Altetendekrabbe (talk | contribs) |
→wikistalking/wikihounding Issue: new section |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and <big>[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEpoZlBGeXVlTFl1ZGxjWjhKN3B6RWc6MQ&ndplr=1 here]</big>!--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and <big>[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEpoZlBGeXVlTFl1ZGxjWjhKN3B6RWc6MQ&ndplr=1 here]</big>!--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] ([[User talk:Pharos|talk]]) 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== wikistalking/wikihounding Issue == |
|||
Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking.2FWikihounding]]. |
|||
I've placed a notice on the incident board but didn't get a proper response (one of the editors said he'd like a response by the user being reported first and has not replied after the response since two days and the other one hasn't fully read the complaint). The activities of the editor in question are escalating, so I thought it was necessary to report it here. |
|||
Interestingly, one of the editors the reported editor is 'recruiting' by canvassing is the already warned edit-warring editor Swift&silent (refer to the section on edit warring on your talk page and the reported canvassing links on the incident board). --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:16, 19 October 2011
Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC
Hi Ed! I just wanted to write a personal alert that I had nominated the article for FA status.
Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, Ed!
- The article has no opposes and three formidable supports, FA juggernaut Malleus Fatuorum and two experienced economists & Wikipedians (Protonk and Volunteer Marek). Protonk suggested that I renew my requests for volunteer reviewers.
- The article has a section on probability and measure theory that may especially interest you.
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
More Esoglou edit warring
Why is Esoglou allowed to edit war on the Ecumenical councils article and also on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff article? He put a citation request in on my contribution that there were councils before the Ecumenical councils.[1] THATS after I listed the actual councils and even wikilinked to the wiki articles and on some of those councils and then even included dates as well. So now why would I have to source that World War I happened before World War II? Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Esoglou and Richard do this as a means to frustrate contributors. God knows Esoglou can continue and if he messes up it's oops sorry get over it but I get ANI, blocked or banned . Esoglou acts incompetent when caught violating rules and edit warring everyone should just get over it. At what point does this person's behavior and incompetence finally get called into check or are you going to continue to blame the growing list of editors that this person has racked up, frustrates and continue to allow them to edit war with their buddies against positions and facts that do not put their POV in a good light. With all the complains how is it that it is still everyone but Esoglou's fault? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now Esoglou has opened a complaint on editor Montalban [2] More of Esoglou can do what he wants and he's just a little dense is why he messes up [3] but God help you if you do, cause Esoglou is only selectively dense and he can figure out how to run people off of Wikipedia even though edit restrictions are lost on ol Esoglou. How many editor are you guys going to let him run off, or do this too? Let me guess though this is all me, right. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion. As for LoveMonkey's objection to my taking the dispute with Montalban to the noticeboard, surely it was high time to do so when discussion on the talk page had failed to stop an editor from persistently presenting a statement of his as fact by a) deleting references to reliable sources that disagreed with it, and b) misrepresenting as support for his statement a source that explicitly disagreed with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you have a look at MediaCityUK, it may need protection and maybe some blocks as both Malleus Fatuorum and Rangoon11 have breached WP:3RR on this page today and both know the rule. Mtking (edits) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can open a complaint at WP:AN3 if you wish. I have not counted the reverts, but it seems that the WP:MOS favors Malleus' side of the argument, preferring 'England' to 'UK'. It's the question of what is the most specific geographical unit that gives the actual location of this project. It doesn't seem to be a question of which sovereign state the project is located in. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking (edits) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you close them then. Mtking (edits) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have done so. Remember that the usual 3RR report expects a 3RR warning. For an experienced contributor, it might be enough if you notify them you are making the report. This gives them a chance to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you close them then. Mtking (edits) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking (edits) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I need to explain what is going on. The MediaCityUK page is being edited by imposters who claim they are improving it. To me it appears they have nothing else better to do than to irritate other editors in a rude and uncivil manner that goes against Wikipedia:Civility. If you want to block Rangoon, then it would symbolise what is wrong with Wikipedia at the moment and why the site is losing contributors. I feel alienated and disillusioned. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Two of the editors working there are well-known for their writing skills and their ability to improve articles. (I assume these are the people you call 'impostors'). If you don't like the result of their work, you should negotiate the matter at Talk:MediaCityUK. If you can't reach agreement there, consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I am mystified by what the dispute is about, but perhaps you can put it into words on the talk page. One idea is to put two versions side by side on the talk page and ask for opinions as to which is better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI
FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Re:AWB notes
Just to let you know where I'm getting these numbers, from the user edit count ex.. User edit count from there go to home then in the right-hand sidebar Automated edits it's from there I use the AWB stat's, as you see you have 26. Thanx for the nod, I was wondering if the stats help and I was under the impression I was accurate. Mlpearc powwow 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- More accurately, I have *no* edits under AWB. See this toolserver link. But it's fun to see the different ways one may try to find the answer. (AWB is also a company in Australia, and one time I referred to that AWB in the edit summary). One edit I can't explain. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time to harden (by either talk page access removal and/or block extension) the block for this IP. See this, this, and this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If he's only abusing admins as a group, let him vent. Since he won't file a proper unblock template, most likely he'll get no further response (unless you provide it). He's also making it less likely he'll ever be unblocked. I suggest you unwatch his page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, tpa rmvd by another admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Climate Change Guide
I've unblocked him. Thanks for the heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a question
Hi EdJohnston, I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. I have been told long ago by an editor that if one editor makes an edit on an article with notable sources and another editor disagrees with that editor and the notable source cited and consider it npov, the other editor should not delete the edit and sources of the first editor but instead should make their case underneath with another notable source backing up their case. Apparently this is the protocol on Wiki. Is this correct? I have always kept to this policy and it is quite strange when I don't see others doing it as well. Have I been poorly advised or something? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't mentioned the name of any article for me to review. I do notice one diplomatic comment that you made recently. Thank you for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is Halaqah again. See here [4]. This is just one of many. They have also resulted to placing tags without discussing see [5] and [6] and here [7] see bottom in particular as they seem to be confusing themselves about the notability on an author. Instead of justifying why they have placed the tag in the article in the first place when questioned and asked to provide sources, they speedily removed the tag they have placed without even commenting as in here [8]. It begs the question why put the tag in the first place then? They have also resulted in placing numerous tags at the end or middle of numerous sentences such as "dubious"; "or"; "who" etc on the Medieval history of the Serer people as you can see for yourself here [9]. The "who" tag in particular was the biggest shocker because it was very apparent that section was talking about Abu Bakr the 11th century Almoravid. This person is not going to stop what they are doing to Serer related articles in fact, in their own words they "will be back". They even said in the Senegal talk page - the Almoravids didn't bring Islam in the Senegambia without any source when in fact, all notable sources proved otherwise, and in the Serer people article, they provide a source (Asante) which actually proved that it was in fact the Almoravids who brought Islam through wars. If this wasn't serious it would be funny. Lest not beat about the bush, lest call call a spade a spade. The edit evidence is to paint a postive light about Islam and the Serer people's history of strong resistance against Islamisation for nearly a thousand years as backed up by the notable authors in the relevant articles and sections. Sources demonstrating that including the long and bitter wars between Serer religion and Islam religion have been deleted and a more pro Islam edit added. Serer related articles are now a joke and I haven't got the energy nor the time to resolve this person's edits. I have learned my lesson from the last time and will never again make a complaint against this editor. As you can see there is a greater issue going on but I just needed to know specifically whether the advise I was previously given was correct and what are my options (excluding making a complaint).
- ThanksTamsier (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The location of this dispute seems to be Serer people. You are participating at Talk:Serer people which is good. Extremely long posts make it hard to see what people are disagreeing about. Consider going one step at a time and see if you can get agreement on one small section. For instance, offer two alternatives on the talk page for a particular section and see how many people support each version. See WP:Dispute resolution for other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Need your opinion here as an uninvolved member
Hi Ed, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party [10]Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Atabey again
Hi Ed, Please note the following comment by Atabey [11]. It is directly inflammatory against Kurdo777 where he is generalizing about a country. The comment is actually meant to be inflammatory in a discrete way. He has been warned numerous times and I believe it is time for him to be banned fully from all AA (widely construed to include Iran, Turkey , Caucasus). I am not sure how long Wikipedia is going to tolerate such behaviour. I believe since you have had experience with this, you can take care of this without me reporting him to the current Arbcomm. Recall here: [12]. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is bad accusation. I just said that WP:RS sources exist mentioning those flags (in response to Atabe's comment to Kurdo777). Howevr, Atabek's comment to Kurdo777 above was inflammatory. As per Arbcomm, it has not been declined or accepted yet. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
errant charges
[13] and [14] appear to me to be rather improper edits by "Count Iblis" and "Russavia." The latter seems oblivious to any thought of acknowledging any misdeeds, and the former seems quite encouraged by such acts <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unlikely that anything we say will influence their thinking one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
[[The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)
Hello, Can you please unprotect The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song) because it officially charted at number 87 in Australia Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This was not protected because users seem not to agree it was released as a single, it was protected because it didn't chart yet, and thus didn't meet WP:SONGS, but now it has officially charted in Australia. Nobody ever said that it's not a single, it is a single, go see the revision history on the page, the only reason it kept getting redirected to it's parent album, is because it didn't chart at the time, but now it has officially charted in Australia and in New Zealand, and has been announced via numerous sources that it's the sixth single from Teenage Dream and it deserves its own page. Here are some sources: Katy Perry's official website announces it as a single Billboard.com announces it as a single.
The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)
Please unprotect the page. It has now entered the New Zealand official singles chart, so it's automatically encyclopedic; it's been released on 28th September btw source ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Make this proposal at a suitable talk page. For instance at Talk:Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album)#Anyone working on page for The One That Got Away? See if the others agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: Katy Perry song protection
The release as a single (as you said at my talkpage) is not a justification for creation, but the charts are, and now it charted. The problem now is that Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk · contribs) made a copy-pasted move to The One That Got Away (song). The One That Got Away (song) has to be redirected to The One That Got Away because there are two other songs called "The One That Got Away", if you could do a history merge that would be great. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It will be at least six hours until I can look into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your redirect takes care of it no merge appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Enforcement=
Ed, You have been involved with this case before: [15] and put the last enforcement. Please see the request for enforcement [16]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"Indefinite" Topic Ban Regarding Longevity
EdJohnston,
I have put out an unofficial request for comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#Longevity-Related_Issues
regarding when/if I my topic-ban regarding the subject of longevity should be lifted. I do think the punishment was a bit harsh (in particular, the "broadly interpreted" comment). I think, for example, one should at least be allowed to make talk-page comments, if not edit the main article, when appropriate.
I also think that "indefinitely" could be better or worse than "one year." David in DC had indicated to me privately that "one year and one day" was too harsh. So, I'd like to hear your opinion. If the responses are positive, then we can discuss the next step.Ryoung122 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Essay on AE
I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there ED, VASCO here, longtime no "see" (unfortunately, i come due to disruption stuff once again :(),
User:Ruizinho18 took it upon himself to insert the history of this Portuguese football club in PORTUGUESE (!), ripe in POV/WEASEL (i can translate parts for you if you request it). Upon a polite message from me suggesting that he took his "game" to PT.WIKI (don't know their views on POV there, but that's for the guys there to watch out), also asking for him not to engage in OR or (the twice-mentioned) POV, his reply was the following: change (on purpose or not) IP address, insert the same junk in article.
Of course i am not going to talk with this chap anymore, given the feedback i am getting (the dynamic IPs would not help my case also), your suggestion man? Attentively, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected Gondomar S.C.. I don't know what you mean about the Portuguese Wikipedia, since the history of their Gondomar article does not show him making similar edits there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! Misunderstood again, sigh...What i meant about the PT.WIKI was simple: since he writes in Portuguese - to irritate people or because he does not know English, i choose the second out of good faith - i suggested he did there what he did here, at least the language would be the correct, i did not imply he had already written there. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Enforcement
I would also like the sanctions to apply to User:Sayig1 here: [17] . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
This might be of intrest?
I noted the question asked here, and thought this might be of interest to you. It lists the editing restrictions which may be applied under the Heading of Remedies in the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom. Under the Heading of Probation for disruptive editors it clearly links to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which clearly states that:
- Probation (supervised editing): The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator. Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior.
- Revert restriction: Usually, the user is limited to a certain number of reverts (usually 1) per page/topic per period of time (usually: 24 hours or 1 week) – exceptions, such as obvious vandalism, may apply. The user is additionally required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Users who exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion are usually blocked. See also WP:1RR or WP:0RR.
- Topic ban: The user is prohibited from editing either (1) making any edits in relation to a particular topic, (2) particular pages that are specified in the ban; and/or, (3) any page relating to a particular topic. Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages. Users who violate such bans may be blocked.
It is therefore possible to not only place a user on probation but to have them banned from pages. I hope this is useful? --Domer48'fenian' 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Dont worry, Ed, that was my second and last revert. I can understand replacement of sources, with better ones, but complete removal of sources, and even {{reflist}} template? I am open for discussion, so please help in this. Counter source would be good, and not just blind revert. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! I left you a message on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respond. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- One of the three people who are reverting should open a WP:Request for comment at Talk:House of Kotromanić, to decide what (if any) nationality should be listed for this family. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you, i or we remove this edit , as it is unsourced and questionable, and add reflist template, and other things article need? Also, Ed, 3RR goes for 3 edits in a day, and as i edited this article only two times in article history, while first time in introduction of sources, and other one revert of removed sources, i feel that your 3RR warning is very misplaced, specially when several obvious wikipedia guidelines are violated. And, even more, Surtsicna do want to cooperate very well and polite, and we are already talking, so... Rokonja's edits are not comparable. Anyway, i dont want to be in the middle of questionable ARBMAC interpretation. So, can i continue to edit article in order to fix it, or we need a mediator who will be only one to edit it. (in that situation, that would be you, i guess)? Current version, that points us on false info, and which is without even one source, cannot and should not stay there for long... --WhiteWriter speaks 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, we are no longer counting edits, but we are asking:
- Who is willing to participate in the discussion?
- Who has any actual ideas on how to identify nationality of a ruling family in the Balkans?
- Anyone who continues to revert without participating on the talk page risks being sanctioned. It seems to me that you and Surtsicna might be willing to discuss, but nothing has been heard yet from Rokonja. Surtsicna's suggestion (on the talk page) that Queen Victoria was of German descent seems to be the most astute observation so far. Should we put 'German' in the box for her nationality? EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, we are no longer counting edits, but we are asking:
- Can you, i or we remove this edit , as it is unsourced and questionable, and add reflist template, and other things article need? Also, Ed, 3RR goes for 3 edits in a day, and as i edited this article only two times in article history, while first time in introduction of sources, and other one revert of removed sources, i feel that your 3RR warning is very misplaced, specially when several obvious wikipedia guidelines are violated. And, even more, Surtsicna do want to cooperate very well and polite, and we are already talking, so... Rokonja's edits are not comparable. Anyway, i dont want to be in the middle of questionable ARBMAC interpretation. So, can i continue to edit article in order to fix it, or we need a mediator who will be only one to edit it. (in that situation, that would be you, i guess)? Current version, that points us on false info, and which is without even one source, cannot and should not stay there for long... --WhiteWriter speaks 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- One of the three people who are reverting should open a WP:Request for comment at Talk:House of Kotromanić, to decide what (if any) nationality should be listed for this family. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Rokonja does not appear to have any intention to discuss anything whatsoever.[18] Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
About the photos
I perfectly know what Wikipedia is all about, but when something is wrong you need to fix it. I am not going to an edid war here, but when someone reverts over and over again and putting something clearly wrong, what should someone do? I have tried to communicate, but without luck...Nochoje (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JonCTalk 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
edit war
dear edjohnston,
i would like to address a concern i have.
user User:Swift&silent reverted my edit here [19] under a cover of an incomprehensible and ludicrous charge [20]. the content was clearly wp:or, an assessment reinforced by the fact that he removed two sources that are easily verifiable i.e. that prove that i'm right. it also turns out that this was his fifth consecutive revert. the animosity he has towards User:Hassanhn5 is getting out of hand, affecting other uninvolved editors and pages. i am addressing the issue here as i don't want to get involved on the noticeboard. regards.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see only four edits by Swift&silent altogether and one of them is not a revert. The diff #1 you provide above does not show any removal of references. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- this is his initial edit [21]. he backed up his claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them supports his claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told him that his edit constituted wp:or [22]. he then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [23], as they are easily verifiable. however, he didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [24]. i suspect that the other books he provided is just another cover for his wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and he is disingenuous beyond belief..-- mustihussain (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- If either side of this dispute continues to revert without getting a talk page consensus, the article may be placed under full protection. Please try more discussion on the talk page. I note that Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is the logical place for alternative views of the outcome of this war to be presented. That article is very nuanced and already cites many of the conflicting assessments. It would be surprising if the summary article on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts were to give a different outcome for the 1965 war than the article which is already dedicated to that war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- agree with your points. the alternative views are already well-represented on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965-page, and a summery article on the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts-page is not the right place for such elaboration. however, i don't think s&s will ever understand this. hence, i suggest full protection.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If either side of this dispute continues to revert without getting a talk page consensus, the article may be placed under full protection. Please try more discussion on the talk page. I note that Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is the logical place for alternative views of the outcome of this war to be presented. That article is very nuanced and already cites many of the conflicting assessments. It would be surprising if the summary article on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts were to give a different outcome for the 1965 war than the article which is already dedicated to that war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- this is his initial edit [21]. he backed up his claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them supports his claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told him that his edit constituted wp:or [22]. he then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [23], as they are easily verifiable. however, he didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [24]. i suspect that the other books he provided is just another cover for his wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and he is disingenuous beyond belief..-- mustihussain (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- EdJohnston I agree with your point. I added that 'war ended with UN madated ceasefire though neutral sources opined' (later changed to 'sources disputed') that it was an Indian victory, backed by various sources. When mustihussain reverted the edit I took heed of his edit and added more sources and removed some old ones but one source remained that wasn't re-inforcing the content in question. mustihussain reverted [25] on the basis that one source was not reinforcing content and removed all five sources and the material. Anyway let me assure you I will discuss this matter thoroughly before making any changes to the said article. Thank You. Swift&silent (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- you also deliberately misattributed 2 other articles. nice try though.-- mustihussain (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Those I had removed myself. Nothing explains why you did this [26]. If one of the five ref wasnt matching then you should have removed that particular ref instead of deleting 4 refs and content. Swift&silent (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- your behaviour clearly demonstrates that you misattribute sources. of course you had to remove the articles *after* i found out that they didn't support your claims. the question is: why did you use them *and* wolpert's book in the first place when it's clear that they don't support your claims? could you answer that?-- mustihussain (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Older sanction update
Hey there. You might like to take a look at a preliminary assessment of what needs to be updated and offer comments on the talk page there? Feel free to point out if I've forgotten anything. — Coren (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
wikistalking/wikihounding Issue
Please see [27]].
I've placed a notice on the incident board but didn't get a proper response (one of the editors said he'd like a response by the user being reported first and has not replied after the response since two days and the other one hasn't fully read the complaint). The activities of the editor in question are escalating, so I thought it was necessary to report it here.
Interestingly, one of the editors the reported editor is 'recruiting' by canvassing is the already warned edit-warring editor Swift&silent (refer to the section on edit warring on your talk page and the reported canvassing links on the incident board). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)