IPWAI
Welcome! edit
|
Eisner edit
Well, here is my concern really. From what I can see (and please correct me if I am wrong), this is not something that was a big deal at the time of the funeral. I mean, the sense I get is that Hitler is now theorized to have been there by some scholars, and so they are analyzing this photograph to determine what it says about Hitler's views in those days. This is why I feel it is completely removed from Eisner's life experience. Its not a notable part of the funeral if no one remarked upon it at the time. It may say something about Hitler, but then its about Hitler. I mean, this is wikipedia, if you include a bit on this on a Hitler page and link it to Eisner, then a curious reader will be able to find out who Eisner was and draw whatever conclusions they want. Its not about burying the information or something. I just do not see how it relates to Eisner other than the fact that Hitler may have happened to be there as part of the honor guard and may have worn some armbands that reveal something about his politics at the time. If there is coverage contemporary to the funeral remarking on Hitler, then it relates to Eisner's story just as whatever the media remarked on at Kennedy's funeral is important to that story. If its just scholars having a go at some old photos, then it really does not belong on an Eisner page, though it might belong on a Hitler page. I am not asking that this info be banished from wikipedia entirely or anything. Indrian (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Onace again, I am not entirely sure you are seeing my point. I am well aware that the funeral was a big deal at the time. I see no evidence that Hitler's participation in the funeral was a big deal at the time. From what I gather, no one remarked on his presence then, and no one is even 100% sure that he was there now. That makes Hitler utterly unimportant to Eisner and vice versa. That is why if the information belongs on wikipedia, it belongs on a Hitler page, because the only value of this piece of information is that it demonstrates some of Hitler's political beliefs at the time. His participation in the funeral itself was trivial. That said, there may be a tasteful way to work Hitler into a larger funeral section as a brief mention; I am not completely opposed to the idea, but I think it needs to be more than just "Hitler was there and wore some armbands." If scholars have placed a larger significance on his participation, then it could deserve a sentence or two. Indrian (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Michael Totten add to Joan Juliet Buck criticism edit
Firstly, read the Joan Juliet Buck article in which you keep trying to insert Michael Totten's quote. Carefully. There are three criticisms (to ONE support) ALREADY:
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles called the article "vexing" and "muddled," while a staff writer for the London Guardian said that Buck's "mea culpa" was "almost as disastrous as the initial interview."[43][44] The Tablet suggested that Buck "was being used again, this time by Tina Brown", editor of The Daily Beast.[45] Erin Burnett of CNN's OutFront expressed on the other hand that the article was "really worthwhile in reading, it's sort of a minute-by-minute of what [Buck] saw and what happened. I have to say that I enjoyed it much more than the first article that [Buck] wrote."
Secondly, READ ABOUT THE VERY SOURCE YOU WANT TO ADD. Under Michael Totten:
Totten has described himself as a "weird combination of liberal, libertarian, and neocon."[6] He has supported the Iraq War, stating during the run-up, "If you don’t join us now, when Saddam’s regime falls and Iraqis cheer the US Marines, you are really going to feel like a jackass. And your jackassery will be exposed beneath klieg lights for all to see."
Thus a neocon.
Step three: Bark up another tree. --Aichikawa (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Michael Totten add to Joan Juliet Buck criticism again edit
You just played your hand my friend, you called it "politics."--Aichikawa (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Joan Juliet Buck edit
I wish you would stop writing edit summaries like this. An administrator is not going to "come". All editors on WP are deemed to be adults, and they are expected to sort out their own differences through the process of bold, revert, discuss. There is a talk page, Talk:Joan Juliet Buck, which is there specifically for editors to talk to each other about improvements to the article. Please start using it. Otherwise an administrator is going to "come" and block you for edit-warring, and that will be the end of it. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012 edit
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that I've rewritten this - I thank you for adding it (it was on my todo list), but it was copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, it was the Samson article. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at WP:DRN. I'm here to inform you that there is a thread of which you have been listed as a party. Your comments will be appreciated. The section is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joan Juliet Buck. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits to technical articles edit
Hi IPWAI, I've reverted two of your recent edits, to vector space and scalar multiplication. In both cases, you changed a preposition that had a precise technical meaning to a different, wrong preposition. Please be careful when editing technical articles to avoid this sort of problem. (Details: a group action is an action of the group on (not "in") a set; functions can be multiplied pointwise when they take values in (not "from") a field (or other setting in which multiplication makes sense).) Thanks. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I repeat my request. Your latest batch of edits includes an ungrammatical sentence fragment inserted as part of another sentence and the removal of perfectly valid and sourced material for dubious reasons (both in the article forecasting) . Please try to stick to constructive edits while editing Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your refusal to engage on substance is very saddening -- normally, a person who has created a nonsense sentence will, when it is pointed out, correct their own mistakes. If you prefer, I can continue cleaning up after you, but I'd rather that you WP:AGF and be more careful in you editing. --JBL (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry edit
 | This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPWAI. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
IPWAI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not using multiple accounts as I intended to drop IPWAI. The only reason for that is because Joel B. Lewis has been wiki hounding me for six months and I had enough of it. He just for the most trivial reasons continuously reverts my edits on multiple articles. The only link is me. I want a new account so he stops hounding me.
Decline reason:
Well, obviously that didn't work -- since you made exactly the same edits with the other account, did you somehow think it wouldn't be immediately evident that it was you? Anyway, if you feel you're being hounded, take a look at "Dealing with harassment"; it might be helpful. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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.
IPWAI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please check, I did not make the same edits and if you would have checked you would see both I was hounded and I did complain
Decline reason:
The SPI case looks pretty obvious, as do the edits. If you were intending to drop this account, WP:CLEANSTART would suggest that you may not return to the same sets of articles - especially immediately after editing the articles with this username. There are only a few possible valid reasons for having multiple accounts, and the way you did it is not one of them. During this 48 hour block you may consider and determine a) if you want to follow the processes related to having been hounded; b) whether WP:CLEANSTART works for you; c) other valid methods of proceeding. See you in a couple of days (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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.
IPWAI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Fine I want nothing more to do the wikipedia, goodbye.
Please include a decline or accept reason.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)