Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:And there appears to be a group of people out there hellbent on making sure no one says anything bad about their show. Further more, at least half of those citations in the story section ''also'' come from a self published site, or missing citations altogether. Finally, I'm well aware of the 3RR. --[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
:And there appears to be a group of people out there hellbent on making sure no one says anything bad about their show. Further more, at least half of those citations in the story section ''also'' come from a self published site, or missing citations altogether. Finally, I'm well aware of the 3RR. --[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Further more, I've never liked removing information if one doesn't like the citation or lack therefore of, because look [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q370dVhn2bc] here's a third party doing a story on the show! Amazing! Of course, I somehow doubt you'll accept a YouTube video as a source, but haven't the faintest clue where one would find the original video, I've tried searching CNN's website, but perhaps you know some tricks I don't.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
::Further more, I've never liked removing information if one doesn't like the citation or lack therefore of, because look [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q370dVhn2bc] here's a third party doing a story on the show! Amazing! Of course, I somehow doubt you'll accept a YouTube video as a source, but haven't the faintest clue where one would find the original video, I've tried searching CNN's website, but perhaps you know some tricks I don't.--[[User:Honeymane|<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</font>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Honeymane|<font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</font>]]</sub> 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Good Idea / Bad Idea for stability while task force completes ? == |
|||
Hi, there's been a few anon editors changing text between using the term "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" in various articles. Some have resulted in 3RRs on some articles (although no 4RRs as far as I can tell). A solution that appears to have worked with the term "British Isles" is to ban removal/insertion while the [[WP:BITASK]] task force is completing. Perhaps a similar ruling might work while the [[WP:IDTR]] task force is completing? --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:41, 3 November 2008
Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!
Request
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:
- Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.
- Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?
- On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?
- On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.
I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect you have not addressed any of the questions I have raised above at AE. In fact you have compounded the issue by further claims and accusations. You are agreeing to sanctions on me, and yet, having initiated this whole discussion you have not provided any diff’s to support such an action. You’re opening remarks to this discussion [1] [2] with expressions of frustrated emotions were entirely for uncalled and only served to inflame and heighten tension on the page in my opinion.
Your actions to date, like page protecting the article while choosing to ignore yet another breech of 1RR agreed by the recent AE is a case in point. You chose to ignore the Tread I had opened on the subject, opening your own, again emotively titled “latest dispute.” When ask to explain the page protection, rational for it being edit warring, you said there was none. You were asked to point out who was doing the reverting but rather than responding you article banned editors which it appears now you may not have been entitled to do.
This type of conduct I would not expect from an admin, not least one who wishes to progress to ArbCom. Now in my opinion, I'm entitled to be frustrated because I’m the one facing sanctions, and being painted in all types of colours. However, I have supported my views with diff’s and I would appreciate the same consideration. I don’t need to be told I’m a good editor, though it is very thoughtful and welcome under thses conditions, and I’m not above criticism. But when I am criticized I feel I’m entitled to at the very least the supporting diff’s, and not to be submerged by expressions of opinion and unsupported comment. Please address the questions above, some editors/admin's have made an effort and some have not. --Domer48'fenian' 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You placed a template on this article saying that it was at deletion review, but I can't find it there. What is going on? Edison (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_18 is where it's at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day Foz
Saw your post on the arb page, and wanted to swing by just to say that my talk page is always open, and I'd really really like to keep my issues out of the arb request if at all possible? I sincerely believe that clarity becomes really really important in stuff like this - being in my view the kindest and cleanest path forward. Happy to talk more about why I feel making a short post like this is the 'right' thing to do, and hope you're good anywhoo... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed modifications to Domer, Dunc, and Thunderers' topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Flag
Watchlisted. Also, ARGH.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. That was my first thought when I saw it today. Also *facepalm* SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Provisional IRA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a fairly straight forward case. I spotted the use of the Irish term "Oglaigh na hEireann" being used as an official title for the Provisional IRA. (I use the articles for reference myself you see?). I knew it to be untrue so I changed it and gave an explanation. Republican Jacobite and O Fenian both objected but I discussed the matter as you can see. Eventually O Fenian provided the link to the Irish Statute book here which absolutely proved me right (shooting himself in the foot btw) but by that time I didn't feel I could revert again so asked O Fenian to self revert. O Fenian is very new to this and I don't want to bully him, even if he has been very uncivil to the point of being threatening. That's why I brought it to the AE board because my experience shows these things can get out of hand very quickly. O Fenian needs guidance but I don't think he wants it from me. Thunderer (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I left him a notice. I have a yet unproven suspicion that he may be a returning editor, but I'll need to get a CU to do that. If you look at the Domer thing on AE, things for me are a bit gang aft agley at the moment, so I'm busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. I'm going to ping Ryan on this and see what we can do :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can promise this wasn't me edit warring. My observations were in very good faith and with the integrity of the wiki in mind. Paragraph three of the article explains the entire matter in very good detail but the new chap doesn't seem to want to accept it. Surprisingly even Republican Jacobite doesn't seem to have thought it through before acting. I'll leave you to it. I hadn't realised matters had escalated from the AE page. I'd better do some reading and cathch up with it all.Thunderer (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- That information has been in the article for 18 months. I have provided sources, including the IRA's own Consitution, which state that the only official name of the IRA is Óglaigh na hÉireann. This editor started the edit war and continued it, as the article history shows. O Fenian (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said on the talk page; your own source here from the Government of the Republic of Ireland clearly repudiates what you're trying to assert and, that being the case, the information in the article was clearly incorrect and needed amending. I didn't do this just to wind you or anyone else up. Wikipedia is striving to be factually accurate and all editors should work together, in harmony, towards making it so. Thunderer (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Government of the Republic of Ireland. on this page which you kindly provided. The IRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. It doesn't have the legal right to usurp the name of the Irish Defence Forces. Simple as that. Thunderer (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Harassment
Tell persistent pests to stay away from my talk page please. O Fenian (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Enforcement
Why have you protected the PIRA article instead of dealing with the editor who is well aware of the 1RR sanctions that were imposed yet continues to revert. How many times has Thunderer reverted on the PIRA article? Are the sanctions dropped? Or is a blind eye being turned to this editor? BigDuncTalk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I only protected six hours, when things were gang aft agley. Things still are, thanks to certain emails I'm receiving. if he's violated it, I will block him shortly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Simple to see Fozz count the reverts. I am feeling as sick of this whole drama as you are but if you are quick to hand out blocks to other editors then at least be seen to be evenhanded. BigDuncTalk 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on it, Dunc. I'm also talking with other admins to determine what the best course of action here (block, article ban, topic ban, some combination of all of the above). At the MININUM, he's earned a 0RR parole on that article. I'm informing him of that now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
POV warning
With regard to your comment on my user page:
"Edits such as this one hardly complies with Wikipedia's rules on Neutral Point of View. Please make sure your edits comply with this policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"
I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, the sources cited support my edit, but if you can provide a detailed reason or reasons why you say that my edit "hardly" complies with Wikipedia policy, I will give your reasons full consideration. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Ping me
You can find me online somewheres I am sure. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Naked Short Selling
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for getting that started. I added another paragraph using a different source to give a little more depth to Japan's involvement [3]. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Jon & Kate Plus 8
I'm fully aware of what you claim, but unless you're going to point out exactly what part of RS the citation violates (and why this would justify the removal of the whole section, you may as well not say it at all. I'm not blind reverting, I'm reverting because you're removing a whole section of an article.
Cite for me, exactly then, why the source is unreliable. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- And there appears to be a group of people out there hellbent on making sure no one says anything bad about their show. Further more, at least half of those citations in the story section also come from a self published site, or missing citations altogether. Finally, I'm well aware of the 3RR. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further more, I've never liked removing information if one doesn't like the citation or lack therefore of, because look [4] here's a third party doing a story on the show! Amazing! Of course, I somehow doubt you'll accept a YouTube video as a source, but haven't the faintest clue where one would find the original video, I've tried searching CNN's website, but perhaps you know some tricks I don't.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Good Idea / Bad Idea for stability while task force completes ?
Hi, there's been a few anon editors changing text between using the term "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" in various articles. Some have resulted in 3RRs on some articles (although no 4RRs as far as I can tell). A solution that appears to have worked with the term "British Isles" is to ban removal/insertion while the WP:BITASK task force is completing. Perhaps a similar ruling might work while the WP:IDTR task force is completing? --HighKing (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)