User talk:Mallimak

Welcome!

Hello, Mallimak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging stubs

Please don't use use {{Orkney-bio-stub}} on articles like Thomas Webster, where the only connection mentioned to Orkney is having been born there. It's generally accepted that stubs should be tagged by nationality and by primary area of notability (often relating to their occupation); tagging simply by region of birth if of very little use to anyone, especially as regards likelihood of the article being expanded on that basis. Alai 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rv blatant vandalism"

Content disputes are not "vandalism", however much you may disagree with the edit you find it necessary to revert. I'm asking you both to refrain from needless escalation of the existing dispute with such loose use of terminology. Alai 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I hope you don't mind me editing your userpage, but there is no need to keep those sockpuppet notices under the circumstances. Astrotrain 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Mais oui! has nominated Orcadian for deletion. You can have your say at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orcadian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orcadian Wikipedians - Scandinavian too?

Please see the discussion at Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians#Scandinavian too?. Thanks/wangi 13:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please discuss on the talk page, not in edit summaries! /wangi 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper source?

I don't mean to sound snobby but a guide book is unlikely to be a good enough source for us in the Orkney article. Does the book itself give a reference for this claim? Please check out WP:RS and also WP:NPA; you're not going to prevail here by insulting others. --Guinnog 16:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it

I'm sorry you haven't hit it off with Mais; I know he is a decent editor. I suppose 'annexation' is a word with connotations he didn't like. I hope you see now the merit of my point about insulting people. If you do think he is following you around, the best thing you could do is contact him directly and politely ask him not to. Apologising, if you can bring yourself to, might also help. I make no comment on the sock-puppet allegation; is it being dealt with? It does seem an awful lot of IPs and forgetting, but really the main thing is to move on from it. I for one will always take what you say on its own merits, and you have made some useful edits to the article. --Guinnog 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wekepedians CFD Notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) alphaChimp ^laudare 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A Portal you created recently, Portal:Orkney, has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talkpage - Mais Oui

Hi, I'm not sure why you left that comment but i'd just like to make you aware of WP:OWN. Your proposed solution of "I'll edit my pages, won't touch theirs" really does come across like a sense of ownership.

Yes, moving on from your disagreement with Mais Oui is a very good idea, but you need to learn to work together or just give each other some space. I've changed a few of your recent edits on categories - constant to-and-fro over "Orkney, Scotland" and "Orkney, UK" is not productive and it's actually pretty pointless - the wikilink to Orkney puts things into context (although I beleive we should be saying "Orkney, Scotland").

While WikiProjects and the like are useful tools, they are useful if multiple editors participate in them. It would perhaps be more useful to use existing Scotland and UK projects until such a time there is a critical mass of interested editors to make Orkney ones worthwhile.

In all my responses to your disagrement with Mais Oui I have tried to give an impartial response.

Perhaps if you plan on moving forward it would be helpful to remove some comments aimed specifically at Mais Oui from the Orkney project pages and your user page?

Thanks/wangi 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Naconkantari 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this warning apparently comes from a user who is taking a Wikibreak - strange ... Mallimak 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet allegations

Dear Mallimak,

I know that I have been accused of being a sock puppet. I support you over the portal and the notice board, but I am not sure that I should be getting directly involved in your dispute with Mais oui!, after all I am new here and I know he is watching me already. Don't misunderstand me, though, I do understand your frustration at his behaviour, and I see from the discussion that his tactics have made him a few enemies on Wikipedia.

I think they are surprised that broadband has reached Orkney, even if it still is a bit unreliable and our choice of service providers is rather limited.

As for knowing each other in real life, try as a clue: "Ba', Broad Street".

Regards, Orkadian 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:I GIVE UP!

If you are still interested in contributing to Wikipedia on Orkney related matters, then I would suggest you continue to do so- I think you can make more good contributions in this area. I know you have been under attack from some users on your editing- unfortunatly this can happen, but you shouldn't let it get to you. Feel free to contact via the email link if you want to discuss further. Astrotrain 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for your note, I've commented on my talk page. Hope you've been having similarly good weather to us recently: I've great memories of cycling in Orkney, and it felt a good place to relax. As with Astrotrain, you're welcome to contact me if there's anything I can help with. ..dave souza, talk 19:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I said to you when we met the other day. I am particularly annoyed about the removal of the Wikipedians' notice board and the Orkney Portal. It is tantamount to censorship. Orkadian 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is suspected that Orkadian (talk · contribs) might be a sock puppet of Mallimak. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

Please be civil, in particular i'm referring to [1], [2]. There's plenty of articles to edit, it's easy for you both to avoid each other - please try.

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! /wangi 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second those comments. It's disappointing to see these kind of attacks left in edit summaries. On the point of Julyan Sinclair's nationality it's clear he is Scottish. His Orcadian background can clearly be adequately mentioned in addition. Kinda maddening to hear you're becoming disillusioned over these points, as you clearly have a lot to add about the Orkney Islands. Plenty of localities have a distinct status or origin, even a claim to "nationhood" but remain within a larger country - Quebec instantly springs to mind. WP has to go by the political map (or, if you like, the passport) rather than the rhetoric in these cases. Deizio talk 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are continuing to act in an uncivil manner following repeated warnings, for example: [3]. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks. Continuing attacks will lead to a temporary editing ban being placed on you. Thanks/wangi 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julyan Sinclair

With regard to your edit I have removed the latter text. Please understand this point - don't reinsert it without sourcing it. You say it has been in the papers - if so then please say where and when. Facts have to be verifiable, and the wikipedia policy on living people's biographies is very strict. Using the word allegedly doesn't get around having to source the content you add. This one is serious - and it comes from the top of wikipedia - see here for why this all came about.

While I am here I will run over a couple other things.

Please read WP:NPA very carefully - edit summaries such as this that you have just made will not be tolerated.

An edit like this is also incorrect. The flag is copyrighted and has been tagged as such. It is used under United States Fair Use rights - wikimedia servers are based in Florida and content here is under the jurisdiction of Florida & US laws. The flag can, and should, be used - it is not illegal to do so.

To be honest I would advise you to just come here and do some constructive editing - making attacks against people and editing without regard for wikipedia policy is just going to end up with you being served with warnings and possibly banned. Thanks. SFC9394 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What it has to do with is the law of arms in Scotland.....and so in Scotland is illegal" -as I have already stated to you once - wikipedia comes under the jurisdiction and laws of Florida - not Scotland - so it's use here at wikipedia is not illigal, and to state that it is intentionally misleading. The only laws that matter are the US Federal laws and Florida state laws - it is as simple as that. SFC9394 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus Talk page postings

- - Stop using your sockpuppets to post contributions on Talk pages claiming to be from other User: - *[4] - That contribution was not by User:SFC9394 but from you: you had just deposited the same thing on my Talk under your own name. Quit the blatant sockpuppetry. --Mais oui! 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was re-posting my comment, but not doing so in a way that made clear that I was not the author of the wider post. In future, I would advise the person to make clear who they are, post quotes from people inside quotes, and only post from one account. As for the issue, it is pretty straight forward. Scots law has nothing to do with what is held on servers in Florida - it is US federal & State laws that have to be breached. The most Scots law can do is block the content from being accessible and distributable in Scotland. An easy analogy is nazi symbols. Someone in Florida could setup a website full of nazi symbols and they would (likely) not be breaking any local laws. To do that inside Germany is a criminal offence - but Germany has no authority to take the US website owner to court - the most they can do is block that website from being accessible inside Germany. Basically, in summary, US (Florida) laws are followed - trying to operate a wiki encyclopedia globally which conformed to all national laws would end up with something so restricted to be somewhat useless. Different countries have different laws, and on a global scale there are plenty of openly contradictory laws in different nations that make universal enforcement impossible. SFC9394 16:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warning templates - please desist now

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Removing warnings is vandalism: desist now, this notice, {{sockpuppeteer}}, is to warn other Users that you are a proven sockpuppeteer:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak --Mais oui! 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning - do not add a sockpuppet notice to Mais Oui's page again without proof that they are sockpuppeting. What Mais Oui is putting on your page is well within policy based on that checkuser evidence. If you replace it, you'll be blocked from editing. Syrthiss 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

[5]

--Mais oui! 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using your sockpuppets to vandalise articles

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Mallimak, I really do very, very strongly advise you to desist from using your sockpuppet IP addresses to vandalise articles. You are just making things worse and worse for yourself.

Example diffs 81.153.151.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):

--Mais oui! 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui! is sockpuppet obsessed, they are nothing to do with me. Mallimak 21:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another CheckUser is necessary here. --Mais oui! 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your edits to your and Mai Oui's talk page, replete WITH CAPITAL LETTERS are serving solely and singularly to inflame. They contain nothing of use to either a)dispute resolution or b)encyclopedia editing and have been gone through at length on the admin noticeboard(s). You have a dispute with the user: there is no excuse for wanton aggravation. I've blocked you for 24 hours, so that you can find something better to do. -Splash - tk 22:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do that again, and I'll protect your talk page too. -Splash - tk 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You edit where you choose, and you make what edits you choose. You were choosing to be wantonly inflammatory and aggressive. Mais Oui may get blocked at some other time for behaviour that also is unacceptable. At this moment in time, it is you who is exhibiting an unacceptable editing choice and it's you who is going to remain blocked. -Splash - tk 22:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do against his constant sockpuppetry allegations? I am at the end of my tether. Mallimak 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to clear you name, please request a CheckUser on the 30-plus IP addresses which have, thus far, been claimed to be sockpuppets of you. I look forward to seeing the report. --Mais oui! 22:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you, Mais oui! What's a CheckUser report going to prove anyway? It's already been pointed out that there is a limited number of IP addresses for Orkney and that more than one Orkney user can have used the same address at different times. Anyway, as far as "clearing my name" is concerned, you are the only one ever to have made allegations against me, and I am loathe if I am going to prove my innocence to you! Mallimak 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is for you to decide what to "do" about the allegations. But what you just did should not feature among the options you consider. If they are wrong, then they are unlikely to get you blocked (you seem not to have been thus far) and they do you little lasting harm as a result. Being at the end of one's tether is not a good time at which to edit, as you have empirically now come to know. Put Wikipedia down for a day - it'll be here tomorrow and whatever has happened in the intervening 23 hours is unlikely to be utterly time-critical. You might even find it a relief after the first few hours: you don't have to worry about what Mai Oui is doing, what he's going to do, how to react. Instead, you can switch on the telly, listen to the radio, read a good book, go for a walk. Any of the things you might have done in a 24 hour period before your discovery of Wikipedia. -Splash - tk 23:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I want at the moment is for Mais oui! to stop harassing me with his persistant sockpuppetry allegations and to allow the accusations to be removed from my pages. Is that too much to ask? Can you help me here? Mallimak 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Mais oui! for now to stop, particularly whilst you are blocked, and I mean that he shall. I think given the relationship between the two of you that, at this present moment in time (and by this I mean the right here and now) that there is not a high probability of those tags being removed without simply inflaming everything even more, and the checkuser result is a little troubling, even to me as a relative outsider, you have to admit. Ferocious denial is very hard to read through; it's neither persuasive nor very legible since it is the words of anger and they often do not contain so much of actual substance. Letting everything go a little off boiling-point for a few hours is a far better course of action. In the medium term, after some reconciliation efforts on both your parts, perhaps the sockpuppetry will slide away into the doesn't-matter-anyway region. But keeping everything right up here, in your face, at an almost literal blow-for-blow level isn't going to ease anything. Now, I have to go to bed. I'll be back at work in about 9-10 hours and I'd suggest you take a similar break. And drop the unblock request in the process. -Splash - tk 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not deserve to be blocked, I am just trying to defend myself against these persistant sockpuppetry allegations from User:Mais oui! I have repeatedly denied these allegation to no avail. As you will see from the archived talk (which you have just removed again from my page) others also question the credibility of his so-called evidence. Can you please block Mais oui! If it wasn't for him I would never have become dragged into this nonsense.

Decline reason:

CheckUser's findings at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mallimak are authoritative so you'll have to live with the consequences of your past actions and hence I do not view Mais oui!'s actions as harassment. I do, however, agree with the blocking administrator that your retaliatory harassment is incivil and am thus upholding your block. Let me also remind you that campaigning to have someone blocked is a gross violation of Wikipedia:Civility and may in itself lead to further blocks. -- Netsnipe ► 17:38, 4 October 2006 (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.

Posting other user's comments

Please stop spamming talk pages with comments made by other user's at other pages. Where relevant you can leave a link to the discussion, but unless you have a new point to make I fail to see the point in continuing to do this... Thanks/wangi 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more personal attacks

Please desist from using your myriad sockpuppet IP addresses to make personal attacks on me:

[6]

--Mais oui! 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Mallimak, do not use your sockpuppets to breach 3RR. It is not only the puppet which is liable to get blocked, but also the puppeteer:

[7]

--Mais oui! 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earls of Orkney

Please have a look at Brusi Sigurdsson and Rognvald Brusason with a view to fixing any errors and tidying up the prose. It seems to me that Sumarlidi Sigurdsson will never be more than a sub-stub and might as well be deleted, or redirected to Earl of Orkney. Off to do Einar Wry-Mouth now, then to rewrite Thorfinn the Mighty, because it's fairly mediocre. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on illustrations for these (a map of the Earldom ?). Brussels is a bit far off for me to just to pop up to Kirkwall and take a few pictures. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Mallimak, I'm tired of seeing you and Mais oui! fighting over things. Including your userpage. I've therefore blanked it. It now contains neither the material you put there, nor the material he put there. Can I suggest you put something that is as far as it can possibly be from provocative on there instead? You two really have to stop it, and now seems like a good time to start stopping. -Splash - tk 22:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could get down off the big wooden horse for a minute, and go to the library, you find that there a quite a few sources which would support the sort of arguments you want to add. Edit warring isn't helping any one. And, yes, I know it takes two to have an argument. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceaseless vandalism and personal attacks

Mallimak, stop using your endless IP addresses to carry out your campaign of personal attacks on me, and vandalism in general. Do not vandalise every single Orkney-related article you come across. You will be permanently banned if you do not desist.

[8]

--Mais oui! 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your campaign to have a User banned

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Mallimak - campaigning to have another User banned is actually a blockable act:

[9]

--Mais oui! 08:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Sam Harcus

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sam Harcus, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sam Harcus seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sam Harcus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sam Harcus

An editor has nominated Sam Harcus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Harcus and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User Proud Orcadian

A tag has been placed on Template:User Proud Orcadian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Spence (Orcadian)

Hello. This article has been nominated for deletion, please see WP:PROD and the article for how to dispute this and improve the article. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Mallimak! 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 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

William P. L. Thomson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2010 (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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]