Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
::::Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a [[WP:Wikibreak]]. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious [[WP:NPOV]] issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -[[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]] ([[User talk:Chumchum7#top|talk]]) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a [[WP:Wikibreak]]. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious [[WP:NPOV]] issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -[[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]] ([[User talk:Chumchum7#top|talk]]) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Do you think that you could perhaps take more care to no accuse me of being a racist? That is precisely what your comments about me being anti-Polish are. I could reply by pointing out that you also appear to have something to prove about Poles and that is why you change the first sentence of the relevant section of the London Victory Parade article to make a false statement about Poles being excluded and then use to support that statement a source which in reality says the exact opposite (i.e. that Poles were invited). I could also go into all the other accusations you level at me. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and not accuse you of having a NPOV problem that causes you to POV push the Polish POV. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy? [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] ([[User talk:Varsovian|talk]]) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:08, 23 March 2010
I cannot get involved with articles/parties that are related to cases I am clerking. If you have evidence from that article related to the EEML case please post it on the case's evidence page. In the alternative, evidence can be emailed directly to the arbitration committee. If you are having problems with user conduct I suggest posting to the administrators' noticeboard. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Mediation
I support it in spirit but I don't think I will be active enough for a while to be a party to it. Good luck with it and the article, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
London Victory Parade
Thanks for the fix on the link. It's a pity that you didn't have time (or perhaps didn't have energy) to contribute on the discussion page about the proposed new section. Do you think that the new section ticks the right boxes when it comes to NPOV and RS? Varsovian (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is all about time, which I have very little of at the mo. I think you are going to have trouble from other editors with this section; because with respect, it reads like you are pushing your WP:POV and there is also a whiff of original research about it. See WP:OR. At least twice you have made Talk Page generalizations about Poles and their attitude to history - you need to be very careful about that, because it gives the impression that you have a prejudiced view about Poles yourself. I'm not going to debate this further, due to my time constraints. But good luck. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I'll leave the article for a few days and then come back to it to rewrite it to remove words which might suggest PoV pushing (although it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts). As for OR, if reading the memoirs of General Anders is OR, I'm guilty! Varsovian (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Before you start re-writing, and if you haven't done so already, take a look at this great essay: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It address your point that "it is hard to have a PoV when it comes to black/white facts". The essay will also save you hours if not days of debating with whoever now piles in to the article. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are a couple of surprising WP policies, that take many people a long time to get their heads round:-
Firstly, Wikipedia is very sceptical about the existence of "black/white facts" and doesn't agree that POV can be eliminated by fact. From Wikipedia:Describing points of view:- "Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."
Secondly, Wikipedia does not even focus on the so-called "truth". From Wikipedia:Verifiability:- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
Both of these policies need to be read and understood. Many people don't realize that "fact" and "truth" are dirty words at Wikipedia... -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a sandbox we can use to work up a section we both agree on? Varsovian (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a WP:Wikibreak. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious WP:NPOV issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think that you could perhaps take more care to no accuse me of being a racist? That is precisely what your comments about me being anti-Polish are. I could reply by pointing out that you also appear to have something to prove about Poles and that is why you change the first sentence of the relevant section of the London Victory Parade article to make a false statement about Poles being excluded and then use to support that statement a source which in reality says the exact opposite (i.e. that Poles were invited). I could also go into all the other accusations you level at me. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and not accuse you of having a NPOV problem that causes you to POV push the Polish POV. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy? Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, I'm just about to take a WP:Wikibreak. In the meantime, perhaps take this up with some other editors. By the way, I'll tell you honestly your edits start to concern me and you might want to think about your behavioural profile a little, and how it could come across to other editors and Wikipedia moderators. You appear to have something to prove about Poles or the Polish character, which is fine in the real world, but very far away from the ethos of Wikipedia. What is it all about? You tried to interpret the Stephen Fry Auschwitz gaff as an accurate statement rather than an offensive mistake, you tried to re-open the 1st Armoured war crimes issue after it had been closed, you made a sweeping generalization about Poles' view of Chopin, you tried to disprove Kazimierz Świątek's Polish roots, you appear to have utilized a citation that downplayed the 303 Polish Squadron without having read that citation, and now this very insistent effort to disavow Polish grievances about the Victory Parade - to the point of pushing the original idea that the Poles weren't there because some had been forced conscripts in the Wermacht. Those are just the things I've noticed. You'll appreciate this could come across as a pattern of editing behaviour that seems to have very serious WP:NPOV issues. As I say, you are personally entitled to these views; but often, I get the impression you haven't thoroughly read Wikipedia guidelines and you are allowing your views to interfere with your great potential as a Wikipedia editor. You have the energy, and I'm sure you can achieve the neutrality. I may ask a veteran moderator or administrator to take a look at this message, and he or she may become the editor to work with on the Victory Parade article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)