User talk:Richwales/Archives/2014-01

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

move

Hi Rich, can you please move these two pages for me?

• Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (Georgia) to Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia
• Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance (Georgia) to Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm not going to get involved with this. This proposed renaming seems reasonable to me, since each ministry's official Georgian name starts with საქართველოს (= Georgia's, of Georgia); however, I would prefer to see a discussion and a consensus showing that several people working on Georgia-related articles are in agreement on a renaming. Please bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country); explain your reasoning (don't just say the pages ought to be renamed, tell people why you believe this); engage in a genuine give-and-take, helping people to understand your views and respecting the views of others who might disagree with you in good faith; and be prepared for the possibility that sincere and reasonable people might oppose your suggestion and that it might not in fact be supported by a consensus. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Just removing these two () and adding "of" is that big deal? Jaqeli (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Potentially, yes. If this were a matter of fixing a trivial, utterly obvious typographical error, I would see no problem. But anything that might even potentially be seen as the slightest bit non-obvious or controversial is another matter. Please bring it up at the wikiproject's talk page and see what people there have to say. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli

Thanks for having the patience to type out that explanation. I strongly suspected that I was being trolled, and so didn't.  Sandstein  10:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

talk page JMS

Can you copy the talk page from JMS and add it to the providence talk page? thanksMrTownCar (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I just finished doing this. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Afroyim_v._Rusk.

Thank you for your FA contributions to Wikipedia!

— Cirt (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for letting me know. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to 20 February 2014. It has Support there and should be non-controversial on that date. Sorry about the issues on the earlier date. :( — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. This will be the anniversary of the oral arguments in the case, as you and others have already noted. Thanks for keeping me informed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Javakheti

Hello Richwales. Since you are the only admin I know to have interest in Georgia and the Caucasus, I would ask you to help with an intractable ip here if you have time and energy. I want to avoid being dragged into an edit war but that anonymous user seems to have an extremely nationalistic attitude as evidenced by his comments on talk. Thank you, --Kober^Talk 19:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made comments at Talk:Javakheti, in an effort to bring the two of you closer together. I'll keep an eye on this article and its talk page. Understand that if things do get completely out of hand, I will probably seek help from uninvolved admins rather than take admin actions myself — my involvement with other articles dealing with Georgian history makes me reluctant to risk being accused of violating WP:INVOLVED. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Afroyim v. Rusk

This is a note to let the main editors of Afroyim v. Rusk know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Afroyim v. Rusk is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that American citizens may not be deprived of citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government tried to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim (pictured with his son), who had voted in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized American citizen, but the court decided that his right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It overruled Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances. Afroyim opened the way for a wider acceptance of multiple citizenship in American law. Its impact was narrowed by Rogers v. Bellei (1971), which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply in all cases, but the specific law in that case was repealed in 1978. The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which sought to limit dual citizenship—were abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that they had been rendered unenforceable. As a consequence of revised government policies adopted in 1990, it is now "virtually impossible" to lose American citizenship involuntarily. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight

This user is in constant edit warring on article Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) and Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky and is reverting all edits by calling it a neutral point of view and pushing his subjective ideas into these very articles. He's been doing it for some time already and these articles are out of attention of admins and want to ask you to do everything possible to stop his disruptive editing as his edits highly biased. He's doing the same in the article Batonishvili. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I think. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rich, please note that this user is still continuing edit warring. Jaqeli (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take sides here in what appears to me to be a content dispute. As I see it, both you and FactStraight are engaging in edit warring on this topic — something which neither of you should be doing. You've been told before that edit warring is not acceptable here, even if you are convinced you are right and others are wrong. I strongly recommend you stop warring, get a discussion going with impartial outside contributors, and seek a consensus (recognizing and accepting that the consensus might or might not go your way). The governing principle here is not which side of this succession dispute is right — per NPOV, we need to report what the mainstream reliable sources say, and if the sources disagree, we report all the mainstream views and acknowledge the existence of a dispute. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you to take any of the sides. All I want to protect it from disruption from any user. It would be better if an some uninvolved admin would watch and moderate these articles. Jaqeli (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am watching the three pages you mentioned, and I have warned FactStraight (just as I have warned you) not to edit-war. I imagine FactStraight probably thinks he is protecting these articles from "disruption from any user" by repeatedly reverting your changes — but that doesn't justify an edit war, by either of you. If you and FactStraight simply cannot see eye to eye, then someone (you, he, or I, it doesn't really matter) should seek help at WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, or some other dispute resolution forum. Unfortunately, it is not the job of an admin to "moderate" a page in order to resolve content disputes; admins can intervene to stop disruptive editing (such as by blocking disruptive editors), but if you push too hard right now to have admins intervene here, you (or maybe both you and FactStraight) are likely to end up getting blocked. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple of minutes ago he reverted them back again. It seems he's not going to be stopping and is engaged into an aggressive edit war and disrupts the articles. I don't want to be dragged into an edit war but at the same time I want those articles to be neutral, without bias. Currently all those 2 articles especially, Prince Giorgi and his mother is being disrupted heavily but that user and the current version which is totally a propagandist bias should be changed. More neutral users and admins are needed to be involved in this case indeed. Jaqeli (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) he reverted his biased version 3 times: here, here and here. He is pushing his biased and propagandist version by inserting everywhere in the article very controversial surname of the child "Bagration Bagrationi" by calling it a neutral point where it is none to being neutral at all as the term itself is very controversial and biased thus that user is pushing his bias everywhere in the article.

In Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky, who is the child's royal mother, the status of whom is not disputed and was never disputed by anyone user Factright is removing the royalty template of her and he did it already 3 times: here, here and here. He is doing it months already and you can check the history of those articles. He is a totally a biased user and history of those 2 articles show it perfectly. He removed her royalty template 3 times already and calls his actions being a neutral when it is none to being close to even neutrality, he simply ignores her royal origin and removes her royalty template. Same started to happen in the Batonishvili article where he simply removed the images and definition of that word.

Please understand that the current version cannot stay as those articles have highest possible importance for the Georgian monarchism entirely and the propagandist views cannot be presented by a user which is totally pushing one. Please do everything possible as it is very important these articles to be monitored as that user by the lack of monitoring and attention to it does his best to put in his biased wordings. Again, I request other admins to involve and to have a large discussions on those articles and only after the consensus is reached one can edit them. Currently the user above has no consensus though he is still edit warring and this should be stopped. Please have the strictest possible warning to everyone who will try to disrupt those articles but first the current versions should be changed based on the consensus on the talk page and other admins/users should be invloved definitely. Please do everything possible for this. Jaqeli (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be advised that I have brought up this issue on the administrators' incidents noticeboard page (WP:ANI), in order to get input from more admins. I have taken this step because, in my opinion, my past dealings with you and my past edits on various Georgia-related pages preclude me from taking any administrative action here myself (see the WP:INVOLVED policy). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rich. I already responded there. Jaqeli (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI appears to have been archived due to inactivity. There is so much traffic on that page that inactive threads are quickly archived if no new comments are posted. No decision was made, but please remember that the matter can (and probably will) be brought up again if the problem starts happening again. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the current versions that still stand on Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011), Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky and Batonishvili? I've described exactly what the problem was in those articles and his removal of info, templates cannot stay. Jaqeli (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

These are content disputes; as such, they need to be resolved using Wikipedia's standard processes for dispute resolution. You and FactStraight are going to need to get interested, but impartial, editors to look at the situation and reach a consensus as to how these articles should read. Each of you will need to understand that a consensus might or might not support your point of view. For now, I would advise you to leave the articles the way they are, until and unless a clear consensus of editors decides otherwise. If you reinstate your preferred version now, FactStraight will presumably jump right in and change it back — and if that happens, the situation is likely to end up at WP:ANI again, and both of you may very possibly end up being blocked for edit warring — and given your own disciplinary history here on Wikipedia, another block for you is likely to be very, very long. Again, I consider myself too involved in this matter, and I am not going to take any administrative action on my own; I will stand aside and let other, uninvolved admins do any necessary blocking, page protection, etc. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your motives but other admins are not doing anything and what should we do? Attention is needed to those articles and you as an admin can ask other admin to do something. I agreed on admin Ed's suggestion entirely and I firmly support editing upon consensus but there is currently no consensus thus Factstraight should not be editing it as well. So please involve other editors or admins. It definitely needs the admin monitoring. Also I want to ask you, can I appeal to my topic ban? And where should I do that? On which page? I want to appeal for cancelation of my topic ban. Jaqeli (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the talk page of the Royalty and Nobility wikiproject (WT:ROYALTY), describing the issue here and hoping that outsiders with an interest in the general subject of royal families may be willing to comment.

Regarding your topic ban, I would very strongly advise you not to ask to have it lifted at this time. The ban was imposed in the accepted manner according to procedure, and it can be lifted only by the banning admin (Sandstein), who is not going to change his mind so quickly; by a clear consensus of uninvolved editors, which (judging by the discussion leading up to your ban) is not going to materialize anytime soon; or by the Arbitration Committee, which is not going to intervene in the absence of extreme impropriety (which simply was not in evidence here). If you absolutely, adamantly insist on trying to get your topic ban lifted immediately and will not allow anyone to talk you out of the idea, send your request by e-mail to arbcom-appeals-en (at) lists.wikimedia.org — but if ArbCom decides you deserve even worse than what you got, don't say I didn't warn you to just leave the matter alone for now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will follow your advise and will not appeal my topic ban now but what is the best time to do it? In how many weeks or months? Jaqeli (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend you wait at least six months (counting from the date the topic ban was imposed) before asking to have it lifted. And during this waiting time, you should try very hard to collaborate with others and avoid anything that even vaguely resembles edit warring — even in situations where you are convinced you are right and where you feel it is crucially important to have an article represent your viewpoint. A decision on whether or not to lift a topic ban is usually tied to the question of whether the person has shown that he has learned a lesson and can be trusted not to engage again in the sort of misbehaviour that led to the ban in the first place. On the other hand, if a topic-banned editor continues to demonstrate the same sort of confrontational, "nothing-to-talk-about", "my-way-or-the-highway", battlefield mentality that originally got him into trouble, his topic ban is very unlikely to be lifted — indeed, it's more likely to be widened to cover more topics, and might ultimately turn into a complete site ban / indefinite block. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet

Edit warriors are back. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked the WP:RFPP crowd to impose full protection on the article, in order to force people to discuss the issue constructively. Although (as an admin) I have the technical ability to fully protect the page on my own, I am unwilling to do this per WP:INVOLVED. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Understand, of course, that a three-day full protection is only going to help if people start seriously discussing their differences with a view toward reaching a compromise consensus. If everyone just sits on their hands for three days and picks up where they left off.... — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've said what I object to in the changes; I'd like to see the reasons for changing the article. — kwami (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I hope the other editors oblige. People on both sides of this issue appear to me to be quite entrenched in their opinions. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what the history is. I have only the refs I'm familiar with to go on, though common sense suggests some of the other claims are unlikely, or at least are unhelpful as presented. Tomorrow I'll try to lay out my objections more fully. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello people. Just wanted to drop by to say a few words about recent edits. I really dont understand what all the fuss is about. The chart with alphabet comparison created by Zimmarod was deemed controversial and I left it alone. I added extra references to show weight of arguments in support of WP:BALANCE. Also, the accents were slightly shifted in one paragraph. That much for an edit and "edit warriors are back." In response I heard the words "idiotic" and "outright silly." I take this behavior very seriously. Hablabar (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The principal, long-standing controversy surrounding this article has involved two competing proposed explanations for the origin of the Georgian alphabet — specifically, whether it is an indigenous (Georgian) creation, or whether it was invented by an Armenian scholar. In addition to scholarly discussion, there are nationalistic overtones here as well (which may be colouring some people's opinions as to which sources are or are not reliable). I think it would be better, BTW, if any in-depth discussion on these points would take place on the article's talk page (Talk:Georgian alphabet), rather than here on my user talk page — and I'm reserving the right to move material posted here to the article talk page if I feel it really belongs there. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The "two competing proposed explanations for the origin of the Georgian alphabet" are not in the center of the continued discussion anymore. The things look good as they are. The improvement is about minor nuances, illustrations, and additional references. I will post no other comments on your page. Hablabar (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)