BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Category:Canadian athletes: sorry |
|||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
:I didn't attempt to close that discussion. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. If you look at either my deletion log reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_athletes&action=edit&redlink=1] or my edit summaries when I replaced the deleted category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=201301181210&limit=20&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=JamesBWatson&namespace=&dir=next], you will see that I was acting on the basis of a speedy deletion nomination made on the basis of an earlier discussion in February 2011. However, I have no quarrel with what you have done. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
:I didn't attempt to close that discussion. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. If you look at either my deletion log reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_athletes&action=edit&redlink=1] or my edit summaries when I replaced the deleted category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=201301181210&limit=20&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=JamesBWatson&namespace=&dir=next], you will see that I was acting on the basis of a speedy deletion nomination made on the basis of an earlier discussion in February 2011. However, I have no quarrel with what you have done. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Ah, I see. I'm sorry for not spotting that you were referring to an earlier CFD, and that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Category%3ACanadian+athletes×tamp=20130118001755 categ had not be tagged] for the CFD which was open. |
|||
:Thanks for the clarification. Do you want me to amend my closing statement to reflect this? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Brigantes== |
==Brigantes== |
Revision as of 21:30, 10 February 2013
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Page deleted
My page was deleted and I don't understand, since it was in sandbox for me to practice. I intended to revise and make it up to the wikipedia standards and send it for review. I don't believe the page intent was for advertisement or such. Please explain. Daniel Danilczyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.198.235 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- What page are you referring to? At present you have given me no way of knowing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You recently deleted a page I wrote on Benji Boko the english DJ. I emailed the page to him to look at to make sure I got some details correct before I went ahead and uploaded it. He accidentally uploaded the page on his own account which I believe is the reason for the page being deleted. The article its self was not promotional nor blatant advertising, I do not know him personally I am just a fan of his. I wish to re upload the page I had written, will this be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92 Wilson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi James, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Apa Dengan Rina under WP:NACD. My reason is listed above. I do, however, consider this a bold closure so please let me know if you disagree with my actions. I will talk page stalk this section for a reply. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me there was a clear consensus to keep, and after two weeks there was no reason to leave the discussion open any longer, so I think you did exactly the right thing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Rangeblock reason
Hi James, would you please consider changing your block reason of 199.88.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to {{anonblock}} so that people on the range have some more information on what to do next? Maybe something like {{anonblock}}<!--Almost nothing but vandalism for years.-->. Regards, 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done As a matter of interest, can you tell me what difference it makes to what information people on the range see? Since I have never tried to edit from a range-blocked IP address, I have never seen the message that is shown. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's MediaWiki:Blockedtext, exactly the same as any other block, except $7 = 199.88.64.0/18 (for example). Primarily {{anonblock}} gives them a link to the request an account process rather than them having to go through two pages and have to read through heaps of stuff to get there. Plus on a range (as with well used single IPs) there is a much larger chance of 'innocent' people being blocked and {{anonblock}} doesn't directly accuse them of being responsible for years of vandalism. The main reason for the html comment (which isn't rendered in MediaWiki:Blockedtext - ie blocked user can't see it) is a reminder for yourself exactly what the block was for or for a more specfic reason for the block which the blocked user doesn't need to know. For example I've seen one from MaterialScientist which was (from memory) "{{schoolblock}}<!-- Range used by UkBoxen -->", which in terms of ACC, directed where I should look for a connection and where the checkusers should look for a connection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is very helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, I have tried to edit from blocked IP addresses, in fact that is why I created this account years ago, and I also quite frequently try to edit via a blocked proxy, in order to check whether it still is a proxy. However, I had no idea that using "anonblock" made any difference to what was seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah it does but you have to use the curly brackets as well. But it just to the extent that the template has more information on why there is a block and what to do about it than "Vandalism". That's why {{blocked proxy}} (or {{checkuserblock}}) are and can be used as a blocking reason, they provide the blocked user with specific information about the block (because the template is called and rendered). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's MediaWiki:Blockedtext, exactly the same as any other block, except $7 = 199.88.64.0/18 (for example). Primarily {{anonblock}} gives them a link to the request an account process rather than them having to go through two pages and have to read through heaps of stuff to get there. Plus on a range (as with well used single IPs) there is a much larger chance of 'innocent' people being blocked and {{anonblock}} doesn't directly accuse them of being responsible for years of vandalism. The main reason for the html comment (which isn't rendered in MediaWiki:Blockedtext - ie blocked user can't see it) is a reminder for yourself exactly what the block was for or for a more specfic reason for the block which the blocked user doesn't need to know. For example I've seen one from MaterialScientist which was (from memory) "{{schoolblock}}<!-- Range used by UkBoxen -->", which in terms of ACC, directed where I should look for a connection and where the checkusers should look for a connection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Azerbaijani people
Hi JamesBWatson. What must I do with this [1], [2], [3]? He don't want to discuss on the talk page. Divot (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Sock puppetry is not enough
I'm growing rather tired of this senseless round of bad acts. If PeterAmbrosia's newest sockpuppets User:GalacticWarriorOfLight and User:DupreDuper wasn't enough for the prime purpose of editing the VGMaps article, he has resorted to harassment. Most of his sockpuppets were taken care before until now. I request you to sort this problem out in any way you can. After that I really want to move on without any more of this nonsense. Thanks in advance for assistance. Deltasim (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have blocked GalacticWarriorOfLight as a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, reverted such of that account's edits that had not already been reverted, and semi-protected the article and its talk page. Unfortunately, I don't expect that will completely stop the problem, but it may help to slow it down to some extent, and it's as much as I can offer. As for DupreDuper, it's not clear to me that this is another PeterAmbrosia sockpuppet, but you could either try posting to WP:SPI and asking for a checkuser, or alternatively contact a checkuser directly and ask for help, if you think it worth doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Disruption agan
After one month block expired, user again started POV national agenda, by removing the "wrong" nation. This is only minor thing, and not important, but please, send some neutral warning, or something. --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about the subject, and so can't judge how good or bad the edit was. However, even if it was, as you say, disruptive, it seems to have no connection with the reason for the previous blocks, which was edit warring. Since you evidently know more about the subject than I do, you are no doubt more capable than I am of giving a suitable warning, if one is justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, you are right, sorry for disturbing. I will warn him... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions and a request
I am requesting that you remove the following unsupported accusation from my User Talk Page:
"I see editing to promote a point of view"
You made it as part of this edit.
Since you didn't supply evidence (you know, diffs and such), one could easily misinterpret your comment to mean that I have edited to promote something other than a neutral point of view as defined and required by Wikipedia editing policy. I've done no such thing. Alternatively, if you feel there is some merit to your accusation, and you would be so kind as to bring your comment into compliance with WP:NPA - Never acceptable Personal Attacks (Example 5) policy by including the required evidence, we can discuss it further and see if we can find the source of your misperception. Thanks in advance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no way that that comment can be regarded as a "personal attack". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously it can, as I've just indicated. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Is there a reason you are floating that allegation about my personal behavior without providing evidence? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Stating that your edits appeared to promote a point of view is not a personal attack, even if you think it is mistaken. I have no intention of spending my time finding a whole string of edits that promoted a point of view. However, since you ask, I will give you two diffs to edits where you referred to a particular disputed view as "inaccurate and unfounded", and another view as "the truth": [4], [5]. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't state that my edits "appeared" to promote a point of view, which would have softened your allegation a little; you said "I see editing to promote a point of view" — but yes, both are indeed personal attacks when you cast them out there without supporting evidence, regardless of what I may think. It's policy. But it is not my intention to lecture you about policy specifics, and I totally sympathize with your sigh of exasperation (I'd rather be doing something else, too), so I'll try to be brief. Your last comment, along with your diff selection, has revealed to me that there is indeed a misperception here as I suspected. Bear with me for a moment longer, then I'll get out of your hair.
- You are operating under the misperception that this is still a situation of "particular disputed views", as did I until not too long ago. It's not. It's no more disputed than whether the earth is flat or spheroid (yes, you can still find people espousing the "unfounded and inaccurate" view, but WP:NPOV prohibits us from elevating and comparing them as equally "disputed views"). The "inaccurate and unfounded" and "[media] were criticized for failing to debunk the charges and report the truth" wording is not mine; it is conveyed by countless sources deemed reliable for assertion of fact as required by Wikipedia. (I cited FAIR.org and FactCheck.org only because the opposing editor had just introduced them, but reliable academic sources convey the same thing.) I apologize to you for assuming you were aware that this NPOV matter has already been repeatedly dragged through the stages of Dispute Resolution multiple times, always with the same conclusion. Almost always with the same aggitating editor at the helm (see Talk:Swiftboating/Archive_2#POV_-_Section_DISPUTE for just one example). My edits in the 2 diffs you provided (it's the very same edit in each diff, by the way, with the only difference being that one is under a different header) were compliant with WP:NPOV, and in no way "promoted a point of view". I can see how there might be that perception to someone totally unfamiliar with the subject and it's history, but that simply is not the case in this instance. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, if your concern really is, as your initial comment in this section suggests, to have the statement removed from your talk page, then why don't you just remove the whole thing? JamesBWatson (talk)
- Because that's not what my concern is, and that action wouldn't address my actual concern. My concern is that you have made an incorrect allegation about me (regardless of whether it was made in good faith, accidental or malicious - it's still incorrect), and I'd like to see that corrected. If I delete it (or argue and bitch about it), that just means that I disagree, which is not what I wish to see conveyed to the reader. If you remove it (or strike it, or do that admin-voodoo that removes it from view from all non-admins, whatever), that prevents the reader from getting the wrong idea about me. That's my big concern here. I can take criticism when justified, but that isn't the case here. So what do you say? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, it seems that the examples I chose were not such unambiguously good ones as I thought, but the general tone of much of your recent editing, not just those two edits, has been to support a particular point of view which other editors have opposed. Whether you think their opposition is reasonable or not does not alter that fact. I don't see how "I see editing to promote a point of view" differs from "Some of your editing appears to me to promote a point of view": it seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. However, the fundamental point is that, no matter what the exact details of what I said, and no matter whether my impression was justified or not, expressing the opinion that your editing sought to promote a point of view comes nowhere near to being an "attack" on you. However, since your main concern seems to be that you want the declined unblock request with the remark about promoting a point of view removed from your talk page, and since for some reason you think that my removing it will somehow be better than your using it, then I will remove it, although personally I think it is yet another distinction without a difference. My final remark on this issue is this: I had never, so far as I remember, come across you before I saw the unblock request that has led to this.
However, if the amount of fuss you have made about this one remark, and the belligerent attitude you show, are typical of your approach to other editors who do things you disagree with, then it is not surprising that you have such a long block record, though it may be surprising that you have not yet been blocked indefinitely.JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC) - Having looked more closely at the block record, I think my remark about it, although made in good faith, was unfair, and I withdraw it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, it seems that the examples I chose were not such unambiguously good ones as I thought, but the general tone of much of your recent editing, not just those two edits, has been to support a particular point of view which other editors have opposed. Whether you think their opposition is reasonable or not does not alter that fact. I don't see how "I see editing to promote a point of view" differs from "Some of your editing appears to me to promote a point of view": it seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. However, the fundamental point is that, no matter what the exact details of what I said, and no matter whether my impression was justified or not, expressing the opinion that your editing sought to promote a point of view comes nowhere near to being an "attack" on you. However, since your main concern seems to be that you want the declined unblock request with the remark about promoting a point of view removed from your talk page, and since for some reason you think that my removing it will somehow be better than your using it, then I will remove it, although personally I think it is yet another distinction without a difference. My final remark on this issue is this: I had never, so far as I remember, come across you before I saw the unblock request that has led to this.
- Well, now you've made me sigh in exasperation — no easy feat. You and I have indeed crossed paths several times before; always amicably, which is why this discourse from you strikes me as completely uncharacteristic. (This instance from your Talk page archives comes to mind, but I can try to find the others if you require.) The reason I am making such a "fuss" about your personal attack is because I take my efforts to edit according to WP:NPOV very seriously. You erroneously accused me of editing to promote a point of view, so I asked you to substantiate or withdraw that accusation; simple, and no drama. I figured you'd redact those 9 words, and then this mess could be relegated to the archives and forgotten. Instead, you backpeddled your accusation to say I only "appeared" to be promoting POV (and offered diffs), rather than simply withdraw the erroneous accusation. When those diffs were shown to be "not such unambiguously good ones", and in fact are shown to not support, but actually contradict, your attack, you shifted gears again and doubled-down with another diff-less mischaracterization: "the general tone of much of your recent editing, not just those two edits, has been to support a particular point of view which other editors have opposed". That's completely backwards, and outrageous. My recent edits, along with the edits of several others, have been to support the reliably sourced Neutral Point Of View which one editor personally opposes (just as he has in numerous past Talk page, Noticeboard and RfC discussions that have concluded against his personal POV pushing). Please, just look at the article recent edit history for once so that we have our facts straight.
- No one likes to admit when they've made a mistake, I get that, but all this backpeddling and equivocation is unnecessary. Folks make mistakes all the time, and I just figured you made an understandable minor misread of the situation, so I asked you to remove that 9-word unsubstantiated accusation, that's all. But after reading your "final remark on this issue", I am beginning to wonder.
- you want the declined unblock request with the remark about promoting a point of view removed
- No, that is a mischaracterization of what I said. I asked if you would please remove just the 9-word attack because it is erroneous, not the whole declined unblock response.
- (Removing declined unblock request, as a favour to the user, who has asked me to do so on my talk page.)
- No, again that is a mischaracterization of what I said. I never requested that you remove the declined unblock request; I can handle that part. I requested that you remove the unsubstantiated "I see editing to promote a point of view" verbiage. Would you mind doing that, please? If you genuinely did misunderstand what I have been repeatedly requesting, then perhaps this has made it clear for you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- No one likes to admit when they've made a mistake, I get that, but all this backpeddling and equivocation is unnecessary. Folks make mistakes all the time, and I just figured you made an understandable minor misread of the situation, so I asked you to remove that 9-word unsubstantiated accusation, that's all. But after reading your "final remark on this issue", I am beginning to wonder.
- Sorry that I forgot I had had contact with you before. Evidently the example you give, which was from over six months ago, had got swept away from my memory by the water under the bridge. I don't think that I have been "backpeddling". To me, "I see editing to promote a point of view" means that there is something which to me looks like editing to promote a point of view: what else can "I see" mean? Evidently what I intended to be a different form of words saying essentially the same thing came across to you as meaning something different, and I am sorry that my unfortunate choice of words gave a misleading impression. When I wrote "my final remark on this issue" above, I really intended it to be that, but in light of what you have written above, I will say little more.
- When I looked at your unblock request, the central point was whether you were edit warring. I found several edits in which you added the same content repeatedly. (You also made other changed in one or more of those edits, but that is irrelevant.) Making the same edit, or substantially the same edit, is what "edit warring" means. However, the edit warring was on a very small scale, and in itself, without other context, would not have justified the block, so I considered other factors. I found that you had previously had several blocks for edit warring, which in itself changes things, as you clearly already knew that edit warring was unacceptable, and had had an opportunity to get acquainted with Wikipedia's standards on edit warring, which in itself justifies blocking sooner than would be reasonable under other circumstances. I also found that, apart from the particular edits which repeated the same changes, your whole conduct in relation to the article in question was combative, and you had been expended a significant amount of time in trying to ensure that the content of the article reflected what you clearly regard as the correct view of events, in the face of another editor who was trying to impose a different view of events. It may well be that your view of the matter is fully justified, and that the other editor was completely wrong, but that does not alter the fact that you were editing to keep a particular point of view in the article. In my view, this puts the very small-scale edit warring in a different light, because even though the actual reverts may have been small in number, they were part of a larger-scale pattern of repeated attempts to keep the article in line with what you believed to be the correct view. That is what I meant by "editing to promote a point of view". No doubt I could have chosen different wording, and if I had done so then maybe I would have avoided giving you offence, I don't know. However, I have an offer to make to you. I am willing to post a message to your talk page, stating that my statement about "editing to promote a point of view" was not intended to be a personal attack, and that it was not intended to imply any judgement as to whether that the point of view in question was wrong or biased, but only that the rather small-scale edit warring took place in the context of a larger-scale dispute over the point of view that the article should reflect. I am also willing to add that I accept that the point of view you favoured is not a biased or unreasonable one, and that I am sorry that my choice of words gave you an impression that I did not intend. I can post that statement to your talk page on its own, or I can restore the declined unblock request and put the statement after it to give it context, whichever you prefer. I still do not regard expressing the opinion that you were editing to promote a point of view as a "personal attack", and I am not willing to refactor the declined unblock request to remove or strike out those words, but what I have suggested should, I hope, make it clear to anyone who sees the declined request that it was not intended as an attack or an accusation of bias. Although that is not exactly what you asked for, it seems to me that it covers the main substance of your grievance. In your original post which started this discussion, you said that one could easily misinterpret [my] comment to mean that [you] have edited to promote something other than a neutral point of view", and the clarification I have offered would explicitly state that I did not intend to imply that.
- If you are willing to accept that offer then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed response, both here and in your email. I also appreciate you taking the extra step of making an offer, in an effort to help move things along to an amicable resolution. Since I'm sending a reply to your email momentarily, I'll include my response there. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
edit on VTR Open
Hi, i see that you think i am a vandal, and you revise my edit but it isn't a vandalic action. Nicolas Jarry is a chilean player, not american as a person continue to change the nation. So please not consider my change an act of vandalism, please. It was only a simple correction. Best Wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.235.242 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I suggest in future making sure you use an edit summary, though, to make it clear what you are doing, to avoid giving the wrong impression. (Use the box labelled "Edit summary" below the main editing area when you edit a page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. But if you see in the edit history i made this change also a week ago and the same person change the country and i explanied the edit that i've made. I will hear your suggestion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.235.242 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see that an editor with an IP address similar to yours made the same edit nearly a week ago, but I don't see anywhere where you explained the edit. I again suggest using edit summaries to explain, and if you need to give a longer explanation than is possible in the edit summary box, then do so on the article's talk page.
- I suggest getting an account, so that in cases like this people can see that you made the edit a week ago, as otherwise it is not at all clear that it is the same person editing. There are other advantages in having an account, too.
- These sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and more, say that he is a USA player. The only source I have been able to find anywhere that suggests that he is Chilean is this one. It may be that that source is much more reliable than all the others put together, but on the face of it, it seems more likely that he is a USA player. If you do believe that you have reliable sources that show that one to be right and all the others o be wrong, then contact the otehr editor on his/her talk apge, and explain. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. But if you see in the edit history i made this change also a week ago and the same person change the country and i explanied the edit that i've made. I will hear your suggestion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.235.242 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Killshot
I just watched the DVD - he's dead - how would you 'reference' that? Just a fact -- sorry that annoys you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't annoy me. I wouldn't have lasted on Wikipedia a tenth as long as I have if I took such things personally. However, when I see an editor whose edting consists of adding such comments as "gangster wannabe" to articles, I tend to be doubtful, and in such cases unsourced edits are likely to be questioned. By Wikipedia policy, if anyone challenges your editing, you must not repeat the edit unless you can provide sources for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Watch the DVD -- I don't lie, why would i? You wiki-editor's 'don't take it personally' but you do love to wield your 'power' in mini-fiefdoms. If you met up with a contract killer in a bar, would YOU decide to team up with him? Gordon-Levitt (presumably) took this role to play a tough guy and change his image. And his wannabe character, after displaying anti-social behavior, tries to rob Rourkes character, another fact left out of the article. AGAIN, just the FACTS. You can't 'source' every word or phrase. Now, if i had said 'wannabe choreographer', then maybe you'd have reason to 'be doubtful' -- please, try to understand: if YOU have not seen the movie, you have NO authority on the matter.
My 'source' is the fact that i (just) watched the DVD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Accusing me of "loving to wield power" is not likely to improve your case. On the whole, it is more likely to help your case if you are civil to other editors, and avoid personal attacks, even if you think other editors don't deserve civility. Maybe you can't source every detail, but that does not alter the fact that Wikipedia policy is that any content that is challenged must not be included unless it is sourced. An anonymous person who comes along to Wikipedia and says "You can take my word for it, I have seen the evidence" is not a reliable source. Anyone can come here and make any such claim they like, and unfortunately many people do come here and make unjustified claims, sometimes out of dishonesty, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of incompetence. The use of such terms as "wannabe" does not, of course, mean that you must be wrong, but observation over the course of the six and a half years I have been contributing to Wikipedia shows that usually people who write like that, rather than in standard English, are people (commonly, but not always, children) whose approach is "I want to put this in this Wikipedia article, and the fact that I think it's right is enough", rather than people who are willing to carefully consider issues such as the need to make it clear that their edits are justified. (Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.) As for my having "no authority on the matter", I never claim to have authority over any content of any Wikipedia article. Rightly or wrongly, the way that Wikipedia works is not that people who have first hand experience have more authority than others, but that we require evidence which can be verified by anyone, whether they have first hand experience or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can verify authenticity by watching the film, which anyone can do, but/and yes, that is firsthand experience. If 1000 wiki-contributors 'voted' that the character is a 'wannabe', would that be enough 'proof' for you? -- i doubt it. We're not in a court of law here, requiring 'evidence' to convict; it's about a movie, for gawd's sake! What 'evidence' can YOU point to proving " ...Wayne shows up at the office of Carmen's boss wearing a suit..."? And Wiki's policy makes no logical sense; the film project disallows 'attribution' from IMDB.com, yet EVERY film entry puts a link to the film @ IMDB.com. Why? Your presumption/arguement is that site is fan-based, but so is Wiki! -- get real! AND, you do 'take it personally', as all wiki-power users do; that power is your little piece of 'fame', i don't fault you for that -- it must be thrilling for you. And, almost lastly, i am much older than you; you're a wannabe wannabe, definitely not a 'hipster'! Lastly, i won't bother to contribute anymore, so you "win". Yippee for you!
( I expect you to delete this exchange soon; get rid of the 'evidence', quick! ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.246.187 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's quite a bit of I didn't hear that there.
- More personal attacks.
- So how old am I? Clearly you must know, or you wouldn't know that you are older than me.
- etc, etc... JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: deleting my addition to the NPD page
I do refuse the allegation and find it entirely absurd to assume anyone's intention to violate anyone's copyrights by my attempt to add th section for the revised DSM-5 criteria.
The former part of the article -Symptoms- contains rephrased parts of DSM-IV - why isn't that removed then? Or in other words, if I would have included the DSM-5 criteria as "symptoms" and rephrased in my own wording, that would have been acceptable?
I assumed that it is acceptable to insert quotations into an article, as long as we add the reference to the source. And I did so, by adding the direct link to a publicly available document on the official DSM website. Among many others, the article "Narcissistic parents" also contains direct quotations from the original contents. And exactly because I "admitted" that the respective following part was from the DSM-5 document proves my honest intentions. Quite obviously, as I am sure you are also aware, if one doesn't "admit" the source, that imposes a problem, not when he/she "admits" it. Such "admittance" is rather termed as referring to the source.
What I added to the article was the latest available official list of the NPD criteria, without which the current article is outdated and offers no accurate information on the current consensus regarding this PD. I am very surprised that the addition was removed, especially because it would have been relevant up-to-date information, while the currently offered link in support of the new DSM-5 proposal is not available publicly, only leads to a log-in screen, therefore it offers no information on the new NPD criteria at all. The reader may only start wondering what are those.
Fine by me, and no blocking me is necessary. I have better ways to spend my time than 'fighting for my rights' to work for someone for free then receiving false absurd accusations in return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezustnap (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing my attention to your concerns. I will try to clarify some of the points you have raised. I hope this will be helpful to you.
- I never suggested that it was your intention to infringe copyright. However, people very often do so unintentionally, due to lack of understanding of copyright law, and that is what i thought had happened here.
- The belief that text copied from elsewhere is exempt from copyright law provided one cites one's source is a very common misunderstanding, which appears to stem at least in part from a confusion between the two quite different concepts of copyright and plagiarism. Plagiarism is using other people's work in such a way as to give the misleading impression it is your own, and clearly citing your source is a defence against any charge of plagiarism. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is using someone else's work without their permission, and telling the world that you are using someone else's work does not alter the fact that you do not have the copyright owner's permission. Copyright law is complicated, with all sorts of ifs and buts. However, it is commonly acceptable to make a brief quote of a sentence or so, but scarcely ever acceptable to copy substantial quantities of text, as you did.
- If, as you suggest, you have found other examples of copyright infringement, either in the same article or elsewehre, then please remove them, or, if you are uncertain, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Obviously, copyright infringement can be dealt with only when someone notices it and takes action. In this case, I dealt with the copyright problems taht i noticed, but there may well be more.
- The answer to how to deal with a lack of up to date content in an article is to add content in your own words. I know that doing so takes more effort and time, but it is, unfortunately, necessary.
- I am glad that you do not intend to "fight for your rights". People who come to Wikipedia with the attitude that they have "rights" here, and that they should fight and quarrel when they find others disagree with them, tend to be regarded as disruptive, and sooner or later tend to be blocked from editing. It is much more constructive to raise concerns with the other editors concerned in a collaborative spirit, with the aim of asking for clarification, discussing issues, and trying, ideally, to reach agreement, or, failing that, at least a solution which all parties are prepared to settle for.
- As I have already said above, I hope this attempt to clarify some of the issues will be helpful to you, but please do feel welcome to contact me again if you have any other questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
189.27.160.15
Hi, JamesBWatson, I see you blocked 189.27.160.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yesterday. Another IP address is doing the same changes. Regards. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- To begin with I was a bit puzzled, until I worked out that by 189.27.160.151 you meant 189.27.160.15, and by 87.113.202.181 you meant 187.113.202.181. However, I have now blocked the new IP address and semiprotected the articles edited by that one for a few days. I hope that will be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong JBW. Read this back to yourself and this time, place it in context within the section. The reference "pig ignorant" was NOT directed at the editor, it was uttered to describe the personality of the article subject who has chosen to involve herself in political commentary on the side of her own nation on a matter on which her ignorance is unequivocal. I gather that is not the issue here, but now I have cleared this up, it should now be evident that there was no personal attack by me. My deletion of an edit that is contrived from end to end to attack me is within site rules, furthermore this type of edit can also be removed by any intervening editor. Ask yourself one question, supposing I went back and reverted myself to restore the comment that referred to me as an "idiot", what exactly am I adding to Wikipedia? How can the continued display of such an edit be conducive for the site? So, I issue a warning. Was that unfair? Would it have been better that I did nothing? To all intents and purposes, that would have given the "new user" the green light that it is fine to go insulting people. The next action of this user is to remove every comment I have made on that talk page. Am I right in thinking you countenance this? I thought we were here to write an encyclopaedia. The user was warned that such behaviour was unacceptable, still free to edit, could have gone onto any article and made a positive contribution but opted to be disruptive. Do you still sense a fledgling good faith contributor here? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the situation. It is clear that, as you say, I misunderstood part of what you did. Re-reading your "pig-ignorant" comment in the light of what you have said here, I see that it can indeed be taken the way you said that you intended, referring to the subject of the article. However, it is also perfectly possible to read it as referring to the editor whose comment you were referring to: perhaps, if you haven't already done so, you may like to go back and re-read it, and see how it could be taken that way. It seems that you were guilty merely of making an unfortunate choice of words, which left your comment ambiguous, rather than of a personal attack, which is what I thought. Perhaps something like "...it shows her as pig ignorant and biased towards her nation's mindset..." would have been better, so as to avoid the possibility of your comment being read as "...it shows you as pig ignorant and biased towards her nation's mindset...", which is the way I read it. As for the removal of the other editor's comment, from your point of view it was an unprovoked personal attack, and removing it will therefore have seemed reasonable, but from the point of view of anyone who had read your comment the other way, it looked as though you were removing another editor's response to your personal attack. When the other editor then removed your comment, he/she had just seen you remove his/her comment, so, as far as he/she was concerned, he/she was only doing the same as you had done. I think it would have been better to have given the user a talk page message, explaining why you thought your removal of a comment was justified, while his/her removal of your comments wasn't. An immediate level four warning with no previous messages is justified only in very exceptional circumstances. Likewise, reporting to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is something that should normally be done after the editor has been given gentle explanations, has continued in the same way, has been given at least one sterner warning, and has still continued, not when a new user has just done a couple of things that are not acceptable. (There are rare exceptions, but that is the general rule.) You ask me "Am I right in thinking you countenance this?" No, I don't countenance it, but I think it would have been better to go further in assuming good faith and explaining the situation to the new user. Remember that he/she may well have wrongly thought, as I did, that he/she was responding to a personal attack, and also that in removing talk page comments he/she probably thought he/she was just doing the same as you had done. You ask me "Do you still sense a fledgling good faith contributor here?" I don't know. It may be that we had a bad-faith editor from the start, or it may be that we had a good faith contributor who, under the impression that you were being belligerent, made the mistake of joining in doing the same. It may be that we will never know which of those two was the case, but in a situation where either is possible you should start by assuming good faith, which you clearly didn't. The long and the short of all this is that, while I now see that you did not, as I first thought, intend to make a personal attack, nevertheless you (a) unfortunately wrote in a way which could easily be read that way, and (b) were much quicker than you might have been to jump on a newcomer, rather than trying to advise him/her. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
All right JBW, thanks for the explanation and for the alert message on my own talk page - if you wish to reply to this then you may do so here as I shall watch for developments. To be honest, I know the ambiguous comment was not taken as a personal insult by the other user because his own reply (the "idiot" statement) acknowledged my branding of the article subject as ignorant. Either way, I think that is finished now and I have nothing to add to the section. Another editor thought it best to restore the offensive edit but I have chosen to stand back as I really don't wish to inflame things. You see, after your message I was editing very uncomfortably because I have in the past received a block for a personal attack - I think you as admin have access to this type of review. The victim was an editor with whom I'd had a series of single-theme squabbles inside the past hours and when I addressed another editor arguing with him, I said something to the effect of "there is no point trying to explain this to someone with learning difficulties". That had been the second time I made an offensive remark and I suddenly found myself unable to edit. The interesting thing was that I really did not know that an indirect comment with no bad language could count as an attack but indeed it does. I appealed successfully so was very thankful to have the block lifted and I have had no more problems in that field - I merely adopted a new strategy for future edits. However that half hour of not being able to edit felt horrible, it was set to last 36 hours I think. My point is I know exactly how little can constitute a personal attack and to call a fellow editor "ignorant" goes deep into dangerous territory. Technically you could have blocked me given that past activity. I am glad you didn't, I just hope that I am not on any type of disciplinary ground. Meanwhile, regarding the other editor, I shall after what you said resort to gentler cautions if problems persist: I cannot be too quick to raise another AIV/ANI case as even I could see that this looks like harassment of a new editor. Now we're in the clear, I hope not to have any more trouble. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Advice?
Hello! I need some advice, and Peridon suggested maybe you could help me. I am considering whether to report a user for a years-long pattern of tendentious editing. A year ago he was taken to AN and threatened with a topic ban; the topic ban proposal was suspended after he promised to change his editing style, but he hasn't. He was also warned at an unrelated ArbCom case (about a larger subject, not just about him) to change his editing pattern, but he hasn't. I was not involved in either of those cases and wasn't aware of them until recently. I and many other editors have asked him to tone down his aggressive, long-winded, argumentative style; however, he has dismissed all such comments, even after I reminded him of his promises made under threat of a topic ban.
Encouraged by another user, I am on the verge of taking him to the community for a possible topic ban or other solution. My question to you is, what is the appropriate forum? I don't hang out in the "drama areas" so I'm not familiar with the right place for such things. Should it go to AN, AN/I, or RFC/U?
I have been drafting (offline) a detailed summary of the situation over multiple discussions with plenty of diffs. I was going to take it to AN/I since that is the only place I am familiar with for such things. However, this is not about an "incident", it is about a pattern of problems. I note that his earlier topic ban threat came at AN rather than AN/I (the topic ban was actually proposed after an administrator posted at AN to say they were giving up their mop in frustration over the badgering from this user). One of the recommendations at that closure was that the user should be taken to RFC/U if problems persist. I was unfamiliar with RFC/U, so I had a look - and was appalled. It looks dauntingly complicated and formal, and despite all its formal trappings it can't enforce any result. It seems to be the recommended place to take cases of chronic tendentious editing, but I don't see the point - when the problem has persisted so long and has been addressed by so many people, and all efforts at negotiated change have been futile.
I deliberately haven't given you any specifics here; I just want your advice about the proper forum for this kind of situation. Please reply here on your talk page. Thanks for any advice! --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid my short answer is that I hate AN, AN/I, RFC/U and all those ridiculous drama-fests, and avoid them most of the time. I am therefore probably not the best person to advise you, and I'm not sure why Peridon suggested me. However, I will give you a few thoughts on the matter. Sometimes, by far the best thing to do is to approach an individual administrator, rather than going to one of the boards. For example, if an editor is being so disruptive that an immediate block is justified, there really is no reason not to get it dealt with directly, without wasting everybody's time with prolonged discussions. Of course, there are cases where this is not suitable, as a community discussion really is needed, and from your brief description this may be one of those cases, but without knowing more details I can't say. If you are going to take it to a board, AN/I doesn't seem right, as what you have described doesn't seem to be an incident. RFC/U has two drawbacks. Firstly, the amount of formality and process involved makes it awkward to use. Secondly, in my experience it rarely achieves much. It's all very well getting a lot of comments about an editor, some favourable and some unfavourable, but at the end of it all, you are just left with a closed case with a lot of opinions and no action. At least, that's the way it seems to me, but bear in mind that my experience of RFC/U is very limited. My inclination would be to suggest that if you are going to take it to a board, AN would be my choice. However, you say that a previous AN case was closed with a recommendation that the user should be taken to RFC/U if problems persist, in which case there is a risk that taking it back to AN would just result in your being told "you were told to take it to RFC/U, so go away" (only more politely, I hope). Sorry that I am not giving you a clear recommendation, but it is difficult to be more specific without knowing more about the case, and my limited experience of the boards doesn't help either. On the whole, I think the best advice is to give more details to someone so that they can give you more specific advice. You could do so by email if you think you need to keep things confidential at this stage. I said "someone": you are welcome to give details to me if you like, and I will do the best I can to advise you, though I may not be the best person to do so. All of the others that Peridon mentioned are in my opinion very helpful. Boing! said Zebedee has experience of being an administrator, but has voluntarily stepped down from his adminship, but that does not diminish his ability to offer advice, and I believe he was much more of a regular at the admin boards than me. I think Dennis Brown is there more than me, too, but I don't know about Drmies. So, to summarise: if you are willing to, then give more details to someone, in confidence if necessary, so they can be in a better position to judge what is best. (It is also possible that this is a matter that can be dealt with by a single administrator, though from your description I am doubtful about that.) If you don't want to do that, then my personal inclination would be to prefer AN, despite the previous recommendation to take it to RFC/U, but I may be wrong there. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, JBW. I hear you about avoiding the drama; that's usually my approach as well. That was pretty much my read on RFC/U as well - all that effort and what's achieved? Nothing. This is not something that could be handled by a single administrator; there's too much backstory, and there will certainly be arguments and opinions. Dennis Brown's page says he is really busy right now; I'll ask Boing. Thanks for your thoughts! --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
50.135.199.114
Howdy! I reported this IP vandal to WP:AIV, but my request was removed with no clear explanation. This IP has already been twice blocked by you and they're at it again. Date-faking, unsourced, questionable edits with no explanations. Here's the content of my report. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- 50.135.199.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Twice-blocked IP continues to submit bogus, unreferenced content, and with no justification by way of edit summary. Has been warned about that before. Widespread and questionable date changes. For example: changing this song from a 2007 release to 2006 release. Or removing a Nick Jr. show from the Nick Jr. template, when a quick Google search shows that it was a Nick Jr. show. This IP has a long-term pattern of disruptive edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly the same person as before, and clearly vandalism only. Blocked for six months. Thanks for letting me know about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Canadian athletes
Hi James
Something went a bit awry in your attempted closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 18#Category:Canadian_athletes. I have now formally closed the discussion, and explained my actions in the closing statement.
Hope that's all OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't attempt to close that discussion. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. If you look at either my deletion log reason [11] or my edit summaries when I replaced the deleted category [12], you will see that I was acting on the basis of a speedy deletion nomination made on the basis of an earlier discussion in February 2011. However, I have no quarrel with what you have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'm sorry for not spotting that you were referring to an earlier CFD, and that the categ had not be tagged for the CFD which was open.
- Thanks for the clarification. Do you want me to amend my closing statement to reflect this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Brigantes
Hello James
I believe the right content is more important than the form is. But yes, we have to do our best about using correct words. Wrong syntax should be changed or warned, not deleted. Has Nick consider neutral point of view and 2nd pillar? The Brigetio is one of the Roman cities. Does Betanzos, Bergondo, Bragança, Briançon have more common to Brigantes, than Brigetio/Brigetium? There are a lot of information’s about Brigetio on the internet. If the sources are problem I can provide them more. I also noticed Nick don't understand basic principles of etymology. Would you help me find out wrong syntax in: ", Brigetio on the border of Slovakia and Hungary." ([13]) please. I hope the nationalism is not the reason for blockade? If there are no other problems I see no reason to add that text to Brigantes. Rheton (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)