Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 7 December 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting the article Aurora (Telenovela)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3

I can't think of a situation where soemoen has accused you of bad faith recently, but would you care to help shape this request? Or alternatively you could tell me why I am asking for trouble and no one would want a new case anyway.

Swinton Circle

Thanks for your note. I've posted a new thread looking for suggestions at talk:Swinton Circle#Resolving the disputes. A possibility which I don't mention there is banning Harvey, though I'd guess that it would hard to enforce it as I believe he's used several accounts already. However most of the problems seem to come from his highly conflicted editing.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Katarighe (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AE#JJG

Hello Ed. I saw your comment at Wgfinley's talk page. Before you close the request, can you please address the issue with the added 2 diffs. There are 3 diffs of serious misrepresentation of sources, with 2 of them including the insertion of not only "POV" material but objectively factually incorrect material into articles, including on one occasion where the cited source says exactly the opposite of what was placed in the article. Nobody has responded to these issues, despite my repeated requests that somebody at least address them. I apologize for raising this here, I dislike the idea of even the appearance of lobbying an admin, but the issue is being ignored. Thank you. nableezy - 03:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Ed, My issue around WP:WESTBANK was that there was a sudden outbreak of editors taking a Humpty-dumpty approach to the guideline and claiming that it meant what they wanted it to mean and not what everyone had taken it to mean since its introduction. I consider all those involved guilty of WP:TE. JJG is just one of them. I have not been following things closely but think that the Humpty-dumptyism has now reduced however the relevant thread has tl;dr issues and I think that there are still underlying issues of tendetiousness driven by a minority POV.

I assume your question to me was related to your desire to get the JJG AE out of the way. I think the problem there is that new issues have been added tothe case in a piecemeal manner and it is not obvious whether the admins have examined those new issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment

All due respect, but your assessment here is incorrect. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Manstein

I do not find it amusing to be warned for having attempted to restore the neutrality of an article. A.S.Brown and BINKSTERNET transformed the Manstein article into a anti-Manstein pamphlet using one book which is massively biased against the german army. The result is a Manstein article which is in formal contradiction with other more neutral Manstein articles on wikipedia like the french and german one. It also contradicts wikipedia articles on Mansteins campaigns and his most wellknown book. Well supported arguments were offered to contradict inaccurate statements in the article on the content of 'lost victories' and the Stalingrad campaign. The answer I got was speeches which mainly explained why AS Brown hates Manstein. In addition I was supposed to simply accept as truth whatever was stated in the main source used by AS Brown and Binksternet. No attempt at a discussion on substance was made. So,after a week I have started deleting the inaccuracies in the article again. No consensus will ever be possible between two users with an avowed intention of making a biographical article into a pamphlet against the subject and another user who wants it to be neutral. It is all very well to invite discussion but when the other parties are not open for it,it is pretty useless. The article as it is,is not even based on one biographical work on Manstein,let alone several. It cannot stand and clearly no consensus is even remotely possible on even the most minute change.--Knispel (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a suspicion there was a certain amount of misrepresentation gonig on in the article. One editor has found one so that prharse is gone and replaced by something that is an accurate representation of historical documents. --Knispel (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

Ed, you weren't willing to AGF the last time you banned me but I'm asking you to AGF this time. I utilized three sources to support the position that part of Mount Hermon lies within Israel. There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning the quality of the sources. But even if they were sub-optimal, the proper place to address concerns would be at the Talk page or RSN and I would abide by whatever consensus is established there. I believe that my edits at Mount Hermon were valid and stand by them. That is why I did not self-revert. At Katzrin, I did self-revert almost immediately once I realized that it was not compliant with the consensus template. I will not be editing over the weekend but again, I urge you to please AGF here and please at least consider my position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, just one more thing. I’ve maintained a very low profile on Mount Hermon making only a single edit to that article (restoring a neutrality tag) since the controversy. I’ve instead focused on article creation as evidenced by Operation Egged, Operation Volcano (Israeli raid), Operation Olive Leaves, Operation Elkayam and Operation Black Arrow among other articles. If you want, I will continue to maintain a low profile. I just don’t to be branded again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert by Biosketch Before Consensus Reached

I would like to bring this revert to your attention. There is an ongoing discussion about that section here but Biosketch made that revert before consensus was reached. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

A curious set of edits

Hi Ed

An anon has been slapping an interesting combination of pages with sock labels. See . We've also had some recent vandalism at the JIDF page which may or may not be connected. I've always assumed that einsteindonut = "David Appletree" whose real identity I think I know. If Nobody of Consequence is the account I'm thinking of, then it was possible at the time things blew up to work out its real identity which is distinct from Appletree, but all this happened some time ago.

I've rollbacked one of the edits by the anon and blanked two of the pages as I can't delete them. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you re Golan "revert" discussion requirement

Hi Ed. I'm not sure where to take this, but would you please look at this? (permalink) I've asked W.G. Finley to do the same. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"The epicenter of recent I/P flare up"

Was it you who remarked somewhere recently that the Golan Heights article seems to be the epicenter of the recent flare up in I/P contention? I can't now find the passage I noticed previously, but if so, I'd like to express my view as to why that's occurring, and what needs to be done to stop it.

As I just observed at the current AE concerning Jiujitsuguy, many of our Zionist friends have been editing for a long time to champion their belief that the Golan and other occupied territories are "in Israel" or are "an integral part of Israel", as JJG puts it.

As I'm sure you know, the proposition is common among Israelis, but is universally rejected, or rejected by "almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel", as the BBC puts it. This easily-verified fact is demonstrated by its acknowledgment in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.

This status of international opinion makes the claim an extreme WP:FRINGE POV, of course, for the purpose of editing Misplaced Pages. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the fringe status of this proposition has not been explicitly acknowledged by our administrators, nor have the editors who've been using Misplaced Pages to push this extreme fringe POV been effectively prohibited from using Misplaced Pages's voice to do so. If WP:FRINGE were simply to be enforced to prohibit that, something like half the problems in the I/P area would disappear.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the "epicenter" remark is mine on the Golan Heights talk page. I hear what you're saying but territory disputes are a tricky thing even in cases where the rest of the world doesn't recognize one county's claim. Whether it's China and Taiwan (ROC), Tibet, Cashmir, or the Golan, "fringe" views can be the view of an entire country or, as in this case, a race or religion depending on one's point of view. One MedCom case was about some uninhibited islands claimed by China and Japan and was quite fierce. In these cases trying to make sure each side's view is represented and the overall tone is neutral can be tall orders but are important. --WGFinley (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, W.G., territory disputes are very complex and also depend greatly on context, so maybe it's better to be much more specific than to try to discuss theory: Are you saying you have no problem with, e.g. this edit which uses Misplaced Pages's voice to assert that the Golan is in Israel?

Sure, many Israelis believe that passionately, and each side's view does need to mentioned as their view. But my objection is rather to using Misplaced Pages's voice to present Israel's extreme minority view (relative to a super-majority of world opinion) as if it were a simple fact: That's what I see as the crux of the problem behind the recent I/P flare up. So again, are edits like the one I linked to okay with you, or not?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion

Regarding Wiqi55 unblock request, my preference is that he remain blocked, because from my previous interactions, i noted he tends to be a tedenious editor who does not properly follow wikipedia rules or sometimes ignores the rules; which can be frustrating. Pass a Method talk 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

76.113.1.202

IP editor 76.113.1.202, who you blocked on 14 November for edit-warring, and who was then blocked again for edit-warring on 17 November, has continued unabated. Today, in reverting to his unsourced and poorly-written version of the lede, removed the reference I added a few days ago. Assuming good faith has come to an end. Adding his unsourced information is bad enough, but removing sources in order to do so is too much. Will you please intervene? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links:

• Westies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 76.113.1.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've semiprotected Westies six months. The alternative would be to block the IP editor, but it would have to be for a very long time, since two past blocks have not influenced his behavior. It's hard to understand how removing references is supposed to improve the article. Rationale for the previous blocks can still be seen at User talk:76.113.1.202#Edit warring at Westies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My guess is that he will continue editing using his regular account, ForceRecon84, but we will deal with that. The article needs a great deal of improvement, and entirely too much time has been wasted dealing with this very trivial matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ForceRecon84 did not waste any time in making a personal attack. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Question from Mukharjeeauthor

• Hi there I am a new user, Thank you for editing! Just wanted to know that how good is it for a new user to look and create new articles on wiki i.e. red links or create deleted page. I know harvard referencing and well aware abot referencing articles. please help.

Few articles which i would like to re-create: United Western Bank Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals * deleted but very known Hinduja TMT Tata Investment Corporation Mukharjeeauthor~ 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukharjeeauthor (talk • contribs)

• The last person who tried to create Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals was User:Roman9930. He is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. For the story on this, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Organized promotional effort/Taj Pharmaceuticals. I think it would be safer to avoid the topic of that company until you have more experience as a Misplaced Pages editor.
• It appears that United Western Bank is now covered in IDBI Bank. Since UWB was acquired and presumably no longer exists as a separate entity, it is unclear why we need an article dedicated to it.
• Regarding Hinduja TMT: if you have WP:Reliable sources on which we could base a description, you might be able to add a paragraph about it to Hinduja Group.
• If you have any WP:Reliable sources for Tata Investment Corporation I could give an opinion on whether an article can be written. There is an existing article on Tata Group which could stand to be improved. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you indeed! for answering the qestions! I will try my best to avoid few, but difinitely try few with WP:Reliable sources.

Regarding the above link both Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals and Taj Pharmaceuticals look noteble in google. But the topics are too abused to be touched. only experiences users can do that. Please have a look if so, For Now I will carry on with Tata Investment Corporation. Thanks for your time! CheersMukharjeeauthor (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your response to user:JamesMLane on my talk page: I should give you a barnstar for being a time saver. Also, I'm glad to hear that I wasn't wrong, haha. All the best, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you holding the fort as the lone admin and figured you might need some backup. While personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors are hard to get agreement on, there is a stronger feeling against abuse of article subjects. For background it seems one must also look at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fox News Channel. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny--I still find it odd to think of myself as an administrator. I hope that sometimes I act like one. BTW, that Mindbunny thing led to the two opposes at my RfA, so I know that case pretty well. Thanks again, 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

reply

Thanks for response and advice! seems like other editors have done my job! So nice of them. This shows the interest of every editor in new topics! Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Regarding your recent post to 4, that IP (with varyin addresses) just readded some unnecessary double spacing with this edit, something I reverted the edit before. If I revert it, it won't look good. Dan56 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You should both stop reverting. If it continues, blocks may be issued for WP:EW. Start using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this IP can't be constructive when he places two spaces, like "__", with the edit summary "then someone else says: i think we have a conscious here". None of these IPs have been using the talk page before making their controversial changes, and the burden is on those proposing those changes, right? Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've warned the IP for 3RR. They have actually started discussing at Talk:Love on Top. Not sure if this is the same dispute, but if so, you should consider participating there too. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My sincere thanks...

...to you for protecting 4. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

YehudaTelAviv64

I think AE report on user:YehudaTelAviv64 is in order though I am not sure that I 100% right so I don't want it to be frivolous.As you know all the reverts in Golan Heights are subject to discussion.This user is removed some information from the article ](as I understand that is considered a revert) also he did more minor edits in the article but like it was explained by User:Wgfinley even vandalism require using the talk page.Also apparently he broke 1RR after being warned on his talk page by two series of edits with one intermediate edit by other users between them and from technical point of view I think its revert but I not 100% sure.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• This editor was at AE recently. While he has strong opinions, he looks like someone who is trying to follow the precise letter of the rules. If you have the patience for it I would suggest opening up a discussion at Talk:Golan Heights or even at WT:IPCOLL to review recent editing of Golan Heights. It seems to me that POV-pushing from a certain wing of Israeli opinion has been going on there, but I'm not an expert. If admins are going to take any action, it would help if some people would explain the issues to us. It would try everyone's patience to have another exercise in minute revert-counting, unless YTA64's activity has become much more blatant since it was last reviewed by admins.
• Here's another way to look at it. This if the diff between the October 6 version of Golan Heights and the current one. Can you tell me which version you think is better? If it is worse, what do you think should be done to fix it? EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My inquiry was not about the content of the edits but really if he broke article restrictions:discussion before revert and 1RR.--Shrike (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that's your position, then I think YTA64 broke the 1RR with these two reverts:

• First revert at 08:45 on 7 December Removes a citation to an article in The Independent: "After 40 years, could the ice be melting on the Golan Heights?"

• Second revert at 14:57 on 7 December Removes "Syria reinforced its forces on the Golan while remaining in a defensive position."

Why not leave a message on his talk page and see what he is willing to do to fix the situation? If he deletes your question without responding, raise it again on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already did that before coming to you.But he refused to self revert..He was already was warned --Shrike (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont' think those were reverts Shrike, the one had a lack of citation tag on it for nearly 5 years, can't see how you can argue with its removal. Deleting information from an article is not a revert to me, deleting something someone recently put up would be. --WGFinley (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being an active contributor to the 3RR notice board. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)