| Revision as of 20:29, 1 May 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Troubles Warning: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits OneClickArchived "Is this an adequate source?" to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | |||
| <sub>Subscript text</sub>{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | ||
| == ] fresh off block and back to old tricks == | |||
| Greetings, fresh off a block for for abusing multiple accounts (which he moved to after getting called out for long-term edit warring), ] is back and playing the same ] all over again in ] and ]. Both articles about an Indian religious group whose interests Vikas appears to be advocating in a clearly POV way. | |||
| He's adding honorifics like "Saint... Ji Insan" as we've constantly said not to do on Talk pages of articles and his own Talk page, removing clearly cited mentions of past criminal cases as ''Not everything is historically important, the major incident of Dress that caused riots and was in highlights is as-is there and I have not removed from there, but other were proved by High Court of Haryana & Punjab as fake allegations'', etc. | |||
| He's reverted each of my reverts, so I had to back of 3RR. And despite my posting specifically for this on the Talk page, he ignored my post and just said ''you still disagree? please prove me wrong on talk page, then put it here''. This user has a long-term pattern of being an SPA to defend the interests of ] and its founder ]. There may also be another sock, ] who was SPAing on the same topics during the block. | |||
| I've been dealing with this lot for around a year now, and the ''exact'' same arguments over over where they insist on giving the leader a bevvy of glossy titles, and hand-waving away murder and rape court cases. Yes, charges were dropped, but they were all over the media, the article mentions their being dropped, and they're still frequently cited my academic writers as evidence of the controversies surrounding the group. Thanks for any help! | |||
| I tried filing this at NPOV Noticeboard: ]. But honestly the pattern is so blatant I figured best to bring it to the attention of the last blocking mod (sent to DeltaQuad initially, but he's on break and also more of a sock-hunter). ] (]) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Indefinitely blocked. I hope you will be watching for possible socks. Thank you, ] (]) 18:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for taking this up Ed :) Saved me some time. -- ]]</font></font> 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Any possibility we could wrap this up? == | |||
| Hi Ed, | |||
| I'm wondering if you or anyone else is in a position to wrap up this AE thread, which has been open for over two weeks now with little movement and no actionable evidence. I'd also like to ask that the request to take action agains the filing editor be considered.] (]) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The AE request has been closed with no action. ] (]) 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback: New message == | |||
| {{talkback|Gareth Griffith-Jones|Don't be alarmed!|ts=21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| Thank you - I just got back so will respond now. ] (]) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback: New message == | |||
| {{talkback|Gareth Griffith-Jones|Don't be alarmed!|ts=23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you for notifying me. And, I assure you that I was in no way edit warring. As you can see in the ] article, in the 1980's section you can read that all is resolved. I'm very sorry for the inconveince and do apologize to ]]. ] (]) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It isn't resolved, and you were not only edit warring, but violated ], disregarding the requests to discuss it on the talk page. - ]] 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I apologize for you thinking I was disregarding the requests to discuss. I however wasn't and am very sorry. I have found more info on said article and wish for all this to be resolved as soon as possible. <ref>Daily Mail reporter, "Christopher Walken stays quiet over reopening of Natalie Wood drowning case", dailymail.co.uk, 11:13 EST 23 November 2011 </ref> ] (]) 01:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding dispute resolution == | |||
| Hi, you left a comment on elduderino's page stating that we should try Rfc? how does this work, and if you could advise, what is the best procedure to file a complaint that is very long, complex and detailed? If discussion and so on has already been tried and if the user is a known edit warrior as well in conflict with other users is Rfc on a user ideal? Thank you. ] (]) 04:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :You'll need to simplify your request. If you make an RfC about 20 things nobody may bother to respond. If you actually are hoping to find consensus it doesn't help to come to my page and badmouth the other editor. You might consider making a new draft of the article in your user space and then ask for comments. ] (]) 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: So the ideal thing right now is a concise RFC? Just trying to make sure because I have never been through the resolution process to this extent. I assume the Edit war claim I placed, as it is protected, is closed now? Thank you for your help and time.--] (]) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the 3RR complaint is closed. Since ] is willing to assist with this article, why don't you propose your next idea to him, and see what he says. That might be a quicker way to reach a compromise than using a formal RfC. ] (]) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Flagrant violations of AA == | |||
| Hi Ed. About three months ago, I brought to your attention editor Verman1's violation of the permanent topic ban you placed against him on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. I think you were away from your account for some time and my comment was eventually was archived by the bot. Well, he is still violating it, as seen from his recent , and despite my friendly warning back in January, I think some action is warranted. All the best, --] (]) 06:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback: New message == | |||
| {{talkback|Gareth Griffith-Jones|Regarding dispute resolution|ts=07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| Posting addressed to you there from me. ] (]) 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC at AE == | |||
| I am happy to assist in forming the question. Issues relating to this are still being discussed , and since there are not two clearly defined positions, forming a question may be quite complex.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There are currently discussion at ] I think till its over article should be protected.--] (]) 14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Continuing to edit articles regarding AA == | |||
| Hello Verman1. Do you realize you are under an indefinite ban from the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute? is a recent edit of yours at ] which mentions Armenia. The title of the reference you added refers to the Armenians' 'national grievances'. It seems to me that this violates your ban. Can you explain why you should not be blocked for a ban violation? ] (]) 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi EdJohnston. I have taken this material from another Misplaced Pages article and confined only with immigration issues. I did not mention anything about Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. --] (]) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find at ] to be a violation of your ban. You introduce new text commenting on the actions of the Armenian forces regarding Agadam, which is a place in Azerbaijan. For example, you stated "the Armenian forces decided to destroy much of Agdam to prevent its recapture by Azerbaijan". This is a violation of your ban regardless of whether the material previously existed anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I intend to issue a block unless you agree to cease such edits in the future. ] (]) 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I do agree to cease this type of edits. --] (]) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. ] (]) 04:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == AE == | |||
| Please clarify in the AE why you consider the lack of a RFC, when there is a disagreement involving over 7 editors, an example of my personal failings. I have heavily contributed to the Talk page and RSN, and readily engage in discussion.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 00:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :When it is clear there is disagreement among reasonable people, you should not continue to revert. That's the time to wait for consensus. Both you and Oncenawhile continued to revert major aspects of the article up to April 24, with no evidence of any closure of the issue on the talk page. You, Jayjg and Oncenawhile all made pure reverts on April 24. An edit summary of is useless as a justification for your change in an edit war situation. It would have been more frank to say, 'Restoring a version of the article that puts my own side in a better light.' ] (]) 01:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point taken. It was quite shocking for me to have this abrupt regression in light of many Talk discussions, so I acted impulsively. Still, I'm inexperienced and learning, so thank you for your advice.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Might I ask you to keep half an eye on ]? NIrelan is back, it seems. ] (]) 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Here are the user links: | |||
| :*{{userlinks|Irelan12}} | |||
| :It may be logical to take this to ANI eventually and ask for an indefinite block. Some time may need to pass first. This editor may be a person who has had disputes with Winer in real life. Merely wanting to balance Winer's article is acceptable, but naked animosity will raise most people's eyebrows. Posting the issue at ] is another option, but it's a safer choice if the editor has already outed themselves somewhere on Misplaced Pages per a previous comment. ] (]) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your message == | |||
| Thanks for your message Ed. Would you mind explaining whether in your view my misinterpretation of whether that edit constituted a "revert" was a "reasonable mistake"? I would like to understand so that i can learn from this and not make the same mistake again. | |||
| More importantly though, I think that if we went down the route you proposed for a case where the suggested transgression was uncertain or unintended, it would encourage more people to use ARBPIA as a weapon to remove from the debate any less experienced editors they don't like. I think protecting the spirit of ARBPIA should define the answer here. Noone has accused me of edit warring, in fact quite the opposite, whereas other editors (including the editor who brought the AE) have been accused of editing in an aggressive manner (for example, working together to get around 1RR without consensus, tenuous explanations for obviously pov edits, consistently avoiding direct talk questions, rejecting numerous attempts at real cooperation, unreasonable detagging, and now silly games with talk page early archiving). In other words, I'm being accused of <u>accidentally</u> tripping one of the Remedies of ARBPIA, whereas the AE-proposing editor and others involved have been flouting its four Principles. | |||
| Given the wider context, I just don't see how enforcing against an uncertain or unintended technical breach would be achieve anything positive for anyone except the AE-proposing editor. And a voluntary would just be an enforcement by another name. ] (]) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Vikas.insan block evade already == | |||
| I really hope I'm not just ABF'ing someone who coincidentally just now appeared, but only one day after you indef'ed ], this new guy ] appears and starts adding, carefully, cited material about ] that just happens to be all positive, refers to his opponents as "terrorists" calls Singh "Saint... Ji Insan", etc. Could be pure coincidence, but it is quacking a bit duckish. ] (]) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :] left an that suggests he could be a member of the sect. But his English is better than Vikras.insan and he uses the WP Reflinks tool. I did not notice him reverting back any honorifics -- let me know if you found a diff. Not clear to me that it's the same person. ] (]) 16:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you'd read any of the talk or the modified text, you'd see that I asked the user Xida2001 several times to clean up his edit. I finally tried to clean it up myself and he still reverted it. His edits are in poor form and poor english. Please remove the protection template. (I can't believe you'd grant protection so easily!) --] (]) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The two of you are having a content dispute. It looks like it would not be hard to find a compromise. For that you need to discuss with the other editor. Another option is for you to request a ]. ] (]) 17:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said, if you'd looked at any of the material instead of just doing what Xida2001 asked without question, you'd see that I did comprimise by rewording his edit to make it readable (english is clearly not his first language). He still reverted without responding to talk. ] (]) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Admins do not resolve content disputes. You are expected to have some diplomatic skills yourself. If you are completely stuck, follow the steps of ]. ] (]) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's pretty had to resolve a dispute when an admin locks a page for no reason. I've tried to get pages locked from actual vandalism before and NEVER got them locked this fast or easily. Please remove the lock so Xida2001 and I can compromise. ] (]) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you reach an agreement with Xida2001 you can ask me to unprotect the page and it will be done immediately. The article's talk page is not protected and you are welcome to continue negotiating there. Your remarks about his knowledge of English are not helping. ] (]) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)] | |||
| As an independent observer, here is my opinion. Xida2001's edits repeat information already present elsewhere in the article, are poorly written, and contain unnecessary external links. By protecting this page, you have frozen the article with Xida2001's unconstructive edits included. I ask that you remove the protected status so that other users such as myself can fix the problem. If you are unwilling to do this, please let me know what I can do as a third party to get the dispute resolved and the page unprotected. ] (]) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Why not join the discussion at ]. Perhaps you can suggest a compromise. It is hard for me to figure out what the dispute is about. It seems like moving one sentence from A to B could be enough to satisfy both parties. With three editors joining the debate perhaps a 2:1 majority at least might be found for what to put in the article. ] (]) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == The problem with JTBX == | |||
| Ed, maybe you can advise me. JTBX has continued his personal attacks on me on the talk page for The Godfather, and now he has expanded his nuisance editing by marring the plot summary for ]. What avenues do I have to get him out of my hair and prevent the destructive edits? Thanks. --] (]) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not happy about the personal attacks, but it may be time for a different admin to review the problem. It seems to me that both of you have broken ] at ] and you had better cool it there. If you want to improve plot summaries surely you can redirect your efforts to an article where JTBX is not active. And of course, vice versa. There may be ways for you to get feedback on the quality of your own summaries by people who know that kind of thing. Thanks, ] (]) 02:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't understand, Ring said he would talk it out on The Godfather page, but now he is saying I am using personal attacks as we are discussing it (which I cannot find). I had a full day of editing plots and that included No Country for Old Men as I came across it. I edited it because it was over 700 words and there was no clear consensus, contrary to what Ring stated, which would stop me from editing the article. I already listed my reasons on its respective page and a neutral editor stated he would help way his opinion on the matter. I am now thinking of opening a Rfc on this user. Again EJ, I do not see what counts as a personal attack, but I am merely pointing out this user's history if you go on his talk page and on an earlier discussion for No Country, that he is a known edit warrior and leads many editors in circles. (Check the relevant talk pages) I don't think he wishes to contribute to the project and is violating ]. That is from what I can see. And of course, then he seeks help, like he is doing with you now and to Gareth, to dress it up as if he is the victim. I do not think there will be a resolution on the talk page of Godfather either. I have written my plot and it conforms to ] guidelines but this user continually reverts the plot back which is where the dispute arose. My point is this is not an edit conflict over opinion, this is a conflict between someone trying to uphold policy and someone (who is known to edit war) getting in the way. I am sorry you did not see it that way EJ, due to time constraints and I apologise to the lengthy battle on the resolution board which this user initiated. (My fault for falling for his trap and having you nearly sanction me). ] (]) 04:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, actually, the shoe is on the other foot. I've worked on No Country for Old Men a couple years. JTBX only started editing there since the trouble on The Godfather. It seems that he is intentionally trying to provoke problems and be disruptive. I want to have as little to do with him as possible. Perhaps if you would advise him to stay away from articles he knows I am editing, that would solve the problem. Thanks. --] (]) 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Is that a warning to me? These are pretty notable films and as I stated I came across it during the dispute from a fellow editor who reported you, seeing as the plot was over 700 words I cut it back and improved it, and have sought guidance from the talk page from another neutral editor who is helping. Again I do not see what I am doing wrong by being productive. You first pasted this message when I began editing the article, so perhaps you feel you own it? ] (]) 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| This is getting weird. JTBX is reordering our posts here for some reason. --] (]) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I simply placed your post below mine because of the time you wrote it. --] (]) 05:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::For some reason, JT removed the post I made here earlier. To reiterate, I have been editing No Country for Old Men for a couple years. He only started editing there since he started with the personal attacks. I have no interest in coming in contact with him, so maybe you could mention to him that the less contact the two of us have, the better. If that seems reasonable. --] (]) 05:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Aagain, your posts are below mine. Stop moving them up and conflicting the time you wrote them. You are simply attempting to create another unnecessary squabble on an admin's page. ] (]) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't move the posts, JTBX. You did that. --] (]) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The two of you can request an ]. If you both agree, I can get the process started. ] (]) 13:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's fine if he leaves me alone on No Country for Old Men (film). I think a reasonable person would have predicted it would be disruptive to start editing there at this time. --] (]) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" | |||
| -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JTBX&diff=489597300&oldid=489529397 | |||
| * -- ] (]) 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure this is the place to take this. You advised both me and JTBX to "ask the opinion of ] on any further changes they want to make" in your dispute resolution decision. Since that time, JTBX has made at least two edits on the page in question without consulting Gareth. I suggested that the three of us proceed on the basis of unanimity for the time being and there was no objection to that proposal (Gareth agreed to it explicitly). However, and , JTBX has made changes to the article without consulting and without consensus. --] (]) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why not ask ] for advice. You still have the ability to open a ], whether JTBX cooperates or not. Dennis might have other suggestions. ] (]) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My response: I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you ] to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion to contact Gareth and not written in stone, especially if he is clearly no longer acting as a neutral memeber. I have been busy but will open a RFc as that was the original plan. Ring's so called violations of mine are a joke. Look at the history, a user called Chaheel edited an improvement to the plot, cutting out two unnecessary words which I already had cut out in my plot draft I had put forward. But if I had put those improvements forward, I would have been reverted, (which actually heppened by Gareth), the acting neutral editor but in reality colluding with Ring to violate WP:PLOT and policy. Meat-puppetry? | |||
| If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. But then I saw this ], he immediately notified Ring and didn't even leave me a message, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict. | |||
| Lastly, if personal attacks mean anything, look at how Ring responded on Gareth's page to me. Thanks ] (]) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, Captain Screebo made a mistake that was immediately corrected. Now that Gareth doesn't agree with what JT wants to do, he is trying to badmouth him, too. Despite his bad behavior, Gareth and I are ready to engage him on a unanimous basis. He attacks us instead of working with us. {sigh} --] (]) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I endorse what Ring has just posted. -- ] (]) 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == List of vegans == | |||
| {{talkback|SlimVirgin}} ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]". Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> ]] 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for nothing == | |||
| I'm through with Misplaced Pages, see ]. You could see what was happening was not fair, and you had the power to compel dispute resolution. There is no Misplaced Pages if there is no fair judgment of consensus. ] (]) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Iloveandrea again. == | |||
| As you know this user have a history of BLP violation after I have removed his BLP violation and after that user have left me this inappropriate message .What do you think the best course of actions in such situation.Does AN/I or AE is appropriate?--] (]) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Must be another example of his unique sense of humor. His to the article was fine and clearly improves the sense. Not worth going to ANI unless he loses it completely. ] may not be under ARBPIA. If you think he made a personal attack you can use WQA. ] (]) 12:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::His post on Shrike's talk page is pure harassment. He took time out of his busy day to stop by another editor's talk page, for no other reason than he identifies said editor as Israeli, and asked when Israel's government spokesman will be replaced by "hottie". It had nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia. | |||
| ::The "BLP violation" is egregious and gratuitous. It's not even sourced to someone's blog, it's the editor's personal opinion. | |||
| ::Also, check out the last sentence of edit as well (he amusingly identifies Zero as a Zionist, as you can see in the previous discussion and the comment he made on Zero's talk page). | |||
| ::This guy should not be editing in this topic area. ] (]) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::ANI is the place to take this if you want the personal attack to be evaluated. You would be asking for a block based on a single diff, supposedly humorous but a bit stupid. The editor's overall record does not inspire confidence but I really don't know what to think. "Being his usual reasonable self" for Netanyahu I suppose might be thought of as vandalism. Then you need the four escalating warnings for vandalism? I am puzzled. ANI can be roused to action by things that are frankly racist or tendentious, but this seems more like a warped sense of humor. ] (]) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to take it to ANI. That would be a complete waste of my time. I just put it here for future reference. This is what the guy has been up to ''this week'', and I think it's very obvious where it's going. ] (]) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Matt Lewis RfE == | |||
| Thanks for handling the Matt Lewis RfE so well. I too think that if it serves as a shot of cold water (which it appears to have done) then that would be sufficient. If the behaviour continues, I'll open another one. If you could emphasise how close he came on this occasion to very serious consequences, and that he has now burnt his get-out-of-jail-free card, it might leave the lesson more permanently in his mind. | |||
| One minor thing that I would ask of you is to comment on how I notified Matt about the RfE. He's got it in his head that I didn't inform him properly of it (see his comments in the RfE and on his talk). Matt has some 'quirks'. One of them is that he gets something like that in his head and then spins a conspiracy out of it and makes accusations (rather than, for example, simply double checking a link, as he could have done on this occasion). | |||
| I don't know how you could handle it, but if you could impress upon him that Misplaced Pages is not a place of cloak and dagger, I'd appreciate it. In particular, could you impress on him that he needs to think heavily before believing poor faith in another editor (or group of editors)? Thanks, --] (]) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == New article ] possible copyvio!? == | |||
| Hi Ed, | |||
| A user who I intervened the other day for ArbMac violations across a variety of articles, as recently created an article called ], of which doesn't have any categorizing or sources within it. I've added the appropriate tags using twinkle; but I think I may have missed a few, and was wondering if you could have a quick glance at it, and take any action that I may have missed. There is a possibility that the article alone is copy/paste translation of details from the company's official website. The logo image too seems suspicious, and may also be a potential copyvio. Thanks - ]]] 15:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It does appear to be a translation of . I compared the Greek Misplaced Pages article against the information on the theater's web site at http://www.badmintontheater.gr/badminton/theater/. I didn't see any obvious lifting of sentences. If you want to look into this you can use your browser's Find button to look for corresponding Greek sentences if you want. Mostly what this article needs is a trimming of over-enthusiastic material to meet Misplaced Pages standards. The list of performances could surely be cut or summarized. It's not a terrible article, it's just a little over the top. Somebody might try to tie this article in with our other coverage of Athens Olympics buildings. ] (]) 15:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for that. I didn't think to see if there was an article on the Greek project. Tieing it in with Athens Olympic buildings does sound plausible though. Had I added the right tags to this English version? The ones I places where "no sources" and "no categories" via twinkle. Perhaps a "clean up" tag would be appropriate too!? ]]] 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consider adding it to some categories. That should only take a few minutes, and might show the editor that you're willing to help, not just warn him of things. Though your warning about ] was clearly justified. ] (]) 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good idea. I'll look at articles currently under the "umbrella" of Athens Olympic buildings, which should provide a rough idea which categories would be suitable. ]]] 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On second thoughts, it looks like it could do with an article merge, as there is already a stub-article for the Athens 2004 Badminton venue ]. I'm not overly familiar with article mergers, and how to go about requesting one. ]]] 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The article on ] is very short. Why not create a new section in ] and add the Goudi information there. Ask me later if you think the old article needs cleanup. Thanks, ] (]) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Forgive me, even though I've been on Wiki since August last year; this is the first time I've wandered into a merger situation like this; hence all the questions. I'm going to look for some help links, and have a read of them before plunging myself in at the deep end. Last thing I want to do is mess it all up, when I haven't a clue what to do. ]]] 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :On second thought, avoid the merge. Notice that ] is included in some Olympic templates. It is best just to put in the necessary links from one article to the other. See if you can find some other 'recycled' Olympic buildings and see how they were handled. (How they describe the old use and the new use, and whether there is a separate article for the new use). ] (]) 16:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Vitamin A == | |||
| I would like to make some improvements and additions to ] but I see that you recently protected it due to vandalism. Vandalism sucks and I revert quite a bit through Huggle, but I am wondering if I am still able to edit the page? If you could leave a response on ]. Thanks. --] (]) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I appreciate it. Can't stand when vandals make me jump in order to get things done. Thanks again for your comment. --] (]) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Troubles Warning == | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I don't quite understand why you feel a need to issue me with a Troubles warning in an AE thread that has absolutely nothing to do with me, other than the fact that I made some observations on the current situation - and didn't "cast aspersions" against anyone by name. Maybe you can explain. Perhaps more to the point, could you explain this . Cailil has complained about me but seems to have ignored the other editor (Bjmullan) who has carried out exactly the same number of reverts as me. I should point out that this is not the first time that Cailil has displayed an apparent bias in dealing with issues concerning Bjmullan and myself. ] (]) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The Troubles decision states that "The editing of users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted." You did choose to participate in ] and criticize the behavior of the people you perceive as the other side. Expressing a personal POV about nationalist bad guys distorting Misplaced Pages articles obviously entails risks. You did actually violate the Troubles 1RR on April 8 at ]. ] (]) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)