| Revision as of 19:26, 4 March 2012 editSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Buddhafollower: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:02, 4 March 2012 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →Buddhafollower: Add userlinks. Consider posting at ANINext edit → | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
| == Buddhafollower == | == Buddhafollower == | ||
| *{{userlinks|Buddhafollower}} | |||
| You blocked {{u|Buddhafollower}} in January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove ''everything'' that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research. What do we do? This is starting to look like long-term incompetence. - ] (]) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | You blocked {{u|Buddhafollower}} in January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove ''everything'' that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research. What do we do? This is starting to look like long-term incompetence. - ] (]) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I did the last block on 24 January. If you believe his edits since then are sufficiently disruptive, you might propose an indefinite block at ANI. Let me know if you propose admin action there and I may comment. ] (]) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:02, 4 March 2012
Could you comment...
.. on User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen#Inappropriate_use_of_rollback this thread on my talk-page, regarding an ip-user which you've blocked? Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding sooner. I don't fully understand the problem at User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen#Inappropriate use of rollback. My previous connection to this problem must be via Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:97.87.29.188 and User: 99.19.47.119 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h). At that time I described one of the IPs as 'too dynamic to bother with.' A set of IPs causing trouble on Climate Change articles was listed at User:Arthur Rubin/watch#Global warming / climate change. I'm not sure I can provide much help with that. Presumably your new concern has been dealt with at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 38#Need to reset the clock on a 30 block you imposed. If not, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Rubén Rivera
If you'll recall, a few months ago, you semi-protected the page due to an edit war over whether or not the "baserunning gaffe" section should be included in the article. When I suggested that user Muboshgu was the one responsible for inciting the edit war, you suggested that someone find more, better sources for the baserunning incident.
Well, I finally got around to proving several good references for it (including being #9 on Bleacher Report's top 25 biggest screwups in baseball history), but Muboshgu, once again, immediately undid my edits and removed the incident from the page. When I asked why on the talk page, Muboshgu started concocting excuses. He/she questioned the credibility of Bleacher Report (even though it's one of the top 500 websites in the world), questioned why I didn't focus on plays ranked higher in the list (even though all of those plays are already in their respective Misplaced Pages article), and suggested that the Rivera play wasn't anywhere near as significant as the #1 play on the list, the Bill Buckner error, which Muboshgu claimed would fetch "millions" of hits in a Google search (this is untrue; as I pointed out in my reply, both plays actually have similar numbers of Google hits).
Thus, it seems Muboshgu has no bona fide reason for continuing to exclude the play from the article. Clearly, the consensus of Misplaced Pages editors is that the play should be included in the article, as evidenced by the numerous edits and revisions of the section itself, as well as the numerous attempts to restore the section every time Muboshgu deletes it. The play is obviously significant to Rivera's career, since it cost him his job (the Giants cut him a week later, and he never played another major league game). And the play is clearly memorable, as evidenced by the articles from reputable media sources.
My reply to Muboshgu's latest excuses are being ignored, even after I posted on his/her talk page requesting a response. I'm trying to settle this the proper way instead of starting another edit war, but Muboshgu's "my way or the highway" attitude is making it difficult. What would you suggest as the next course of action?
Thanks for reading. - Hatster301 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring on epic page
Hi Ed, I've posted a reply to the accusations of me edit warring on the epic films page. Contrary to the attack on me, I have discussed it with users and I had planned on editing that page as I had been doing since 2007. Some of the edits that I made included fixing dead links and removing material that has been uncited. I understand users attacking me on WP:POINT but my intention was to bring a greater understanding to a genre with actual citations on that page. Could you check our my reply and get back to me? Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Union of Agricultural Work Committees and World Vision International
hi - could you help with some basic edit warring taking place at:
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Union_of_Agricultural_Work_Committees&action=history
and
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_Vision_International&action=history
by an identified editor who won't discuss the issues. not sure what i am supposed to do. any help and advice would be appreciated.
i have used an RS but it is being removed without explanation, etc.
thanks, Soosim (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Wading in recklessly...) I'd suggest actually discussing it politely with the newbie, rather than just reverting and hoping he reads edit histories. You might also be surprised to learn the the jpost has little credibility amongst Arabic readers (which his username would imply) when it says/alleges that group X are (or are connected to) Palestinian terrorists. Try finding sources with a better reputation for balanced coverage, or present the other side at the same time per wp:NPOV. You don't need a source that explicitly says "X are not on list L", it is fair to simply cite list L to support such a statement. By all means explain what was wrong with his edits, but be careful not to personalize it: discuss the edits, not the editor. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- thanks dog. i have posted to both talk pages. let's see what happens... Soosim (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Lvivske
Hello. Can you please look at editions of user Lvivske in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia? His changes sre not according to the cited cources, or he simply cancells text with strong references: GlaubePL (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are continuing to revert the higher-bound number for the death toll while a discussion is still going on on the article talk page. If you are not satisfied with the current talk discussion, you should consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page regarding whatever issue you think is most important. This might facilitate reaching a consensus. Once a solid consensus is reached, anyone who reverts against it will be very conspicuous. Just now you appear to be one of several edit warriors who might be considered equally guilty of prolonging the dispute. (You seem to have made five controversial edits since 24 February). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, we're on edit war territory now with pretty much every thing I do getting revv'd by GlaubePL. I'm willing to voluntarily step away from editing it for a day or two and continue on the talk page as I have; but I do think a neutral non-descript version should be in the lede until we reach consensus, and the 1RR should keep up if this is going to be tit-for-tat reversals. (in this case, enforcing only one source for the article when the discussion is considering dozens). GlaubePL's reasoning on my talk page was that we should "use updated and neutral saources (like Motyka) and not autdated and biased "...I don't know about you but I don't like where this cherry picking is going if all Western scholars are painted as "biased"--Львівське (говорити) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lvivske, which "Western scholars" are being painted as biased? Western scholars essentially base their work on Motyka (in some cases on Siemaszko, who gives even higher numbers) and quote his numbers.VolunteerMarek 22:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to ask GlaubePL to confirm who is or isn't biased.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't understand your response. You said "I don't know about you but I don't like where this cherry picking is going if all Western scholars are painted as "biased"" - so my question is simple: WHICH "western scholars" are being painted as "biased"?VolunteerMarek 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just searched for every instance of the word "biased" on the talk page of the article. There is one instance of me using that word in an essentially irrelevant context. There's one instance of the word being used by you to refer to Piotrowski (a professor at University of New Hampshire - a "Western scholar"). There's another instance of the word "biased" being used by Faustian in reference to Siemaszko (which I essentially agree with). There's two or so instances of you using the word "biased" in reference to Motyka and then responses by others, including Faustian, that Motyka is not in fact biased. There's no instances of GlaubePL calling anyone "biased".
- So sorry, but your claim that "Western scholars are (being) painted as "biased"" is without basis - unless you were referring to your own usage.VolunteerMarek 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was in reference to this comment that stuck with me--Львівське (говорити) 02:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to ask GlaubePL to confirm who is or isn't biased.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lvivske, which "Western scholars" are being painted as biased? Western scholars essentially base their work on Motyka (in some cases on Siemaszko, who gives even higher numbers) and quote his numbers.VolunteerMarek 22:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, we're on edit war territory now with pretty much every thing I do getting revv'd by GlaubePL. I'm willing to voluntarily step away from editing it for a day or two and continue on the talk page as I have; but I do think a neutral non-descript version should be in the lede until we reach consensus, and the 1RR should keep up if this is going to be tit-for-tat reversals. (in this case, enforcing only one source for the article when the discussion is considering dozens). GlaubePL's reasoning on my talk page was that we should "use updated and neutral saources (like Motyka) and not autdated and biased "...I don't know about you but I don't like where this cherry picking is going if all Western scholars are painted as "biased"--Львівське (говорити) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ed Johnston, glad to see you take care about 1RR, but what about Verifiability? Lvivskie misquotes so many sources - examples see here: . GlaubePL (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, come on...now you're just intentionally misrepresenting my edits and cherry picking 'sources' to contradict me. You are fully aware of the number bounds on the chart we are working on. If I edited the lede with those bounds and neglected to update the refs it's because we were still sorting out what counts - not that I was misrepresenting the sources.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed, .VolunteerMarek 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I made my case on the complaint...I don't feel I broke 1RR on March 2nd. He said he'd withdraw if I self reverted, and I did on 1 of the 2 areas he had an issue with. Want me to take a voluntary time off the page? How long? I likely won't be adding to it anyway for the time being until I finish gathering more sources....I don't think it's exactly fair that I can't set a neutral lede until we reach consensus without begin reverted by the 2 guys on the other side of the fence of the dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
ANI notece - FkpCascais
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for help
Hi Ed, About two months ago, you may recall that user:PCPP was subject to two AE hearings for violating his topic ban, which covered Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, etc. I believe he may have violated that ban a third time with this edit. His other recent activities here are consistent with long-standing patters of behavior wherein PCPP perfunctorily deletes large amounts of sourced content, always without discussion, when that content is in some way critical of the Communist Party of China (other examples of this: ]]]]])
What would you advise in this case? Frankly, I am loathe to initiate another AE myself; I would rather not court further antagonism from PCPP and his perennial supporters. As I noted on the user's talk page, I am already feeling hounded by this user, who seems almost exclusively to edit pages where I've recently made substantial contributions. Your advice, or direct intervention, would be greatly appreciated.Homunculus (duihua) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Check my edit history, I have not edited anything worked on by Homunculus since the previous discussion on Confucius Institute, so I don't know why he's dumping material from 2 years ago here. I removed the stuff on John Liu (which was there before he even edited recently) because it blalantly violates WP:BLP, which includes poorly sourced material accusing Liu, an elected US official, of being an agent for the Chinese Communist Party - a serious charge which would reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. As for the terrorism section, Homunculus added a bunch of highly controversial material which suggested that Mao's guerrilla campaigns and the Cultural Revolution are acts of terrorism - the former misleading as the author of the source he used clearly stated that guerrilla warfare is not synonymous with terrorism and never implicated Mao's guerrillas as "terrorists", the latter falls into the controversial definition of state terrorism / political violence whose categorization as terrorism is disputed and little to do with the commonly accepted definition of terrorism as done by non-state individuals. If anything, I'd say that Homunculus's editing patterns are distinctly anti-CCP, and I've yet to seen one edit that's not related to the politics of the PRC.--PCPP (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- PCPP, this is not the place for content discussions. I think some of the material you removed from John Liu page was problematic, but that doesn't change the fact that you likely violated your topic ban. As I said, if you have a legitimate reason to believe content is problematic, you should raise it on the talk page and ask others to intervene, rather than violate your ban. As to the article Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, if you believe the sources were misrepresented, I suggest you explain why on the talk page discussion rather than simply deleting everything. Finally, I have checked your edit history, and have strong reason to believe you are following me. The John Liu and Terrorism in the PRC articles are a cases in point.Homunculus (duihua) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The question about John Liu might be handled at WP:BLP/N. The material that PCPP removed does sound a bit conspiratorial. I admit that it comes from the Epoch Times but it is a stretch to think that removing it violates PCPP's ban on Falun Gong. Can you not find any mainstream sources that comment on the relationship of John Liu to the Chinese government? I think your issue at Terrorism in the People's Republic of China would have to be raised at a noticeboard, or via a new RFC/U. The definition of terrorism is very tricky and it seems risky to try to start a conduct case against another user based on diffs from such a contentious article. As PCPP has indicated in his response, some of the diffs you included above are from 2010, so they are quite old. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- PCPP, this is not the place for content discussions. I think some of the material you removed from John Liu page was problematic, but that doesn't change the fact that you likely violated your topic ban. As I said, if you have a legitimate reason to believe content is problematic, you should raise it on the talk page and ask others to intervene, rather than violate your ban. As to the article Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, if you believe the sources were misrepresented, I suggest you explain why on the talk page discussion rather than simply deleting everything. Finally, I have checked your edit history, and have strong reason to believe you are following me. The John Liu and Terrorism in the PRC articles are a cases in point.Homunculus (duihua) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Quick points:
- I provided diffs of PCPP's past behavior to establish that this habit of deleting material without discussion is a long-standing pattern, and PCPP has been counseled against engaging in this kind of behavior on many occasions.
- It's not my intend to add sources to the John Liu article supporting a connection to the Chinese government; that material predated my contributions to the page. Some of the sources and claims that PCPP deleted do seem plausible (eg. Liu received an award from the Office of Overseas Chinese Affairs, a Chinese government organ. I would also note that the source here, the Epoch Times, had *some* rather prescient coverage on Liu; it reported campaign finance irregularities years before the NYTimes made the same discoveries. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, but it should be employed with caution). Other material that was deleted, such as that sourced to renminbao, was speculative and likely violations of BLP. I'm not objecting to the removal of this content per se, but thought it worth bringing up, particularly since PCPP was warned about breaching his topic ban in this manner.
- Regarding the terrorism article, it wasn't my intent to draw you into the content dispute. The page was kind of a wreck before I started working on it, and my objective is to bring it to good article status. I have written hundreds (thousands?) of words on the talk page explaining my edits and proposals, so when PCPP simply deletes large volumes of sourced content without discussion, it's profoundly discouraging. After years of dealing with it, I'm burning out.
I'm not sure what the remedy is here. Is it possible to ask an administrator, or some other judicious editor with relevant expertise, to help with the terrorism article? I kind of feel like I'm crying in the wilderness here, and would just love to work with someone with a real interest in collaboration (and, ideally, some knowledge of the topic).Homunculus (duihua) 05:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I can't be of much help. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway. I'll see if I can't find a more fitting venue to address these concerns. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 05:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Notification
Hi. There is a new comment in the 3RR section.
— Breadbasket 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Manchester
Hi.
I have just written and added the following descriptive context regarding the duke's marriages. Even though this is the responsibility of the contributors concerned, I have chosen to do it.
Their relationship ended somewhen in the 1980s, and he moved to the United States early in the 1990s. They were formally divorced in 1996.
It is thereby made clear, at least for any normal person, that he was double-married in 1993.
User Andy Dingley then added/reinsterted ‘while still married to Marion Stoner’. This is a pleonasm, but what I react on, is that he in the edit summary writes ‘deleted yet again by user:BreadBasked’. It is not deleted; it was baked into the context which I have written.
This article has earlier been full of repetitive wording. I think that also ‘while still married to Marion Stoner’ is too heavy together with my context (it has to be either, and not both) and dangerously close to being repetitive, so I suggest that you as an administrator take a look at it and consider whether it is superfluous.
By the way, I have also added two tags concerning sources. I bet that they soon will be removed; tags that I earlier have added, have systematically been removed. Keep an eye on the article, and you will see it yourself.
— Breadbasket 14:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- See?
- — Breadbasket 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- You still haven't raised these points on the talk page at Talk:Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. That's where this discussion belongs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Buddhafollower
- Buddhafollower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You blocked Buddhafollower in January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove everything that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research. What do we do? This is starting to look like long-term incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I did the last block on 24 January. If you believe his edits since then are sufficiently disruptive, you might propose an indefinite block at ANI. Let me know if you propose admin action there and I may comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)