Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 6 October 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Need advice

Hello. I need your advice again about the disputed article Garegin Njdeh where the edit war happened. I offered Kevorkmail to request third-opinion about our dispute but there is no answer from him for three days. I cannot force him to discuss as he ignores my tries to find consensus. What should I do? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need the other person's consent for requesting a third opinion. Why don't you try just doing so at WP:3O?  Sandstein  10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I just thought that mediation process needs two parties' consent. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I placed the request at WP:3O. User:WikiDao agreed to provide third-opinion and invited Kevorkmail to comment his position. As I see he is not going to do it. What should be the next step to resolve the dispute? And I have another problem with the user. Please ask him to avoid such allegations. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You should wait a few days. If the other editor does not comment on your proposal, and the editor who provides the third opinion agrees with your proposal, you have a sufficient basis on which to implement your proposal in the article. As concerns the second issue, you should not reply with "Then as you provide no sources I will remove the text you added", since that is edit-warring, as indeed both of you seem to be at Yerevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Sandstein  18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For closing the debate on commons Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look please

Hello. Could you please look here. I really don't understand what to do in such case. Should I complain somewhere? --Quantum666 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a very long discussion. What, in a few sentences, is the problem?  Sandstein  19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all I want to say who is User:Quantum666 and what he want here. Not far time ago he was participating in Russian chapter of wikipedia. Here You can find a list of blockes of this user. Some of them are Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry and what he is doning now - Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. In the Russian chapter he was doing the same as here, but when he was blocked for infinity (there was really big case) he relocated his activity to the English chapter of wikipedia. So what he is doing? He have not created any article in English and only make very disruptive edits in the Armenian-related articles. For example he is deleting images , , filling wrong information (there are only some thousands) or just this edit when he filling as a source Tomas de Vaal who in Russian wikipedia is unreliable source, so he has decided to try his luck with it here. Such edits or such edits where he is spoiling article with request of the source everywhere (while in Azerbaijan-related articles he delete such requests ) and such edits where he is changing words that Armenian liberated Armenian village to Armenian captured Armenian village is absurd. More than that. For the short time of participating in the project he has got a lot of conflicts with other users: , , , , , , , . So I'm not sure if I should start here discussion about his new conflict with me. He is full of Anti-Armenianism and 90% of his contributions are anti-Armenian. After the block in ruwiki he replaced his activity to here. He tries to discredit the Armenians, wherever possible. It is not normal in my POV. So I'll ask directly do we need a user who was blocked for his activity in other chapter of wikipedia for the infinity period and continues his activity in other chapter? Thanks for the answer. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions in other Wikipedias do not apply to this one. By your above comments, you are casting aspersions of serious misconduct on Quantum666, without adequate evidence (the diffs you cite seem to reflect mere content disagreements) and in the wrong forum. You do so despite my explicit warning at WP:ANI not to do this (), and are therefore in violation of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting_aspersions. Consequently you are blocked for 48 hours; if you continue to approach disputes in this manner you may be made subject to arbitral sanctions.  Sandstein  06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly the problem is that Lionking tries to link two problems in the article: presence of Armenian name and choosing the sources to show the population of the region. Lionking agrees that the Armenian name shouldn't be there but continues to revert forcing me to "make compromise" about the second problem. User:Golbez has already told him that such linking is unacceptable a few times but Kevorkmail doesn't hear him too.

P.S. Does the previous comment of Lionking violates WP:PERSONAL. If so I would like to make a request about this. Where should I appeal? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The conduct of Ліонкінг should be addressed with the block imposed above. I cannot help you resolve the content issue; for this see WP:DR. But I can address conduct problems. Both of you have been edit-warring for a month or so on Agdam Rayon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is unacceptable and must stop now. I will block either of you who continues to revert the other on that article. I note that Ліонкінг has been previously sanctioned for edit-warring in this topic area and been given a four month revert restriction. It does not appear to have helped. Accordingly I recommend that you request arbitration enforcement against Ліонкінг to prevent him from continuing to edit-war in this topic area.  Sandstein  06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick help please

A user with no edit history other than this (sock?) keeps erasing completely a big overhaul I made to the article Polish–Ukrainian War, wiping out an hour of work. Here is what he did. Prior to me coming in there was a large section with almost no refs. I expanded - here is what I did. Now I see that User:Loosmark has joined him. Help would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "sock" is correct, as far as I can see you have tried to insert the comical claim that the Ukrainian morale was high while the Poles wanted to go home. Classic Faustian, really.  Dr. Loosmark  15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the detailed reference about thyat statement. It comes from a claim by people within the Polish government. So you erase all the info about the diplomatic maneuvers, Romania joining Poland, etc? Every statement I added, that you blanked, came from a reliable source, books published by universities. If you have a problem, discuss the specific points on the discussion page rather than blank everything.Faustian (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your old tactic to make changes to the article and add statements to sneak your Ukrainian propaganda. You are claiming that patriotic Ukrainians were fighting with high morale, while the Poles wanted to go home because they did not want to fight Ruthenians in Ruthenia. What a joke. Lwow was the most important Polish city and every Pole would fight for it, in fact it was unthinkable for it not be a part of Poland. As for the demographics go check Austro-Hungarian census before spreading more nonsense.  Dr. Loosmark  15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss content disagreements here. You are all edit-warring at Polish–Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and must stop this. I have issued the appropriate warnings to Asc.grean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Should the warnings not help, please use WP:AN3. You may also consider using WP:SPI as the editing pattern is indeed suspicious. Loosmark seems to have violated his topic ban; this will be dealt with separately.  Sandstein  15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Remembering what you kindly told me here, I'm drawing your attention to this question. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've attempted a quick reply.  Sandstein  18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Once again, you've provided a well-rounded summary which doesn't only help convey some of Switzerland's identity to the Ussland, but is edifying to citizens in permanent identity crisis as well! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly?

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly. I expect the basic science of climate change to be pretty much covered by now. - so, that's "thanks for all the hard work" (well, except of course you *aren't* offering any thanks at all) ", but we don't need you any more, so we'll junk you now". What a wonderful message William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it encouraging that, despite their differences, screaming matches and bitter feuds, most people sanctioned for disruption by the Arbitration Committee at least agree with one core policy: "The others are the problem, not I!"  Sandstein  21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you've totally ignored my point. That would be because you have no good answer? As to yours: the supposedly exemplary arbcomm are clearly badly at fault, but fit your description to a tee. You should start at the top and address them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Q.E.D.  Sandstein  21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of blame to go around, I suspect no one is entirely blameless in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there might be a few among the millions of Wikipedians who might be excused from blame, perhaps because some do not even know what climate change is... But with respect to the people whose conduct is being discussed, yes. Although that seems to be a feature of most arbitration cases.  Sandstein  21:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well ya, I didn't mean every single wikiedian :) Just everyone mentioned in some way (even in passing) in the case plus all the arbs and their clerks. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, a case whose duration is beginning to be measured in units of geological time, and which has probably generated more text than some smallish civilizations did during their whole existence, is not an exemplary case of efficient dispute resolution.  Sandstein  22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandstein, it is a question about this image. I'd like to use for the article. As you see it is a copyrighted book's cover, but the portrait itself should not be copyrighted because it looks like it was made during her life time. If I am to take the image, and in a photo shop remove everything but the portrait itself, would it be OK to upload it with public domain? Of course I do not know who is the painter and what year this portrait was made. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, probably yes, but as long as you don't know who made the title image, and when, you can't really be sure that it's PD. But you may be able to find PD images of this woman in the Google book preview at http://books.google.ch/books?id=ory5H2l7bxMC. There is one said to be of her at p. 27.  Sandstein  05:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba's debates

I'm wondering whether Vecrumba's topic ban covers debating EE-related POV and battleground disputes, like he is doing here? Offliner (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not currently active in AE, please ask another admin or use WP:AE. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)