, I know we got into a rough start. Apparently, I was ticked at the people who were supporting the recent edits of 76.28.119.128, because he/she had added films that, I believe, do not exist, because I checked on the Internet-I have found no proof that the films he/she added exist. He/she also identified these films as being "a Fake Reality production", which might have hinted that he/she was a serial vandal. After attempts to remove his/her vandalized work, only for the edits to end up reverted, I staged an elaborate plot to out him/her as a vandal (which explains some of my recent edits). I have come to the conclusion that I have failed, and I wasn't doing this out of vandalism.

But you should know, you have had conflicts with 76.28.119.128 before, but now you're supporting him/her and bashing me. I'm not a vandal. Please don't associate me as such from now on.--67.149.21.173 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link - QuickSnooker

Hi

I received message from your regarding my edit of the Snooker page - You removed my link from the 'external links' section at the bottom of the page.

I would like you to know - that I posted that link following the precedent set by Party Poker - Permiere League Snooker.com I beleive my simulation to be relevant, educational, entertaining and useful - and whilst it is undeniably a commercial site - this should not exclude it - Certainly not any more so than the Party Poker Site.

I have the utmost respect for what Wikipedia is and does - and will accept the removal of my link if it is deemed innaproriate - but on the same grounds the Premier Leaguge Snooker Blanently sponsored by a gambling site would need removing. I cannot understand why you have not been even handed in this - Party Poker and I have had an ongoing spat - they (you?) have removed my link several times - and ignored my efforts to communicate with them.

Could you assure me of your neutrality in this - remove both or neither links.

This seems like a strange way to send you a message - but you don't appear to have an 'email this user' link in the toolbox

Sorry if I've done it wrong

Nick Axworthy Nickax (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site you are linking to exists solely to promote and sell a computer game based on snooker. It adds nothing to the article. The Wikipedia policy on external links clearly says that "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services..." are normally to be avoided. The other site you mention contains details and reports on an actual snooker competition so is generally within the accepted guidelines. srushe (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It adds a *link* to the article - in the external *links* section - To a simulation (game if you prefer) - which can be downloaded and enjoyed for free - in which people can experience the physics, dynamics, rules and gameplay of the game to which the article relates. Your guidelines state 'normally to be avoided' - but where a user can derive a significant understanding of the game - for nothing, I would have thought it was acceptable - beneficial even. I will leave it to you - but would invite you to play the 'game' before ruling it of no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickax (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire revert

I understand why you reverted my edit to The Wire article, but I think it's nonsense to call it "vandalism". There is no such phrase as "mitigate against" and it is perfectly good practice to alter, with acknowledgement (and moreover with further explanation in the code), the language of a direct quotation in order to improve its clarity. This is exactly what I did. Clearly you feel that it is better to reproduce the bad English of the original quotation, and that's fine, but please don't accuse me of vandalism. Thanks. Novus (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...This does actually mean that I'd like you to change the reason you gave for reverting my edits. I don't mind being overridden, or even ignored on this page, but it was certainly not vandalism and I'm not prepared to have it represented as such. Please alter it. Thanks. Novus (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear unwilling to respond to my request, based on the promptness of your other responses on this page as against the ongoing lack of a response to me, I would be grateful if you could at least tell me into which of the categories of vandalism you believe my edits fell. I do not believe they fall into any of them. They were made in good faith with ample explanation, and did not constitute an "attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I assumed good faith on your part in terms of your reasons for reverting the edit. Please do me the courtesy of assuming the same for me in terms of my reasons for making it (see above). You should feel free to examine my other contributions to Wikipedia to get a feel for the likelihood of my having vandalised an article. I am, as I have said before, happy for the reversion to stand. I have not made any attempt to redo my edits. I would simply like them not to be represented as vandalism. Thanks. Novus (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I just didn't want to respond quickly without thought. It's been a ridiculously busy week :( The reason I marked it as vandalism was due to my mistaken believe that I had already warned you for the same thing. I had intended to after you after your first edit, and believed I had, so when it happened a second time I classed it as vandalism. My apologies. srushe (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, sorry if I got a bit pompous. ;) I made myself forget about it after my last message, hence the slow reply.... Novus (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. srushe (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia High School (New York)

Hi. I undid and then fixed the revert that you made to Columbia High School (New York). While the information was simply unsourced, if you did not want to check it yourself, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to just request a citation and {{Fact|date=June 2009}} tag it? Was such a good faith edit really worthy of a warning? --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The user had been told repeatedly before not to add that to the page and was ignoring that advice. ALso, even the source you provide just shows that a person of that name wrote the book, not that it is in any way related to the school. srushe (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which strikes me as a content dispute, not vandalism. If there are questions about the validity, wouldn't requesting a citation be more appropriate? --NERIC-Security (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant to be advertisment

Srushe,

thanks for your notification & warning!

I updated the articles with a very related subject, and a discussion group that serves to thousands of experts who really liked.

I do not get money from this group, it's for free!

I really do not understand, why you warned me

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamahdys (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betfair

Why do you keep deleting the bit about the forum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.79.143 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the revert to my user page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Walker revert

Srushe: I received a message that my edit to Herschel Walker had been reverted by you. I'm mystified because I don't recall making such an edit. The logs do not show any activity from either you or me. Wha??? Bluefox79830 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was this inappropriate edit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of bass guitarists

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of bass guitarists. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bass guitarists. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 12 May 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) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i want to just say i didn't see the page you claimed i vandalized until today Try to find out who did the real damage I didn't do any vandalism for a good year ago

I would've vandalized the palin page about Bristol, her views on politics and i would but i don't want to be banned from wikipedia I need to look up potential roms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.36.244 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for antivandalism work

Thank you for reverting the vandalism in the Ryan Allen article. I very much appreciate the work of editors like you who patrol edits and remove vandalism.Voiceperson (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Cucumbers

Hello, Noticed that you reverted entry on yellow cucumbers as being an "ad." In no way am I affiliated with that farm. I received a shipment of organic veggies today, and it included those cucumbers. I never saw them before -- thought they looked like a squash, so I did a search for pictures. Found the Wikipedia entry and it says that they are only grown in India. Well, I then went to my organic delivery site to see where they came from, and thought it interesting that they are also grown in California. That's why I went through the hassle/time of creating that extra line. The link was simply to act as a "source" of where they are found. As you can see I'm a relatively new user, and had been excited to find a spot to contribute some -- what I thought -- was useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracie Faith (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highlandjacobite

Hi about the William Wallace article, I am terribly sorry I just thought it would good to know that Wallace was mostly of celtic scottish descent but probably also had a norman ancestor. whereas about Rober the Bruce, I had no time to go to the Bannockburn heretige centre where there is a lot of stunning archeological proof about Robert the Bruce. I'll continue the chapter I started. I apologise again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlandjacobite (talk • contribs) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello again I came back with more information about rober the bruce! thanks--Highlandjacobite (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism and warning users

Thank you for reverting vandalism. I noticed that in a couple of instances today you failed to warn the user. They should know what they did is wrong, and properly warning them help us get to the appropriate level (3 or 4 where we can block them if warranted). You should use the handy warning templates created for this purpose. I also noted that in one instance you marked the revert as good faith edit. In that particular case (Xavi), it was pure vandalism so you should let them know so. You also probably already know but just in case, once a vandal is properly warned, if they persist they should be reported at AIV for administrative handling. Thanks for your help. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Maradona edit war

Fine: guess I expected a warning. Please revert to the stable version before the interventions of Lsw10. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt attention to vandalism on my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lusitanic

The page with the title "Lusitanic" contains misleading and non-relevant information.

The part "Portuguese speaking countries and regions in the world" has no relation whatsoever with this, because this word refers to Portuguese people (people from Portugal) and it has nothing to do with former colonies of the country, Portugal.

By that same reason, where it says "Lusitanic Americans", it doesn't make sense to speak about Brazilians!

Simple as that! That would be the same thing as editing a page about an Ancient tribe of England and talking about all the States of the US and all the English former colonies. Does that make sense to you?

Evidence on "Lusitanic" and "Lusophone" not meaning the same thing (in the talk conversation of "Lusitanic"). Please read it and delete what I had deleted. ThePortuguese (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) - ThePortuguese[reply]

You had said to me "Please discuss your extensive deletions on the talk page. Ideally explain why you feel they're justified, rather than simply deleting vast swathes of well-sourced content.". The fact that the content is "well-sourced" doesn't mean it's related to the topic in question. I could go on and on adding well-sourced documented information about cats on a page about chairs! ThePortuguese (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review on the meaning of the words Lusitanic/Lusitanian versus Lusophone

On the "Lusitanic" article: You talk about proof, but the fact is that everything points to me being right: I already explained the difference between the two words with proof and it's also explained in the Wikipedia article itself when it says “When the modern day country of Portugal was created in the 12th century, it inherited the term, and thus, since then, Lusitanic has also meant related to Portugal, its people and its culture. When only referring to the Portuguese language, the word Lusophone should be used.". The article its in contradiction with itself; because what I just quoted is exactly the reason why the part about countries where people speak Portuguese is misleading and non-relevant information.

LuzoGraal talks about the supposed many times where the words are used interchangeably, and yet provides no sources or documentation (naturally, because those don't exist since that's just not true).

You had said to me "Please discuss your extensive deletions on the talk page. Ideally explain why you feel they're justified, rather than simply deleting vast swathes of well-sourced content.". The fact that the content is "well-sourced" doesn't mean it's related to the topic in question. I could go on and on adding well-sourced documented information about cats on a page about chairs! What's the point on keep adding information to an article that's not related to it? The difference is that you don't know about this terms because people outside of Portugal rarely use them, but I'm telling you as a well educated Portuguese person the differences! And I've provided the proof you wanted. And you can read in this talk page the “comment” section and see people saying Lusitanic refers to people from Portugal. But I'll keep adding: the origin of this word comes from an ancient tribe that inhabited most of Portugal and a little part of Spain. The name of that tribe was the Lusitanians. They were said to be very brave, so when Luís Vaz de Camões wrote “The Lusiads”, he used their name to refer to the Portuguese people as a whole. On the Wikipedia article entitled “Os Lusíadas”, it reads “key concepts: the heroes: The heroes of the epic are the Lusiads (Lusíadas), the sons of Lusus or in other words, the Portuguese.” As you can see, the Portuguese! This series of poems was made with the intention of glorifying the Portuguese people for the discoveries of new lands and it talks about the Lusos/Lusitanians/Lusitanics/Portuguese. Those words became interchangeable because of that poem (it's one of our great classics). Nowadays, when referring to people of Portuguese origin born in another country, the suffix used is “Luso” because of that. Luso means Portuguese! Examples: Luso-American, Luso-Brazilian (can you see the distinction?). If calling Brazilians Lusos/Lusitanians/Lusitanic were right, it wouldn't make any sense to call a Brazilian person of Portuguese origin “Luso-Brazilian”, because that would be a repetition. But the obvious is that Luso means Portuguese, so that term is used. Here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luso-brasileiros (the thing is, many of the sources are written in Portuguese, exactly because that word is not well known in the English language; but you can see without a translation that what's written on that page is “Luso-Brazilian”). Here, another source where the word is used, in English: https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Hispanic

You've got the definition of the words from the Portuguese dictionary “Priberam”, and now I'll add some more: Source: English Collins Dictionary - English Definition & Thesaurus “Lusitanian”: 1. Chiefly poetic: of or relating to Lusitania or Portugal 2. (Biology) denoting flora or fauna characteristically found only in the warm, moist, west-facing coastal regions of Portugal, Spain, France, and the west and southwest coasts of Great Britain and Ireland

Luso- : combining form: indicating Portugal or Portuguese (from Portuguese lusitano, from Latin, from Lusitania)

(this dictionary doesn't recognize “Lusitanic”)

Source: http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/lusitanian.htm

• LUSITANIAN (adjective) The adjective LUSITANIAN has 2 senses: 1. of or relating to or characteristic of Portugal or the people of Portugal 2. of or relating to or characteristic of the region of Lusitania or its people or language Familiarity information: LUSITANIAN used as an adjective is rare.

Dictionary entry details

• LUSITANIAN (adjective)

Sense 1

Meaning: Of or relating to or characteristic of Portugal or the people of Portugal Classified under: Relational adjectives (pertainyms) Synonyms: Lusitanian; Portuguese Context example: Portuguese wines

Sense 2

Meaning: Of or relating to or characteristic of the region of Lusitania or its people or language Classified under: Relational adjectives (pertainyms) Pertainym: Lusitania (ancient region and Roman province on the Iberian Peninsula; corresponds roughly to modern Portugal and parts of Spain)

As you can see here, when it talks about language, it talks about Lusitanian's ancient language, which was not Portuguese. The dictionaries don't even have a definition of “Lusitanic” (but Lusitanian is interchangeable with this word, just like Luso).

Source: http://www.infopedia.pt/pesquisa.jsp?qsFiltro=0&qsExpr=lusitano – this one is also a very popular Portuguese dictionary lusitano adjectivo 1. relativo ou pertencente aos Lusitanos (antigo povo pré-romano, estabelecido entre o Tejo e o Douro e as províncias espanholas de Cáceres e Badajoz); (Lusitan/Lusitanian – relative or belonging to the Lusitans (ancient pre-Roman peoples (then it says the location where they used to live)) 2. relativo ou pertencente à Lusitânia (antiga província romana) (relative or belonging to Lusitania (ancient pre-Roman province) 3. relativo ou pertencente a Portugal; português (relative or belonging to Portugal, Portuguese) nome masculino 1. membro dos Lusitanos (masculine name; a member of the Lusitans) 2. natural ou habitante da Lusitânia (natural or inhabitant of Lusitania) 3. natural ou habitante de Portugal; português (natural or inhabitant of Portugal, Portuguese) adjectivo e nome masculino designativo de ou raça de cavalos nascidos e criados em Portugal (adjective and masculine name; a breed of horses born and raised in Portugal) (Do latim lusitānu-, «idem»)

luso adjectivo e nome masculino ⇒ lusitano (Do latim Lusu-, «idem»)

(by writting “luso” it redirects to “lusitano” (lusitanian), meaning it's the same thing)

lusitânico adjectivo e nome masculino ⇒ lusitano (Do latim lusitanĭcu-, «idem»)

(by writting “lusitanic” it redirects to “lusitano” (lusitanian), meaning it's the same thing; just like it happened when I wrote “luso”)

Lusófono (lusophone) adjectivo 1. que fala português (who speaks Portuguese) 2. diz-se do país ou do povo cuja língua materna ou língua oficial é o português (people or country whose official language is Portuguese) nome masculino (masculine name) aquele que fala português (he who speaks Portuguese) (De luso-+-fono)

And now a Brazilian dictionary: Source: www.dicio.com.br Significado de Luso adj. e s.m. Da Lusitânia, de Portugal; lusitano. Sinônimos de Luso Sinônimo de luso: lusitano e português

(Meaning of “luso”: from Lusitania, from Portugal, Lusitanian. Synomyms of Luso: Lusitanian and Portuguese)

Significado de Lusitânico adj. O mesmo que lusitano.

(meaning of Lusitanic: the same as Lusitanian)

Significado de Lusitano adj. Relativo à Lusitânia ou aos seus habitantes.

   Ext.

Relativo a Portugal ou aos Portugueses. M. Habitante da Lusitânia. (Lat. lusitanus)

(meaning of Lusitanian: relative to Lusitania or its inhabitants; relative to Portugal or the Portuguese people; inhabitant of Lusitania)

(this one doesn't have a definition of Lusophone, although if you know Portuguese you can read by the examples where the word is used that this word is related to the Portuguese language, unlike the others that are only related to the Portuguese people, thus, excluding Brazilians and people from the ex-colonies)

One more example from a Brazilian dictionary: Source: http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=lus%F3fono

lusófono lu.só.fo.no adj+sm (luso2+fono) 1 Diz-se do, ou o indivíduo que fala português. 2 Diz-se do, ou o indivíduo ou povo que, não tendo o português como seu vernáculo, fala-o por cultura ou por adoção como língua franca, tal como acontece em regiões africanas e asiáticas que sofreram influência dos antigos colonos portugueses. Var: lusófone.

(lusophone: 1 It's say of, or the individual that speaks Portuguese. 2. It's said of the individual that speaks Portuguese as official language, even if it's not the native one, like in some African and Asian regions. Variation: lusófone (in English, it would be the same thing: Lusophone))

lusitano lu.si.ta.no1 adj (lat lusitanu) 1 Que diz respeito à Lusitânia ou aos seus habitantes. 2 Que se refere a Portugal ou aos portugueses; lusitânico. sm 1 Habitante ou natural da Lusitânia. 2 Português. Var: luso. (Lusitanian: 1. That's relative to Lusitania or its inhabitants. 2. That refers to Portugal or the Portuguese people, Lusitanic. Sm 1. Inhabitant or natural of Lusitania. 2. Portuguese. Variant: Luso) Here, see? The three words used as synonyms. Just like in the other reliable sources that I used. Michaelis is a very well known Brazilian dictionary.

As you can see, one thing is Luso/Lusitanian/Lusitanic: related with the ancient tribe and associated with the Portuguese people and a different thing is Lusophone, associated with the countries/peoples whose official language is Portuguese. Being the title of the article in question “Lusitanic”, it doesn't make any sense to talk about Portugal's ex-colonies because the people who live there are not Portuguese and thus, are not related to this article (the majority of the people of those countries is not Portuguese, and the one's of Portuguese ancestry are called Luso-Brazilians (for example)). Like I said, the fact that there's such a word as “Luso-Brazilian” says it all! Take “Luso-Angolan” as another example: http://www.ela.uevora.pt/ (reliable source, that's the website of the University of Évora, you can read “Luso-Angolano” (Angola was a Portuguese colony as well)).

From what I said, hopefully you can see the ridiculous it is, that on a page entitled “Lusitanics” it talks about Portugal's ex-colonies. It's misleading information and it's wrong. If someone finds out about the word and looks it up, the person who finds this information can't even make up their mind because first it says (correctly) the distinction between the words Lusitanic and Lusophone, and then it talks about Lusophone countries in a page entitled Lusitanic. The page it's in contradiction with itself!

What LuzoGraal said about this being the English language Wikipedia doesn't make any sense, simply because those words' origin are Portuguese. If they didn't exist in Portuguese, they wouldn't exist in English, so their meaning is the same as in Portuguese because they are simply direct translations. And of course English speaking people didn't create their own meaning to this words because the great majority doesn't even know they exist!

Further, you also don't let me edit the part on the article “Lusitanians” that also has incorrect information, and it was just 1 phrase, so what's your excuse? That information is wrong and misleading and you can't even say it was a major edit. Besides, aren't you claiming for sources? I've got mine, what's their source? None! A reliable source doesn't existing to support what they say because it's simply not true so it's impossible to have a reliable source on that!

It's not a matter of opinion what I'm saying; it's the truth so delete what I had deleted! ThePortuguese (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an automatic response that of the article entitled "Lusitanians", if it wasn't you who deleted the information, I apologize. ThePortuguese (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese. The user's edits appear very similar to a contentious editor, Y26Z3 who was permanently banned from wikipedia for making contentious edits, personal threats, and legal threats. If you'd like to weigh in, please feel free to visit the investigation page: [1]

Goodsdrew (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]