EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Elephant Parade: The deleted article on Elephant Parade is unrelated to the new one |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →AE case against Atabəy: How to find a compromise |
||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
:::Other proposition suggests excluding "of Iran" from "Safavid dynasty of Iran" in introduction, because Safavids were not a dynasty of nation-state. They were Shiite religious group which sought to create a Shiite State and not only within Azerbaijan or Iran but beyond those lands. Moreover, there are few references that assert that initially state was claimed over Azerbaijan, like: "Ismail went on a conquest campaign, capturing Tabriz in July 1501, where he enthroned himself the Shāh of Azerbaijan" (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.) |
:::Other proposition suggests excluding "of Iran" from "Safavid dynasty of Iran" in introduction, because Safavids were not a dynasty of nation-state. They were Shiite religious group which sought to create a Shiite State and not only within Azerbaijan or Iran but beyond those lands. Moreover, there are few references that assert that initially state was claimed over Azerbaijan, like: "Ismail went on a conquest campaign, capturing Tabriz in July 1501, where he enthroned himself the Shāh of Azerbaijan" (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.) |
||
:::So claiming it's Safavid dynasty of Iran, especially given diverse Safavid background, is like claiming Islamic Caliphate of Iraq or Roman Empire of Italy. And especially because, Khodabandeh14 or other users cannot produce facts that Safavid rulers referred to their country as State of Iran, they referred to it as Safavid state. Iran did not exist as a geographic and political entity for a while before Safavid ascent to the throne. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 14:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::So claiming it's Safavid dynasty of Iran, especially given diverse Safavid background, is like claiming Islamic Caliphate of Iraq or Roman Empire of Italy. And especially because, Khodabandeh14 or other users cannot produce facts that Safavid rulers referred to their country as State of Iran, they referred to it as Safavid state. Iran did not exist as a geographic and political entity for a while before Safavid ascent to the throne. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 14:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I was not requesting a content argument. I am hoping you'll propose something like [[WP:Third opinion]] or a [[WP:Request for comment]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:05, 3 May 2011
TUSC token 3c295371a19e9429a79af7064f85c3e8
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! -- EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
GA reviews
Just a note to say that I saw your comment from the week before last at Talk:Nemertea/GA1, and I thought I'd reassure you that GA reviews work basically like any other talk-page discussion. The sole difference is that at the end, the person who officially volunteered to be the "reviewer" has to make the final decision to list or not list the article as a WP:Good article.
Consequently, any editor should feel free to join in any discussion in a GA review, exactly like you would join in any other talk page discussion about that article. GA reviews often benefit greatly from additional perspectives, and when I have reviewed articles, I have always appreciated comments and assistance from multiple editors. I encourage you to comment at GA reviews whenever you feel like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback re: Slow edit war at Stanford University
Message added 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 06:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Esoglou is again breaking edit restrictions
Why is Esoglou commenting on my contributions to the filioque article on my talkpage? [1] Again the rules are for people to harass me but not for Esoglou to follow? As far as I can tell Esoglou was to take any of my editing objections to you. And not comment on them directly to me or the article talkpage. Is it that every time I follow the rules I am going to get this kind of treatment from him? Why is it good for Esoglou to do stuff like this but then I'm the bad editor? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing at WP:RESTRICT that prevents Esoglou from leaving comments on your talk page. Prudence suggests that he should keep these notices to a minimum. I checked what Esoglou was complaining about and it seems to be a grey area, since the whole section of Filioque that you were editing is under the heading 'Eastern orthodoxy.' It should be assumed that this section is presenting the views of EO theologians. At the same time, you seem to have begun an edit war on Filoque. I strongly recommend that you wait for consensus to avoid further difficulties. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Edit war? So my contributions have been deleted wholesale from the article (twice)-that's me starting an edit war? Wow that's wikipedia for you. Good call Ed did you notice that none of my content is now in the article? So your time and responses are meaningless. But good to know that my contributions getting deleted and or censored is me edit warring even when I have not restored them to the article. Not really about policy or right or wrong is it Ed? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see you making a revert at 00:36 on 27 April, since you removed existing text following 'The Eastern Orthodox interpretation..' This followed your edit summary 'Revised roman catholic POV pushing..' Then you have edits marked as 'Undo' at 00:40 on the 27th and also at 00:52 on the 27th. By my calculation that makes three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Edit war? So my contributions have been deleted wholesale from the article (twice)-that's me starting an edit war? Wow that's wikipedia for you. Good call Ed did you notice that none of my content is now in the article? So your time and responses are meaningless. But good to know that my contributions getting deleted and or censored is me edit warring even when I have not restored them to the article. Not really about policy or right or wrong is it Ed? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only if you count the actual posting of the content as a revert. I have since not restored the deleted content for a 3rd time as that would be a violation of the 3rr. As I have followed your advice and am now waiting for consensus. I have stopped editing on the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ed... you might advise LoveMonkey that, when two editors who almost never edit together both feel that the writing quality of his contribution is deficient, perhaps it would be useful to slow down, understand what's being said to him and ask for help in improving the quality of the prose to meet Wikipedia's standards. The problem, as I see it, is that the flow of the prose is so convoluted that it is not possible to make a few small changes and turn it into encyclopedic text. If an elementary school kid starts adding prose written at a 5th-grade level, it will get reverted. I don't know about Drmies but I am not at the point wehre I can object or agree to the content of LoveMonkey's edits. I'm still trying to figure out how to parse it and turn it into encyclopedic text rather than the chatty, argumentative polemic that it is now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since nobody made four reverts in 24 hours, the WP:3RR is not violated. I am glad to see that the revision of LoveMonkey's new text is being discussed at Talk:Filioque. Since this is a proposed revision of the EO section, it seems to me that LM can discuss that material on the article talk without any concern about the editing restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just a detail: I may be missing something, but the section he was editing was not dedicated to the EO perspective, at least not nominally in terms of outlined article structure (which is a bit chaotic though). Although of course his edits had the effect of monopolizing the section with this perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since nobody made four reverts in 24 hours, the WP:3RR is not violated. I am glad to see that the revision of LoveMonkey's new text is being discussed at Talk:Filioque. Since this is a proposed revision of the EO section, it seems to me that LM can discuss that material on the article talk without any concern about the editing restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ed... you might advise LoveMonkey that, when two editors who almost never edit together both feel that the writing quality of his contribution is deficient, perhaps it would be useful to slow down, understand what's being said to him and ask for help in improving the quality of the prose to meet Wikipedia's standards. The problem, as I see it, is that the flow of the prose is so convoluted that it is not possible to make a few small changes and turn it into encyclopedic text. If an elementary school kid starts adding prose written at a 5th-grade level, it will get reverted. I don't know about Drmies but I am not at the point wehre I can object or agree to the content of LoveMonkey's edits. I'm still trying to figure out how to parse it and turn it into encyclopedic text rather than the chatty, argumentative polemic that it is now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you protected this article some time ago; an editor has requested its unprotection. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article has already been unprotected by User:KFP. No objection from me. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring again by User:Bijuts
Hi, User:Bijuts was blocked by you earlier for edit warring. The user is still exhibiting same behavior. A detailed report is made here.
Since you have checked him before, you would be knowing the background of his edit behavior. Please help to take appropriate action. Thank you, Samaleks (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your report of this case at AN3 led to semiprotection of Kochi and Kerala. I hope that will be enough for now. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- you can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address.
--Bijuts (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you continue to add nicknames against consensus you may be blocked. It is your job to convince the other editors, and not just continue to revert. Kochi has been semiprotected and IPs will not be able to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
All should be neutral regarding all the articles. For eg: the adjective "Evergreen city of India" is used for Trivandrum, "Garden city and Pensioners paradise for Bangalore, "Manchester of India" for Coimbatore etc., in the INTRODUCTION itself. Why coming with arguments against Kochi only? My question is very simple. What is wrong with adding the term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" in the introdction of Kochi page? It is harmful to User:Samaleks and some anonymus ips for unknown reasons. Please go through the talk pages of Kochi and Kerala. All users agreed except the above them. Also see Surat and Gujarat pages in wiki.
--Bijuts (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Giulio Clovio - Dilettantes
Hi.
Most supporters of this thesis are not experts: many are even complete outsiders to the field of history (analysts, students, etc.). For the sake of vanity, or an easy notoriety, or a misguided nationalism, they have voiced risky opinions without bothering to seriously verify their statements.
All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.
All major sources ( Encyclopædia Britannica [2], Enciclopedia Italiana [3] and Grove Art Online ( See also: University of Oxford ) His exact words being: "Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth." ) agree with me.
I don't even know how to comment on this one. I don't comment: irrationality, preposterousness and senselessness may go unanswered. " The Professors "
I certainly don't fear the verdict. I'm sure.
I'm not going to change the page. I dropped the idea. However, the voice is POV. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I caution you that some of your comments about other editors (calling them 'dilettantes') might be viewed as personal attacks. I recommend that you moderate your language when discussing other users and their qualifications to comment on Giulio Clovio. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You're a good person.
I recommend that you moderate your language when discussing other users and their qualifications to comment on Giulio Clovio
The first time in my life that someone contradicts me in History. They are the experts... I will not comment further.
- A mathematician is a mathematician. A person whose primary area study is the field of mathematics.
- A historian is a historian. An individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it.
Dilettante in that sense. Thank you and sorry --Davide41 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The appeal of your action in WP:AE#Vecrumba
Hello Fred. While I agree that some action in this case was appropriate, I wonder if you would consider shortening TFD's topic ban to one year. A check of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans shows that indefinite bans are not common. Long bans are sometimes imposed after shorter bans have not worked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was what I initially did, but on consideration of it I didn't think there was reason to believe this particular behavior would change in a one year period. An indefinite ban can be lifted at any time his behavior changes. Today would be fine, once he quits engaging in ideological struggle over cold war issues. As to the ethnic issue he seems to have a blind spot. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, after looking at the log of blocks and bans, I find indefinite bans are quite common, at least in the 2011 section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
My move request
As I said in the request, we typically don't give the county name, unless more than one exist with the same name. We have Albeşti, Mureş because there's also an Albeşti, Botoşani, Albeşti, Constanţa, Albeşti, Ialomiţa and Albeşti, Vaslui. We have Aluniş, Mureş because there's an Aluniş, Cluj and an Aluniş, Prahova. Găleşti, Mureş because there's a Găleşti, Străşeni in Moldova. And so on. But Acăţari, Adămuş, Apold, Aţintiş, Bahnea, and so on don't include the county name, because there's only one commune with that name. And when there's a village with the same name, it gets a hatnote directing the reader to the parent commune, as at Livezeni. - Biruitorul Talk 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you deleted the above article back in 2008. As I lack that level of access, would you mind checking to see if the article versions are substantially similar? Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The one deleted in 2008 is about a novel called Elephant Parade: "Elephant Parade is a novel written by Mansur Ahmed. It tells the story of a writer trying to complete his mammoth book, whose ending is evading him, while dealing with an existential crisis." So there is no question of the new article being a G4 recreation. The new 2011 article about the charitable event called Elephant Parade needs to go through its own review. Somebody should leave a {{prodwarning}} for User:Sbcw who created the new article. There has got to be press coverage for a thing that needs the cooperation of multiple cities. The web site for the London event claims that 500 press articles were written. It is so sad that they won't link to them from their website. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
AE case against Atabəy
Before making propositions to ban me, please, pay attention to what Khodabandeh14 writes:
This is a clear-cut evidence that he is involved in off-Wiki coordination to target other contributors himself. And again, all of this bad faith for one talk page discussion on Safavid dynasty article. So please, don't make quick conclusions, take a look at history and archives of that article to understand what was involved in prior years. Also accusing or restricting me based on facts that were already judged by AA1 and AA2 does not seem to be fair at all. I only strive for balanced edition of article which reflects consensus position. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Khodabandeh14's case at AE is not presented very well. I had to dig into some of the articles mentioned to figure out what was going on. If you can make any reasonable proposal for how you think consensus could be achieved at Safavid dynasty, I am listening. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. My proposal is basic, that since the dynasty originated from Azerbaijan, and used Azerbaijani (Turkish) as the native and court language (with references already contained in the article), Azerbaijani spelling is the only legitimate along with Persian to appear in the front introduction. There is no evidence that either Kurdish or Georgian were ever used as languages of correspondence or any state significance within Safavid empire, at least, Khodabandeh14 cannot produce such ever.
- Other proposition suggests excluding "of Iran" from "Safavid dynasty of Iran" in introduction, because Safavids were not a dynasty of nation-state. They were Shiite religious group which sought to create a Shiite State and not only within Azerbaijan or Iran but beyond those lands. Moreover, there are few references that assert that initially state was claimed over Azerbaijan, like: "Ismail went on a conquest campaign, capturing Tabriz in July 1501, where he enthroned himself the Shāh of Azerbaijan" (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.)
- So claiming it's Safavid dynasty of Iran, especially given diverse Safavid background, is like claiming Islamic Caliphate of Iraq or Roman Empire of Italy. And especially because, Khodabandeh14 or other users cannot produce facts that Safavid rulers referred to their country as State of Iran, they referred to it as Safavid state. Iran did not exist as a geographic and political entity for a while before Safavid ascent to the throne. Atabəy (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was not requesting a content argument. I am hoping you'll propose something like WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)