(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
--[[User:Omen1229|Omen1229]] ([[User talk:Omen1229|talk]]) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
--[[User:Omen1229|Omen1229]] ([[User talk:Omen1229|talk]]) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:First of all it is not true, my edit count is 4,319 while yours is 478. And in addition, en.wikichecker.com shows only frequently edited pages. It is true that those pages have recently been edited by me but my edit count is 4,319. Furthermore, despite that Omen has so far made 478 contributions in the project, he is around on Wikipedia since 26 January, 2011. Therefore, en.wikichecker clearly shows that you are an edit warrior with no constructive contributions considering that your frequently and recently edited articles make a very significant percentage all of your contributions to the project because of your low edit count i.e. "478". So what are you looking for on Wikipedia? --[[User:Nmate|Nmate]] ([[User talk:Nmate|talk]]) 10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC on God == |
== RfC on God == |
Revision as of 10:27, 27 July 2012
Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search this noticeboard & archives |
Canadian Sikhism
- Canadian Sikhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is one editor in particular who has been of issue with regards to posting acceptable sources with regards to population figures and population figures in general. While that issue has been discussed and partially resolved I suspect other edits made by that editor may perhaps be pushing advocacy in other parts of the article. I myself do not have enough personal knowledge on the article subject but perhaps a review of the article can be made to see if any issues are present? Duhon (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Van cat controversy
The article Van cat is frequently the target of anti-Turk, anti-Kurd and/or anti-Armenian racist editing that borders on vandalism. The most common bits are removal of Kurds/Kuristan and/or mention of Armenians by pro-Turkish editors, especially from the infobox and lead, and anti-Turkish political rants, especially in the "#Naming controversy" section, merged in from an excessively POV-pushing content fork. I don't think any blocks are warranted at this time, but this article and the related one at Turkish Van (which also sees such disruptive edits) could use more watchers. I've warned (with a general post on the article talk page, not individual editor-chastising) that any further ethinic-attack edits will result in a filing at WP:AN/I for blocking, so hopefully it just won't happen any more. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji
- Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be a bit of a war going on at Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji and some of the surrounding articles such as Ravidassia Religion, which appears to be a newly-formed religion based on the teachings of a 14th century Indian guru, of which Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji is the holy book. It's way out of my league, I only came across it in passing whilst assessing articles, but the respective talk pages detail some of the accusations which include edit-warring, facts not being supported by the supplied references and POV pushing. Would some kind soul care to have a look? FlagSteward (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just wandered into the same series of articles in "WikiProject Ravidassia", and agree that there's some significant POV-pushing and historical revisionism involved. Very long story short, the Ravidasi were apparently generally aligned with Sikhism (low-caste "untouchable" Indians forming their own subset of Sikhism due to being unwelcome among "higher caste" Sikhs). The Ravidassi and Sikhs had a major falling-out in 2009 when Sikh radicals murdered Ravidasi clergyman Ramanand Dass in Vienna, so they severed ties and literally wrote a new holy book to replace the Sikh one they were using. Fascinating story, but the trouble is some major contributors at the page have been working to remove any mention of Sikhism from the article, and instead portray Ravidassia as a cohesive independent religion back to 14th Century India. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Al-Ahbash
This whole article is inaccurate and not NPOV but editors are refusing to allow any contribution by other editors..i have tried discussing it but it was to no avail. Baboon43 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Azawad and its regions and cercles.
Azawad has recently declared independence from Mali but remains unrecognised. However there seems top be an effort to edit articles on the relevant regions of Mali to describe them primarily as located in Azawad and then mention their global recognition as part of Mali as an afterthought. I have changed Tombouctou Region[1] but it's late here and there are a whole bunch of other places that need fixing.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I edited the lead in the Tombouctou Region article back to your 6 April 2012 edit.[2] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Nelly Furtado
- Nelly Furtado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The English page of Nelly Furtado keeps on having someone who deletes the fact that she is Portuguese Canadian, first based on the argument that her being Portuguese was a matter of ethnicity (but not being Canadian, apparently), and second based on the fact that there is no "direct proof" that she has Portuguese citizenship. I might add where is the "direct proof" that she has Canadian citizenship, either?
The whole point being brought up constantly in the editing of this article is based on an "Amerocentric" perspective of what is citizenship. To constantly erase the fact that she is both Portuguese and Canadian from her article, is a xenophobic attitude in nature, as it considers one nationality law to have more value than a different nationality law. That is simply wrong, both when it comes to its accordance with the truth, and also regarding the principle of no supremacy of any human being or nation over another. Dual citizenship at birth is a very common thing, exactly because not every country awards citizenship in the same way. I truly don´t understand the need to deny this, other than in a context of extreme nationalism.
In the Americas (for most countries), citizenship is automatically granted based on the "ius soli" concept. This means a person is Canadian, American, Brazilian, whatever, mainly if they are born in the country.
But in most european countries, citizenship is based on "ius sanguinis". Citizenship is automatically granted according to the parents´ nationality.
To say that she is Canadian "because she was born, lives and works in Canada", makes absolutely no proof of any kind regarding her nationality, if you don´t know Canadian law. Since we do know, we know she is Canadian, of course. In exactly the same way, if you know Portuguese law, and know that Portugal automatically grants citizenship to anyone whose parents are Portuguese and were born in Portugal, then you know there is nothing to argue about in this matter. She is Portuguese, just like she is Canadian.
One nationality should not require the need for some kind of "ultimate proof" over the other. She possessed dual citizenship right at birth, Canadian and Portuguese, since both countries grant automatic citizenship in different ways.
On the matter of Portuguese nationality, please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_nationality_law
Furthermore, just making a fast random search on the internet, I found an interview of Nelly Furtado to a Brazilian TV (in Portuguese), where she herself admitted she was both Canadian and Portuguese. Further ahead, she even added that "her heart and sould where Portuguese": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do
On an interview at BBC, she was telling the hosts about how singing in Portuguese was so natural to her, and that she learned Portuguese even before knowing English.
But this things are not the main point, at all (even if it would be very weird for her to say she was Portuguese without being Portuguese, quite obviously).
Resuming, the issue is exclusively legal, and my question is why is one nationality law accepted as enough proof, and another country´s nationality law is not? One truly doesn´t need to know anything else other than that both her parents were born in Portugal and were Portuguese to know for a fact she is Portuguese by birth. It´s the law. Just like no further proof of her Canadian citizenship is required for that statement to be made on the article. It is simple, both countries´ laws automatically grant citizenship to someone in her situation, right at birth. It is partial, and not a neutral position, to say the least, to consider that a specific definition of a person´s nationality based on the perspective of a certain country, is accepted as such with no problems or objections of any kind so to be introduced on wikipedia, while a different one, from a different country, needs some kind of "direct proof".
Wikipedia should not be the place for this kind of behavior.
Thank you, and I hope this situation can be adequately solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.73.25 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the article is very clear that she has Portuguese ancestry, is born to Portuguese parents, and has released Portuguese albums. The lead sentence, as directed by MOS:BIO, describes her as "Canadian". There's no effort to suppress or hide anything, just an effort to keep the article in line with consensus, policy, and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
joseph neubauer
- Joseph Neubauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joseph Neubauer's nationality is shown as "Jewish-American." There is no such nationality. He is American. And he is Jewish. That does not make him Jewish American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeankay (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please make sure there is actually a dispute before reporting it. The fact that you posted here before editing Joseph Neubauer indicates that this dispute does not exist. Danger High voltage! 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jeankay -- It's obviously not his formal legal citizenship, but in fact in the United States "Jewish American" is perceived to be an ethnic/national identity comparable to "Irish-American", "Mexican-American" or whatever. (Probably the majority of American Jews have ancestors who came from areas now in Germany, Poland, or Ukraine, but they rarely call themselves "German-Americans", "Polish-Americans", or "Ukrainian-Americans", and they would not generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases.) That's why we have the phenomenon of Jewish atheism. AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No 1 cause of edit wars: Nationalist school systems -> Solution: create Wikipedia page warning about it
Isn't it weird that most of these edit wars concern nationalism? The reason these edit wars exist is because most people were educated in a school system that has heavy bias towards its own nationalism. You would think that what they teach you at school is all true and impartial. But that's not the case!
For example, the first time I came to Wikipedia, it was a real shock to me. I made significant contribution to Hungarian history based on what I learned at school. Only later did I see that most of my edits were reverted or changed because someone from Slovakia had a different opinion and he was taught something totally different at school than I was.
For instance, when Romania occupied Hungary for a brief time, in Hungary they call it the Romanian oppression, but in Romania they teach it as the Romanian liberation. Croatia is taught in Hungary as a province, but in Croatia it is taught as an independent country. In Hungary, Hungary is taught as the most significant part of the Hapsburg Empire yet in Austria, it's taught as a province. What's more, in Hungary I didn't even hear about the term Magyarization before because they simply don't teach that at school. In Slovakia, this is taught as a major element of curriculum.
What they teach us is that our country is great, our nation is great and that there are a few people who are our national heroes, and whenever "we" suffered it was unjust. For God's sake, even the Anthem of Hungary that every Hungarian has to know by heart is about the fact how great the nation is and that it suffered so much unjustly throughout the years. Nothing is ever mentioned about bad things that Hungary might have done to other nations. What's more, if a great man who invented great things hundreds years ago was born in Hungary, I'm supposed to feel proud of him, but if he was born a few kilometers on the other side of the border, I don't even know his name because it's not in the curriculum.
Why do I refer to another Hungarians as "us" but to a Slovak as "them". For the most part, most Hungarians do not ever leave the country so they live their life in the belief that they are great and other nations are bad. However, on the rare occasion when someone comes and declares that our national hero is from a different nationality, people get angry, because it strikes them at the heart of their national identity since all their life they have been taught to look up to these national heros, because it is them who make the nation great.
This is a LIE. It's a big fat lie. It seems the whole education system of most countries in the world is a just pretext to promote nationalism and control the population. There is a heavy dose of nationalist bias that presents the so called "facts of history" through a tinted glass.
Question is how can we tell people about this so that they won't start their mindless nationalist edit wars? It is extremely rare that they will recognize it by themselves, because they take what they have been taught throughout their lives as the one and only truth. And when these people meet someone else from different indoctrination background as them, that's when the edit wars start.
It took me about 1 year to realize that the Slovak editors aren't hostile and malicious, but only refute what they were taught at school and I'm refuting what I was taught at school, and that our different education systems shaped our identities and beliefs differently so that it is always us that the good guys are and the other ones are always the bad guys.
Therefore, I propose to create a Wikipedia page that warns new users about the indoctrination aspects and nationalist biases of their own education systems that define their identities and beliefs. We should tell them that just because someone is subject to a different nationlist propaganda, he is not malicious in any way, and therefore they shouldn't take the expression of his different beliefs as ad hominem attacks.
It would have helped me incredibly to learn this before I started editing on Wikipedia and not engage in non-sense nationalistic edit wars, which I did for almost a year before I realized what I was doing! All I was thinking about that I must teach these people the truth that I knew. So that's why in my opinion a Wikipedia page would be a great idea to teach new users about this, and as a result there would be a significant drop in edit wars! --Bizso (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia article Nationalist historiography... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:HISTRS, a guide for identifying and using reliable sources in the area of history, suggests never using school works for writing historical articles. School textbooks usually fail to deal with the complexity of causes, the variety of historiographies, and fail to address the questions that make subjects significant in the historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- As an aside, the countries which have the worst problem with rewriting history tend to be the ones which require school textbooks to reinforce the TRUTH of their NATIONAL GLORY (and/or their historic SUFFERING under the YOKE of an OPPRESSOR). Ditto for national broadcasters. Where history is disputed or controversial, that's when we need to go to the best - and independent - sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- What I like best about wikipedia 2.0 is that it gives all viewpoints the potential to be heard. Sure every nation / culture has its own viewpoint. And eventually we will be able to learn more about their origins and civilization can progress with increased encyclopedic knowledge. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- As an aside, the countries which have the worst problem with rewriting history tend to be the ones which require school textbooks to reinforce the TRUTH of their NATIONAL GLORY (and/or their historic SUFFERING under the YOKE of an OPPRESSOR). Ditto for national broadcasters. Where history is disputed or controversial, that's when we need to go to the best - and independent - sources. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:HISTRS, a guide for identifying and using reliable sources in the area of history, suggests never using school works for writing historical articles. School textbooks usually fail to deal with the complexity of causes, the variety of historiographies, and fail to address the questions that make subjects significant in the historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Matt Bardock
- Matt Bardock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You have this actor as married to his daughter is this correct or a miss print — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.82.32 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Revised.[3] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Gianna Jessen
- Gianna Jessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are two editors who were in the majority on the AfD for this article that was closed as keep. In light of the previous AfD and the issues on the talk page as well as thing grout up during the AfD. I added maintenance tags about sourcing, POV and dispute on the article and started a discussion about them. I planned to leave them up for a month, to see what kind of consensus we got from a wider group, and these editors just seem to want to shut it down, and remove the tags immediately. Kind of a your wrong, we've told you you are wrong and this is a waste, attitude. Obviously it's a controversial issue, and the haste to remove the tags only seems to lead me to believe one of them may be POV. though I'm trying to assume good faith here. can anyone offer advice, a fourth opinion, etc. -- Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I restructured the article.[4] I don't think the article needs tags. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Irvin D. Yalom
- Irvin D. Yalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5-6: To Whom it May Concern, the Irvin D. Yalom text begins, "Born into a Jewish family...." But - if he were born into a Christian family, would the text begin, "Born into a Christian family..."? If not...discrimination's afoot. Please change that first sentence. Thank you! -- The Friedman family
- I revised the text in the Irvin D. Yalom article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Balanchine method
- Balanchine method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor changed Balanchine method to say George Balanchine is Georgian (vs. Russian) and made clear that he will not permit it to be changed back. Attempts to to reason with him on the talk page have failed; he is adamant that his view is correct. It's possible that he is correct, but I believe there is compelling evidence to the contrary. It would be very helpful for an unbiased third party to have a look and, if warranted, to boldly take appropriate action, as all of my efforts to do so have been reverted without meaningful comment. My apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. Lambtron (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- His biography says, "Balanchine was born Giorgi Balanchivadze in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to a Georgian father and a Russian mother." My take is what is relevance between his birth and the Balanchine method? The location of where Balanchine devised the method or where it was first used would seem more relevant to the Balanchine method article than where Balanchine was born or his ethnic lineage. I revised the article.[5] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Messianic Judaism
- Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It would be I believe in everybody's interests if we had a greater number of uninvolved editors viewing the main Messianic Judaism article, including its talk page. I and some others have some serious questions about POV pushing regarding the article, and I believe the involvement of a greater number of editors, including some new to the discussion, would be extremely valuable in perhaps resolving the existing difficulties. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Arabs in Turkey
- Arabs in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could you please look into the edit history of this page? I have a problem with two editors who insist on using number estimations mostly from media stories. The numbers they are providing are obviously unrealistic by all means. I have tried to provide a balanced representation of all view points, but these two users are rejecting one source calling it "fake". These two editors would keep reverting back. Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Svan people
See:
- Talk:Svan people#source (+Talk:Svan people#Ethnic groups)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: ) and
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: ).
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Svan people
User GeorgianJorjadze (and Kober) they refuse to constructive discussion, GeorgianJorjadze waging a war of edits without explanation (other than as a game with rules: that there is no consensus. However, I have arguments. They - no.) --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Abu Musa
There is a dispute over Abu Musa; specifically, whether or not to mention the results of an opinion poll held by YouGov. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- To make my position clear; I think the poll should be mentioned (at the bottom of the article). Another editor suggests it should be removed, for a variety of reasons such as "Undue Weght", "One poll by not very reliable source not verified by third parties", "advocating commercial poor quality materials", "source does not meet WP:Primary criteria", "just a poll by a tele-marketing company" &c.
Devoting an entire section on a Wikipedia article to a random online poll conducted by " online panel" of a random polestar/market research firm, is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The person who first dumped this so-called poll on that page and many others (Redroar75 [6]), appears to be an employee of, and affiliated with the YouGov, working as a PR person, and all he does in Wikipedia is link-dumping as free advertisement and publicity for YouGov marketing firm. Just a quick examination of his contributions, show that every single one of his edits is linking to this not-so-notable company as a reference, creating and devoting an entire section to this company on various pages, in order to advertise and promote them. Most of the edits are even promotional/business-like in tone too, just take a look at these examples. [7][8] So this is borderline spamming, besides the obvious weight issues. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Nichiren Buddhism
- Nichiren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nichiren Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nichiren Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sōka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wonder if anyone knowledgeable (best if not involved/attached to the schools in question) in Japanese Buddhism could look over the articles mentioned above. Before a full fledged edit war breaks out a third opinion could be useful. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the above. I think we need as many eyes as possible on these articles. Soka Gakkai in particular is a highly controversial group, and I believe that the personal opinions of certain editors regarding the group may well be causing them to engage in behavior which could be seen as problematic. The greater the number of experienced and knowledgable editors are available on these pages, the more likely it will be that any problematic behavior of some editors can be addressed diplomatically. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Piapot
Piapot is the article I was reading that led me to look further into it. Throughout Wikipedia there are hundreds of pages and articles that refer to Aboriginal American peoples as "Indians". I believe this is an outdated and offensive term, and that replacing most instances with alternative words, such as "aboriginal" would be appropriate. Is there any way that we can speed up this process, rather than trawling through one article at a time and changing them?
NB - in some cases the word is used appropriately as part of a title or has historical relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.230.20 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware that polcies and guidelines as they are currently structured would necessarily permit such a mass alteration of language, particularly on the rather slim basis given, that one editor finds it offensive. And, while there might be a way to speed up such conversion, that conversion would probably also include the instances when you declare it appropriate, so, in effect, it really wouldn't necessarily be an net improvement in the content, and in several cases it might actually be counterproductive.
- Probably the best way to get this issue addressed would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. It is possible that they could develop clear guidelines as to when and under what circumstances specific descriptive terms are used. In fact, they may already have done so for all I know. Also, editors involved there would probably be in the best position to note when the term "Indian" is used in an appropiate way and when it isn't. But, in short, no, I don't think there is any better, more effective way to expedite such changes as you request than by contacting that WikiProject. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Dražen Petrović
Is there anyone who could help take a look at the Dražen Petrović page? For months and months, there have been unexplained changes to his parents' ethnic backgrounds (eg [9]). Unfortunately, I can't really examine the sources used in that section. The best I can do is use Google translate. Usually, I try to revert to the status quo, but I'm really in over my head here, so if there's anyone who speaks Serbian, Croatian, or Montenegrin, your help would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Nicole Kidman religious and political views
There are a number of users with personal religious agendas that keep using garbage sources, i.e. tabloids and religious websites, as actual references, to fit their carefully worded propaganda/idealogy. Additionally, the most rampant and excessive within wiki pages are against any subject matter that is non-Catholic. This is an issue on the page for "Nicole Kidman"; second sentence in religion section, alleges her personal opinion on topic of children's religion; however she is recorded as stating she will not discuss Scientology at all:
1. Violates Wikipedia Reliable Source requirement; invalid link to tabloid, weak source - nypost is equivalent to the enquirer.
- WP:IRS Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
2. Poorly sourced speculation/opinion WP:NOR via nypost archived gossip
- WP:NOR The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source
3. I call bullshit on: "catholic.org" and "nypost" - as Wikipedia Verifiable Sources;
- WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of the following wiki legalese bloviator copy/paste display? Is this a lecture or threat, because you are barking up the wrong tree on the wrong planet completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimafiacapo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
- 10.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
- 2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.
- 3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
- 5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.
- 1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
- Elizium23 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikimafiacapo (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Elizium23 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The source I'm seeing being used, the New York Post, does meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard has said of it "a paper as large and well-known as the New York Post should be considered a reliable source," and "It is a published source which is reliable using the WP definition thereof." Some of the less favorable descriptions of it was "We can't say that we may never use this type of media, but we can say that if we have better sources available it makes sense to use those." I couldn't find anything saying we couldn't use it. It is a reliable source, and it will stay unless another source countering it is found.
- Also, I'm in agreeance with Elizium23, and can only believe this is a sock of the IP I IDed as belonging to the Church of $cientology. The behavior, such as worrying over this source, is totally identical. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and
- Wikimafiacapo (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Elizium23 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Alternative names in begin section
I post here because I want elucidation about naming conventions. There are conflicts on 2 talk pages about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bratislava#Hungarian_and_German_name and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cluj-Napoca#other_names
According to rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines we have:
- Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
- In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)".
- Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
Some users do not want to accept this recommendation and want to impose alternative names in the first phrase, even if is not reason to make an exception. I say that we must not ignore the recommendation, it must be a coherence on wikipedia, we must respect these indications. With no respecting wikipedia rules, wikipedia would be chaotic and messy, because each article would be write in a different way. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Before reacting to ANY of Omen1229's comments, please check out his edit log. You'll see that his edits consist almost entirely of removal of Hungarian place/geographical names from any conceivable article and replacing them with their Slovak counterparts (if any). He's already been topic-banned for this too, yet he keeps pushing his POVish agenda unabated without any willingness to discuss matters or agreeing to ANY kind of compromise. All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has, which he partly admits on his userpage too by claiming that he's a nationalist. Another fine example of his agenda is the fact that he's already initiated a discussion on the Cluj-Napoca article's talk page in the same manner User:PANONIAN did on the Bratislava article's talk page, which once again points to his bias against Hungarians, since he's never made ANY edits to the article and so far hasn't shown ANY interest in Romania or Romanian topics at all.
- Regarding the interpretation of the naming convention itself, I regret to say that Omen1229's arguments are not about the inclusion of alternative names at all: his only point seems to be the removal of anything BUT the Slovak name of the city to make it look like those names never existed in the first place. When this plan (heavily and vocally backed by PANONIAN) has failed on the Bratislava article, he's changed his rhetoric and now he "only" wants to deal away with the Hungarian and German name of the city from the lead, and tries to do his best to twist and misinterpret Wikipedia's rules to suit his agenda (i.e. to remove the Hungarian and German name at all costs). What's worse is that he didn't bother with presenting ANY logical arguments to support his agenda, instead some additional "brand new" users have started to appear to support his edit war: User:Nelliette, User:Balatoth, User:River party, User:Jakubos etc. Almost all of these users are "brand new" and/or haven't made a single edit on the article before. What also worries me is the fact that Omen1229 has not only changed the lead, but he tried to completely wipe out my WHOLE edit i.e. even the part that deals with etymology too. This leads me to think that he doesn't want this conflict to be solved at all, or rather that he'd only be content with the version of the article where the city's Hungarian and German name wouldn't be mentioned at all.
- Omen1229's argumentation is also flawed for some different reasons: the city used to have a Hungarian & German majority up to the 1930s, even after many Hungarians have been chased away from the city (and subsequently been replaced by Czechs) and until 1918 the term Bratislava didn't exist at all (at least not in ANY official documents/colloquial usage anyway), so insisting on removing the Hungarian and German name is almost akin to attempting to falsify/erase the city's history. The worse problem with the whole attitude represented by Omen1229, PANONIAN and many
sockothers is the fact that the city itself was Hungary's capital for centuries, Hungary's monarchs were coronated there and it was the de facto administrative center of the country. And this kind of intolerance is even more disconcerting in the light of the fact that Slovak place names have been inserted into the articles about Hungarian cities where NO Slovaks have lived EVER (Békéscsaba, Szeged, Miskolc, Győr, Visegrád etc.), yet nobody wanted to remove them and nobody was eager to twist the Wikipedia rules in whatever way that'd allow him to remove them. In short, this strong anti-Hungarian sentiment is not only unprecedented, but non-reciprocated as well. Therefore for the sake of honoring Wikipedia's basic principles and mentality (e.g. the inclusionist attitude), I suggest against encouraging ANY kind of trigger-happy article vandalism (i.e. approval of or encouraging of content removal). -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)- At first, this User:CoolKoon has created the "article"(in fact POV essay) with name Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia (now called Ethnic minorities in Czechoslovakia, but the article is mainly about conflicts between ethnic groups and you will not find something positive there...). And now the important thing, this User:CoolKoon used in the article the chauvinistic propagandistic postcard with text "Czech culture - The barbaric toppling of the statue of Maria Theresa in Bratislava". This postcard was published by Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség in Hungary and is very strange to use it in the article about Czechoslovakia. The Magyar Nemzeti Szövetség was chauvinistic, irredentist, revisionist, Hungarism (Hungarian fascist ideologue) and foreign propagandistic organization. This organization was also active during WW2 in Hungary. No surprise for me, that he upload this postcard and he has it in User page.
- All of this points to an obvious anti-Hungarian agenda he has > this only another personal attack [10] and please stop with your synthesis, because I know your POV.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- As for "chauvinism, irredentism , and Hungarian facism", do you still hold your assertion ,Omen1229, in which you called one another Hungarian user a fascist, nazi, and a revisionist who supports the Arrow Cross Party-> [32]? Just curious. On the other hand, Omen1229 is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. See: [33]. Then click on Frequently edited pages (click here) there.
Omen1229's top contributions to the project according to en.wikichecker.com |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Literally, adding Slovak names to Hungarian cities or biographies, removal of Hungarian names from cities or biographies, Magyarization i.e. how nefarious Hungarians attempted to assimilate the Slovaks, Žigmund Pálffy i.e. who is of Slovak origin who isn't, Elie Wiesel i.e. adding information on Hungarian holocaust, Pribina i.e POV pushing about some kind of proto-Slovak theory. --Nmate (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nmate's contributions to the project according to en.wikichecker.com |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
--Omen1229 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- First of all it is not true, my edit count is 4,319 while yours is 478. And in addition, en.wikichecker.com shows only frequently edited pages. It is true that those pages have recently been edited by me but my edit count is 4,319. Furthermore, despite that Omen has so far made 478 contributions in the project, he is around on Wikipedia since 26 January, 2011. Therefore, en.wikichecker clearly shows that you are an edit warrior with no constructive contributions considering that your frequently and recently edited articles make a very significant percentage all of your contributions to the project because of your low edit count i.e. "478". So what are you looking for on Wikipedia? --Nmate (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC on God
There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God#Scope of this article. Any and all input is welcome. This is a rather contentious subject, and I think any and all input would be welcome to help resolve the matter. And, just for informational purposes, this is a regular RfC, not an RfC/U. Quite a few of us are still working on the rather lengthy list of behavioral questions relating to that alleged individual. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)