User:USchick/Archive3

What did not happen in Crimea?

I'm confused about your comment here. What are you saying did not happen in Crimea? Did you read the three sources that I supplied? LokiiT (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page. Cheers! USchick (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

POV

I do not take comments like "You have been warned repeatedly about edit warring. Stop it." so you can spoil Wikipedia with one sided propaganda. It's clearly you who got out of line here. And I'm glad another user deleted you're POV. --Wester (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Different editors warn you about edit warring every day [1] on your talk page. Just because you delete it, doesn't mean that you can hide it. USchick (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't know were you are talking about and it does not justify your propaganda. What you do is character assassination to stop my perfectly legitimate action to remove one sided pro-Ukrainian POV. You are the one here that is out of control, not me.--Wester (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one harassing you on your talk page. USchick (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback: article title for Crimea and Crimean peninsula

Hello, USchick. You have new messages at Talk:Crimea#Requested move.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Ok, tanks. USchick (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved your answer to a question in Talk:Crimea

I moved your answer to the split on Talk:Crimea 'cuz I linked the wrong link. The split discussion is at the "Split proposal" (which is what you were supporting) while "Requested move" is discussing wether we should rename the article. Sorry for the mistake! Hope this clears things up. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thank you for the "thanks"!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your "Gestapo" comment is wholly unacceptable, and further comments along these lines will result in a block. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear The Bushranger, now that everyone had a chance to reflect on their actions, I'm asking you to think about something. It's not clear to me why you reacted negatively to my "Gestapo" comment and why I now have a warning. Gestapo is known for their efficiency in "discovering" what people do in their personal lives and bringing them to "authorities" in order to watch individuals get severely punished. My comment to Producer was meant as a compliment at his swift "discovery" of my (unrelated) personal conversation and his quick reaction to bring it to the attention of admins with the anticipation of watching me suffer.

According to the American Psychiatric Association there's a medical term for people who enjoy watching other people suffer, sadism. People with this personality disorder tend to be manipulative, so your reaction may be the result of a manipulation, or perhaps the result of your own personal bias against German history in general, which includes the Gestapo. In any case, this has nothing to do with me. The warning you gave me is undeserved, especially since my comment was meant as a compliment. USchick (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the above is a personal attack aimed at me, but I'll let that slide this time. I will say, though, that if you think referring to people as "Gestapo", or anything else connected to Nazi Germany is ever a compliment, you may want to read up on a little history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My intention is not to argue, so hopefully we can agree to disagree. To claim that a word always represents an attack is POV. A word by itself has no meaning until someone chooses to be offended. Technical efficiency of Nazi Germany was possible due to advanced computer technology provided by IBM [2], and is well documented by scholars. [3] The efficiency developed by Hitler and Stalin is studied by Duke University, [4] and modern vaccines were developed as a result of Nazi medical experiments. www.naturalnews.com/036062_vaccines_Nazi_medical_experiments.html These are actual historical facts. USchick (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone has apparently never heard of the phrase 'impact, not intent' when dealing with harassment. Someone also conveniently forgot some sections under What is considered to be a personal attack? in WP:NPA. But anyways, I am here because I find your behaviour somewhat toxic to the community. It's not the first time you have aim accusations or just not be very pleasant on Wikipedia. The talk sections are for discussions and not your personal forum. I am sorry if this offended you, but just my two cents. You need to be a little better on here. Afterall, A word by itself has no meaning until someone chooses to be offended. JNC2 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Golden words

"Atlantictire, fighting battles is a very noble cause. If you wish to do that, first, you have to stay alive. Hope to see you around." Cheers. Noteswork (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being able to appreciate my brand of wisdom. USchick (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologize in advance

But to me the Slate article you quoted in talk:Ukraine is not helpful or relevant at all in improving the article. While the Slate may be correct in the history of cartographic wars, it has nothing to do with NatGeo's policy on cartography, unless you have solid evidence to prove that Kremlin has paid NatGeo for the alternation. Attempting to link NatGeo's change of Crimean Peninsula shade with historical cartographic wars is a blatant fallacy. The map is only created after the fact, it doesn't help establish the fact before it happens. Just so you know, I don't either sympathize Ukraine or support Russian's military actions. At least I never hold any of such sentiment while editing Wikipedia. I hope you do too. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page, where this discussion belongs. USchick (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I keep the discussion here because we're on the verge of violating WP:NOTFORUM. While I don't sympathize Ukraine but I can understand the feeling of your country being brutally invaded. Sadly it clouds your judgment as a Wikipedian. Citing that highly biased article in the discussion is not helpful to reach consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comment "it doesn't help establish the fact before it happens" is related to the policy WP:CRYSTAL. Your personal opinion that Slate Magazine is "highly biased" is not supported by sources. Unless you are clairvoyant, please don't presume to know what my personal feelings are. I am simply quoting reliable sources, and if you don't like what sources say, see WP:IDL. USchick (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You misused the Crystal policy again. What kind of future have I predicted? There is one reality that Ukraine is progressively losing its control on Crimean Peninsula. From the news I read today, situation is only worsening on the Ukrainian side. If I (a Hong Kong resident) travel to Crimea right now, I believe the visa-free access issued by Ukraine government for the Hong Kong SAR passport holder is not useful. Unless you can prove the other possible way, given the current situation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources do not support your claim about visas. [5] USchick (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello USchick, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

There is currently an ANI thread that may concern you [6]. Regards -- Director (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Google

thought you might be interested that if you put quotes around the search you get a more meaningful number of hits - 1. Also be aware that Google lies about the number of hits, often vastly inflating it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

Good to know, thank you! USchick (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive

Hello USchick,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 57198 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. _{Opt-out Instructions} by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi USChick. Thank you so much for your help on the kulich/paska/cheese/art issues I was trying to grasp. I learned a lot and your input and assistance was very helpful. Thank you very much. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

От сильвио

Откажитесь с этим человеком. Он никогда не изменится, и это просто потеря времени.--Silvio1973 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans

I can't really argue with the logic of what you're proposing. After all, it has been determined (and indeed admitted) that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Obviously that didn't happen by itself. Somebody did it, and the person who did that ought to be topic-banned. Depending upon the circumstances, any abettors too should get the same punishment. But what you're proposing seems at first blush to be a rehash of arguments previously made in previous ANIs. Not sure about the timing either, but maybe you're right that it should happen now, while the article and its edit history and talk page are still alive. However, I think it would be better if you used that article history and the new evidence to show more directly what happened and who did it. Just a suggestion. To be frank, though I think that article is monstrous and I was appalled by the editor behavior that I saw (which included threats against me), I would personally find it hard to support a topic ban without seeing evidence specifically of what happened and who did what. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The attitude is clearly demonstrated in the archived talk pages of the article. Director would propose a source, and then shut down any discussion on the talk page about the source. He only wanted to use his source to prove his point. When editors wanted to use the same source to prove a different point, he threatened them, took them to ANI and got them banned. This is explained in the examples of the archived ANI discussions. Do you think it needs to be mentioned again? The problem is that unless you have been involved for a long time, it's a lot to read all at once. The ban will only happen if there's enough community support. The admins will stay out of it, as usual. Thank you for your involvement. USchick (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that people won't see diffs, they won't act. Also, you know how it is, people stay away from complex issues. You're referring to other pages and asking people to read tons of stuff. But the new element here strikes me as being rather simple. Somebody copied much of the article (maybe all of it at one point?) from a racist website. Simply no defense for that. No way it is permissable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't share the viewpoint that copying something from another web site is against policy. Wikipedia is not censored and any controversial subject can be covered in an encyclopedic manner. I think it's important to document bad behavior and even if they don't get topic banned, it will be on their record (along with their barn stars that they so proudly display, lol). Even if they tone down their attitude as a result of this, I'll be happy. USchick (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess my concerns were not justified. I was afraid of a free-for-all, but the discussion isn't really too bad at all, and your timing, ditto. I've actually pretty much come around to your view on the TBs, though there is some understandable resistance to TBing Director in light of his apology. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Distracting comment?

That wasn't a distracting comment. On the contrary, it cuts to the heart of the problem. See my talk page for an explanation.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. Too much drama. USchick (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He said she said, I guess. Whatevs.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not edit war. P L E A S E. Save it for something better. USchick (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm only asking you to justify censoring a comment on a discussion page. This isn't an article we're editing. Fetishizing wikipedia etiquette to the point of allowing racists to create and defend articles like Jews and Communism is a serious problem. It is arguably the problem. I like you USchick, but I'm finding your contempt for "drama" a little disingenuous considering how much time you spent on a high drama article.

Are you sure this is a distracting comment and not just something that's highly uncomfortable/scary to talk about?--Atlantictire (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What's scary to me is to lose a valuable editor that I may need in the future as my sock puppet! ***WARNING TO ADMINS*** This is still our inside joke, we are not sock puppets. ***END OF WARNING*** USchick (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, are you kidding? I'm thrilled to have you back! Please don't get blocked over something silly. Save it for a real battle. If you seriously wish to get banned, make it worth your while. (And try not to drag me in with you.) ***DISCLAIMER*** I am not interested in having a battle. That's why I'm not interested in drama. And I'm encouraging Atlantictire from starting additional drama. ***END OF DISCLAIMER*** How's that? Are we safe now? :) USchick (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you. :-) I'm absolutely not worried about being punished by wikipedia. If wikipedia wants to, after all this, afford Director the assumption of "good faith" and block me for my willingness to call bs when I see it, then wikipedia is not worth my time. I don't think it's worth yours either, but I absolutely understand why you would want to distance yourself from me if you'd like to continue to edit here.

When someone like Director is this successful at getting his way, sometimes the only way to fight back is to make like the Christian character in this movie. You just keep saying things that are true, even when people kick you out and shut you down and really would rather not deal with it. Just keep saying things that are true.

Best wishes to you, USchick! Gonna go to bed...--Atlantictire (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But what you don't seem to understand is that your tactics are totally unproductive. If that matters to you, which apparently it doesn't.Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it matters a lot! Coretheapple, if you have any ideas about how to deal with people like Producer/Director, please share them. These are long term offenders with lots of barn stars, which tells me they have a lot of support. They tag team to eliminate anyone who disagrees with them and they sail through ANI without even a slap on the wrist, which encourages them to continue. In the meantime, everyone else is forced to suffer. Why? What does that say about admins who refuse to enforce policy to deal with this? I have been successful in bringing this situation to light without being banned, I would say that's a lot more productive than what's been accomplished up to this point. USchick (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this comment was left on my talk page, I assumed that "your tactics are totally unproductive" was directed at me. If you were talking to Atlantictire, I agree, totally unproductive, and in that case, please disregard my rant. :-) USchick (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh God no, I was directing my comment to Atlantictire. Quite the contrary, you have been extremely effective! Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I have been on the receiving end of a lot of grief during this fiasco. Sorry for being defensive. USchick (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, just to amplify, I'm struck by how wrong I've been on this from day one. I thought the AfD was premature. Wrong. I thought the topic ban discussion would become a fiasco. Wrong. So I'm the last person to ask for advice on how to effectively deal with situations like this. Oh, and to top everything off, I wasn't even sure there was grounds for a topic ban. Wrong wrong wrong. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This situation is rotten from the core. I'm finding out that it takes a lot of work to core the apple! lol USchick (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. When more eyes came to the article, look how fast things turned around. I'm actually quite pleased by the (apparent) outcome. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not over yet. Many previous long winded discussions ended in "no consensus" and this one may end up just like the rest. We'll see. Thank you for your effort! USchick (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of AfDs for tiny little self-written articles, this has got to be the most lopsided AfD in terms of deletion that I have ever seen. The consensus is clear but you're right, we shall see. Coretheapple (talk)

Jews and communism

Hi,

I apologize because my earlier comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was not clear enough. I will try to summarize our positions with the table:

Number and question	Antidiskriminator	USchick
1 - Who (should discuss)	All editors	Only editors involved in the dispute about the topics Jews and Communism
2 - What	All tag-teaming actions	Only in the topics Jews and Communism
3 - Ban to	All members of the team	Only to two members who (allegedly?) tag-teamed at topics about Jews and Communism
4 - From what	Only from specific topic areas	From all articles on Jews and Communism

I respect your position, but I wanted to present you my position in comparison to yours and to propose you to reconsider your position, or at least some of the above points.

I doubt that it will be possible for involved editors to ban two editors in question from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on their actions at single contentious article. On the other hand, I still think that wide consensus of all interested editors about tag-teaming actions of all members of the team in more than one article, would allow uninvolved administrator to impose more appropriate topic bans to the team members. I apologize if I made some mistake in interpretation of your position. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, I'm afraid I don't know enough about policy to be very helpful in this regard. I know enough policy to edit, but I'm not interested in learning the ins and outs of how to go about scheming in back room discussions like AN and ANI. I made the nomination as a good faith effort. In my mind, it's reasonable for people who are familiar with the situation to understand what's going on. Looking at policy, I don't see where it says that only uninvolved editors should have a say about what happens. As usual, common sense has nothing to do with policy and apparently, I'm wrong about that. It's not clear to me who made this rule and when, since there's no policy about that. I also don't support a witch hunt past the nomination that's already there. If you wish to launch a witch hunt, I don't think you need my permission, do whatever you feel like you need to do. I have no animosity toward the two editors and I'm not interested in making them suffer. I would like to have some sanctions in place to keep them from starting this all over again in a different article. I'm not sure why you need to sway my opinion, because this nomination is for community consensus. I don't see where my opinion is very important here. Am I missing something? USchick (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the chart to reflect my position. The question is not about the article Jews and Communism. I have been edit warring with Director over a span of several articles, while he insisted that no one is allowed to do anything until Producer showed up. Several people have been banned in this process, but not me! :) Also, they have been sanctioned in the past about Balkan/Serbian topics in 2011, so I don't see the point in bringing up that issue. Do you? USchick (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clarification about your position. I approached to you only because you are the nominator in this discussion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Communist bloc"

Now that one really hurt, Chick :). You wouldn't say King's Landing was being filmed in the "Communist Bloc", would you? -- Director (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about myself, since I had no idea exactly which country you were from. Don't be so sensitive, geesh. :-) USchick (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Barnstar

		The Jewish Barnstar
		Dear USchick, you contributed tirelessly in so many ways to fight for a WP:NPOV in the now-discredited "Jews & Communism" article and you were never fooled by the underlying negative motives of the pseudo-scholarship it tried to sneak onto Wikipedia. But your sensitivity to how this relates to and impacts Jews and the harm it can and does cause was also very evident all along. Your strong common sense with a sound knowledge base and a willingness to give others the benefit of the doubt, even though you disagreed with them, is something that you can be truly proud of. Keep on going strong, Wikipedia and the world needs you! Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would second that. I would say that for all your contributions on Wikipedia This was their finest hour from the standpoint of defending wikipedia from the dark forces that are out there, which are ever-present sadly. We sometimes have argued on stuff (but how boring if there were never any arguments eh?) but I respect your tenacity and (often :)) your clue. It was never displayed better than here. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! :) Someone should give a barnstar to Mark Bernstein for creating the tipping point to make this possible, and to the closing admin who overturned the previous closing. If no one has done it yet, I can do it later today, hopefully. USchick (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You deserve every honor USchick, and it is an honor to know you on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Awww, you're so sweet! Thank you very much! I'm not used to being treated kindly on Wikipedia, usually, I'm in trouble for something. lol USchick (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Trouble??? You are a tzadeket USchick and you know it. If you are getting into trouble it means you are hanging out with the wrong people! Stay in touch with me and you will see that trouble will become a thing of the past. You still owe me an Email by the way. Kindest wishes, IZAK (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you very much for the compliment. You sent me an email? On what day? I don't see it. USchick (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one, a few weeks ago, via WP. I will resend. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of the "Discrimination Taskforce"

I don't mean to sound mean in any way, but I think that if we are not very careful with how we act and how we go about doing this, we will come off as a giant tag team.. we would need users who know how to control themselves and lack assertion and attachment to specific feuds. I really would like to do this with you, Snow Rise, Coretheapple and the likes, but as I said on the Jews and communism page, I have a vision of this whole group spiralling into another mass conflict if we do not control ourselves. A lot of people on the talk page seem to have been greatly offended by the mere existence of "Jews and Communism", and frankly, by the existence of Director - and when you're talking about specializing in dealing with offensive, discriminatory content on Wikipedia constantly, I don't think someone who is easily attached would be the right fit to work with. So, before I go joining anything, I would like to ask who is in the group - and where are we starting? :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: this was not written about you at all, but about Atlantic and others on the talk page. I realized it probably sounds that way, sorry,lol. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear USchick, as you know in the past I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And who knows may be I am the guilty one.

I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is a very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certified the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.

I requested to an experience user and looking for people to certify/endorse an RfC/u is not canvassing.

You can access to the RfC/U form at [[7]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Let me know if you are intending to participate.

According to instructions "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." I don't think I qualify. USchick (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me. I'm watching the page. I'm afraid that my opinion is coming from a completely different argument, and I don't want to game the system. If I feel like I have something to contribute, I will. USchick (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There was an AN/I posted by Director about my alleged racism, you participated to this AN/I (and actually it was because few of you put water on the fire that things did not degenerate). This is enough, but of course you have to feel it. I really do not want to post an AN/I. Director is a valuable editor, I just want to discuss with him along with other people to find a common platform to participate together to this project. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should link to the ANI. Right now all you have is the Dalmatia dispute and based on that, I don't see where you have anything to move forward. If that's all you have, I predict it will close without any support. USchick (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think so, but User Dangerous Panda told me that was the form to fill. I will clearly link to the ANI on the 4th of June if - as expected - the RfC closes without any support. BTW do you think it is normal how Director deals with other users? Perhaps I am too sensitive, but it hurts me to be qualified of being a fascist and an extremist POV pusher. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If the ANI is related to the same dispute, you should link to it now. Director will do whatever it takes to make you go away. You can't take it personally because he doesn't know you or anything about you. He just wants you to go away so he can continue to do whatever he wants. You have to decide, if the argument you're about to have is worth your time. In my case, I decided it was. :) USchick (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that what annoys me is his general conduct. What happened on Dalmatia is perhaps not enough but put all together during the last year it's a lot. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Good morning, three users have already signed in. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I made this

This user is not an AN/I Monster and won't take you to AN/I for something redonkulous.

You can has. ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, what a nice present! I will display it proudly on my user page. USchick (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not buy Russian goods!

Hello! Do you know Ukrainian (or Russian)? I'm not perfect know English, that's why I may better explain to you about campain of boycott and editing of this page on Ukrainian or Russian. Thanks!--Trydence (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Russian. In English, products = товар, а не продукты! :) Слово "goods" почти ничего не значит, в значение "goods" входит только "products" но не "service" как банк и концерт. USchick (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Наверное, перевод "commerce" наиболее точен и лаконичен для преамбулы. Но все же поясню, в чем заключается бойкот. Возможно вы сможете подобрать более корректные формулировки для статьи.

• Активисты призывают бойкотировать все товары (в том числе и продукты), которые имеют российское звено: произведены в России; дистрибьютор российский (такое редко бывает без производства в России); товар произведен не в России, но производитель зарегистрирован в России (например, большая часть пива "Балтика", продаваемого в Украине, произведена на одном из заводов в Украине, но эта марка является российской, и прибыль от продаж идет в Россию).
• Бойкот российских банков [8] [9]; бойкот магазинов, владельцами которых есть россияне [10]; заведений питания, владельцами которых есть россияне [11] или где продают российские товары [12] [13]; бойкот российских программного обеспечения (например, антивирусы "Касперский", "Доктор вэб"), сайтов (yandex.ru, mail.ru).

Следует сказать, что основной акцент идет на том, получают ли российские компании, владельцы прибыль из Украины от украинских потребителей. Так как эти деньги потом в виде налогов идут в российскую экономику и, соответственно, на финансирование российской армии и террористов. Тем не менее, бойкот имеет политическую цель, а не экономическую, поэтому активисты не призывают к бойкоту на государственном уровне.

Спасибо, что помогаете улучшать статью! Будут вопросы, обращайтесь!--Trydence (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

За єдину Україну! USchick (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Приветствую! Переведите пожалуйста предложения для статьи: "В январе-мае 2014 года по данным агентства Standard & Poor's Ratings Services банки с российским капиталом в Украине утратили более 50% депозитов."Російські банки втратили більше 50% вкладів в Україні --Trydence (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Перевел сам, проверть пожалуйста [14]--Trydence (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok! :) USchick (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Приветствую! На статью Do not buy Russian goods! поставили шаблон NPoV. Из того, что предоставили - вижу, что безосновательно, по надуманным причинам. По крайней мере в правилах Английской Википедии не нашел нарушений по статье. Как вы думаете?--Trydence (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Current Affairs portal

This page may be of help. Wikipedia:In the news. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's where i posted it. I even used the template. USchick (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on

File:UnknownTemple1.jpg Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat Woramahawihan (วัดพระศรีรัตนมหาธาตุวรมหาวิหาร), the main temple of Phitsanulok.

Proposed deletion of Monstration

The article Monstration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Whilst I can see the term exists in the references, I feel this article fails WP:NEO. At best it could be mentioned in one of the Censorship in Russia articles without giving undue weight to it. Large amounts of content in this article, as it stands, are not about the term, but about a specific set of protests.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CaptRik (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangles. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Women writers

Hello USchick/Archive3! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Slandering Misrepresentation of other editors in MH17

I consider your remark here [15] to be slander obvious misrepresentation. It's not especially nasty slander, but you need to make sure that you understand what's being said before you make a personal attack out of it. You obviously don't, and would be unlikely to convince others of your misinterpretation at a noticeboard. This is your warning per WP:NPA, and depending on what follows (given your crude partisanship there) it may be the only warning I give before reporting you Geogene (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC) This is not a legal threat.Geogene (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you for your comment. If I as was wrong in the interpretation I will apologize. First, would you like to explain how it's wrong? Because my interpretation of your comment seems very accurate. USchick (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The problems with NST in this context arise from this article: [16]; specifically: This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation. So we have NST citing GlobalResearch as a source. Here is the GlobalResearch website: [17]. Is a source that unabashedly cites conspiracy theory websites reliable? I've expressed my own views of NST in various places: [18], [19], [20] probably other places as well. Geogene (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

They have an editorial board and they chose to cover this information because they think it's relevant. That's what independent news sources do. The article talks about many other things besides GlobalResearch. There are other examples when media covers something from an unreliable source. For example, they talked at length about false comments made VKontakte, and that information is in the lede now, because some editors like it. So because you don't like the fact that NST is covering all viewpoints, we have to discredit them? USchick (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this discussion is not about slander after all, but an RS discussion it belongs on the article's talk page. USchick (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It was an RS discussion that you made into slander personal attacks through misrepresentation. Have a nice day. Geogene (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Orphanage

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A heads-up that this edit was entirely inappropriate, as per talkpage guidelines. You inserted text inside someone else's comments, you changed the meaning of an entire discussion, and obviously caused substantial consternation among other editors whose words now had new meanings. You then somehow claimed you did nothing wrong. Do not ever a) move anyone's words, b) insert anything inside or outside of anyone's signed comment b) change or insert titles that are inflammatory. Such behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone the talkpage of a high-profile topic like that one the panda ₯’ 11:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving other people's comments

Really, after the last mess you created by moving other people's comments around and altering discussion titles, you really shouldn't be *still* trying to rearrange other people's comments, like you did here [21]. Just leave other people's comments alone. They can move them themselves if they so wish.  Volunteer Marek  18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was not moved. Please stop with the histrionics. USchick (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Both my comments which you moved were responses to someone else (you). You moved my comments to a separate section which made it seem like they were made at no one in particular. Yes, this is your warning. Volunteer Marek  18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comments were not moved at all. USchick (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that why they ended up in a separate section making it look like I was not replying to anyone at all? Just leave other people's comments alone. Volunteer Marek  18:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Signature Location

Courtesy note that with this edit I moved your sig to the end of your comment. Otherwise it looked like the quote block was my comment. I hope that's not a problem, but if it is you can fix it up. Stickee (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem! :) USchick (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Userbox

I was looking at your user page and saw your ANI monster user box and I thought it was great. I then looked at the source and noticed that you made it yourself and I not only think that is really cool but I'm not sure if you know how, I know I don't, but I think you should make that into a user box. It's just an observation because I feel like that is something that many users would like on their user page. If you decide not to it's fine but I just wanted to suggest it because it's a really cool user box. - SantiLak (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Actually it was a gift from User:Atlantictire. Feel free to use it for your personal use or to make it official somewhere. You can ask Atlantictire, and I bet they would be honored. I don't know how to make it into a user box. USchick (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Bye!

Thanks for your past help. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia again, but if there are other ways I can be of use to you, feel free to let me know. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to you and I'm sure your time in real life will be put to good use. Thanks for fighting the good fight! USchick (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Your MH17 discussion on Talk page

Useful. [22] SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the only reliable source with the same info. There are lots of Asian sources, much better than this one, and they are all listed in the archives. They have all been completely ignored. I have presented them, and after beating my head against the wall, I decided that my time is better spent in real life, since I actually have a life. Everyone else can do whatever they want, but I'm done with it. I'll be happy to support any sane effort on your part. Cheers! USchick (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)