Jump to content

User talk:Chaikney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in editing pages or creating new ones: How to edit a page, Tutorial, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should probably read our policies at some point too.

But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!)


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

You may have already noticed that you can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too, as I've done below. This is mostly useful, and is considered good wikiquette, on talk pages. But be aware that the actual wikipedia articles should never be signed - they belong to the community, rather than the individual who created them.

BTW, some folks may complain that King Tut's Wah Wah Hut isn't "notable" enough, so maybe you should dig out some more factoids like the Oasis one (there's bound to be a bunch, they've had all kinds of future-somebodies there).

Again, welcome! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Liverpool Dockers link to the Kennington Park page. Szczels 22:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Liverpool Dockers link has gone dead??? I've bracketted all dates as per your suggestionSzczels 12:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wierd shit the first time you put it up I swear it was blue and I went to a Liverpools Dockers page... strong dope? Don't currently smoke... erh? Szczels 22:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for edits in Lukianenko. Yet a few notes. 1. I wouldn't say that knights seek for revenge: not all and not always; they just learned it. 2. I also think that it's still interesting why the confederation failed: it was nearly established, many islands were united, but it died from inner opposition, more strictly, betrayal. Some guys wanted to get their "piece of pie" immediately, and to get it, they attacked people from the 34th island, one which proposed the idea of confederation. And the fail of confederation was natural, it couldn't succeed, unfortunately.
You might be interested in the ending of this book: they committed a sabotage, that is, they sent to their masters several bricks of dynamite via the teleportation cupboard, which was used by their masters to send them food and medicines. The sabotage succeded, reactor stopped as well as the protecting systems. They leaved the place of 40 islands, and showed those extraterrestrials, who is more strong :) Then Dimma and Inga returned home, and met a band of hooligans. They easily won them, but then Dimma broke his sword, because it's wrong, to use such abilities on earth, to bring lifestyle of 40 islands to home, to bring it with him...
Just i don't know if it's correct to 'reveal all cards'. ellol 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANCITE

[edit]

Yo Chaikney, thanks for your efforts at adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Reliable source guidelines; however, these are not to be taken lightly, need explicit instructions on what can and cannot be used for a given source, with a credible justification based on our reliable sources policy on the talkpage. Libcom looks like it could be reliable for certain things in certain cases, but we're going to have to work a little harder to iron out the details. I look forward to hearing any other suggestions for sourcing anarchism articles you might have. Regards, Skomorokh 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the policy and haven't much inclination to learn it or politic over its wording. I'll leave it to the contractarians. I think that "reliability" is a slippery notion, especially on this topic. I wouldn't consider mainstream media sources as "reliable" for stories about anarchists 100 years ago (or even today), for instance. Whereas how do you verify a reproduction of a short-run pamphlet? And how much valuable literature was published anonymously / pseudonymously? So much room for blocking tha, t I'm not interested in expending energy there, sorry. Chaikney (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If it's not too much trouble, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why mainstream media sources might not be reliable for stories about anarchists; there seems to be consensus on this among editors who are interested in anarchism here, but I haven't heard much of an explicit rationale – it's exactly the kind of thing the guideline was established for to explain. Regards, Skomorokh 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a recent example look at G8 Genoa 2001. Take this from the Guardian, a liberal newspaper is a story about the police convictions for brutality. It's a good story, but it still conflates anarchist with Black Bloc / rioter and look at the "More on this story" sidebar. Nothing between 2001 and 2007, even though the facts about Diaz & Bolzaneto were known very soon afterwards. I haven't looked at the WP article, but if it relies only on mainstream media sources rather than self-published eyewitness accounts, it would not tell an accurate story. This from a liberal newspaper, we don't have to even start on right-wing papers. It's not an issue of the politics of individual newspapers.
And that's a modern-day high-profile media-saturated event. What would the press coverage of the Haymarket massacre be like?Chaikney (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good example. Would you be willing to write a paragraph or so summarizing in the abstract how mainstream media goes wrong? All I've got so far is something like "Mainstream media can often obscure significant differences annd engage in lazy reporting when covering anarchism", which doesn't sound to convincing to the average reader, I'd wager. the skomorokh 16:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miner's strike importance scale

[edit]

I've changed the importance scale of the UK Miner's Strike article to High, per your request on the Organized Labour project assessment page. These kind of changes can be made by any member of the Organized Labour project, so feel free (!) to join if you'd like. Thanks for using the assessment request and for the work on the Miner's Strike article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Chaikney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 48 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Stina Nordenstam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. 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/Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (2nd nomination). 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) 01:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say "hi" (aka anarcho-capitalism)

[edit]

The level of POV on the anarcho-capitalism page put me so far back that I didn't know whether to cry or laugh. I attempted dialog, but got bit by Knight of BAAWA in an exceedingly viscous way: he called me the KKK!

I attempted to tell him how hurtful this was, as I spent nearly two decades of my life combating Klan and Nazi violence with Rastafarians and peace-punks in NYC, only to learn from the late Humanist Carl Rogers that there is a better way. In the end, I drove a tractor-trailer with a former Klansman, and I imagine with my influence, he now drives with an African-American!

BAAWA's response was that it was "no good attempting to play the victim" (paraphrase)

BAAWA spews hate disguised as anti-hate, which is believe to be a recent adaption by people who hate (or feel an need to use hate) to the successes of the very types of anti-hate movements that I worked with in my lifetime, which would include the isolation of Apartheid South Africa. (I suppose I see hate as an entity in of itself supported by an underlying neurological dysfunction -- but that is not why I am writing here.)

I am attempting to decide whether or not it is a good use of time, and worth the stress, to pursue the obvious NPOV issues associated with the anarcho-capitalism article. My belief is that the movement, such as it is, is so tiny that it's members feel a need to use the WP as a resource, which would make the WP a sponsor of anarcho-capitalism -- something far worse that any NPOV issue could ever be!

BAAWA's actions may be incited by paranoia; I found these words on his talk page stating how he feels that so many people want to hurt him and other "ancaps," as he calls himself:

Nihilo 01 says:

Hi partner! Well do you know what's happening? when the ancap haters will stop their campaing, is very sad, because their damage also their own credibility. Regards!

Knight of BAAWA answers:

They will never stop. They have such an emotionally-ingrained hate of letting people make their own decisions that it galls them to think that others won't do their bidding.

I say:

This is just sickness.--John Bessa (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlotte Nasmyth (March 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
-Liancetalk/contribs 23:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Chaikney! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Liancetalk/contribs 23:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charlotte Nasmyth (March 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still requires more references and content to scale through
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

[edit]

You have violated the WP:ARBPIA 1RR sanction with this edit. Please self revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need to explain in full English (or Spanish) sentences. That link does not explain what you're talking about and I don't have time to read through all the text on that page to understand what you are wanting to communicate.Chaikney (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Arab/Israel conflict topic area is under a one revert sanction. You violated this sanction. It is explained in the message above this section. Please self-revert the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for 1RR violation, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week from certain pages (World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Chaikney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. * Characterisation of this as more than 1 revert is dubious. * I took action to avoid a revert war by stopping at a single revert and opening discussion on the article's talk page. * Enforcing editor has not engaged with that at all, choosing process over discussion. Timeline from my POV: * The edit in question: replacing a category that was removed with an edit note referring to an inapplicable policy. * That same user reverted the edit, referring to a policy that, again, doesn't appear to apply. * Here I made my 1 revert, and opened discussion on the talk page, aiming to find out what the reasoning was. * There has been no response from the original editor, but there has been this enforcement action begun. The point in question is clearly better discussed on the talk page than through administrative action. My choice of action to invite and open that discussion appears to me to be the only sensible way to avert revert ping-pong, which as noted I deliberately did not engage in. The block imposed is heavy-handed, and ignores the facts of the edits I made and the path I opened to resolve the issue on the article. Chaikney (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No need; you are free to do so. However, note that you unambiguously violated WP:1RR. Here's your first revert 1 and your second 2, less than four hours later. Yamla (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (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.

" No need; you are free to do so" -- Free to do what? Chaikney (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only blocked from a single page. You can post your appeal yourself, though I strongly advise you don't. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaikney&oldid=1258259112"