User talk:Andrew Norman/Archive 4

Censorship at User talk:Bormalagurski

Hi,

I caught Boris Malagurski red-handed while disrupting wikipedia, and now he is trying to delete my comment that proves what he did. I don't know if he can do this.

If the user can delete any comment on his page that he doesn't like, I'll stop putting my comment back. If not, I would like someone to talk to Boris.

Please, advise. --Ante Perkovic 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just let it go. It's in the page history. --ajn (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will. Just in case, I'll wrote down links to diffs. --Ante Perkovic 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you cut most of his userpage. Did you intend only to cut the section where he makes claims of trolling against certain editors?Blnguyen | rant-line 06:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have buggered up the formatting - slip of the mouse. Fixed now. --ajn (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

C-c-c-c again

Hi! I remember you started that community ban discussion on WP:AN a month ago, but I do not know how it ended, so please tell me: is C-c-c-c under community ban? Today I have noticed another user signing as C-c-c-c, so if there is a ban, that user should be banned too. --Zmaj 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objected to his being banned. Can you provide diffs? --ajn (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:PerfectStorm signed a comment as C-c-c-c here. Then User:24.66.94.140 (who signed as C-c-c-c on other occasions: [1], [2]) deleted the comment. When that anonymous user was asked what it was all about, PerfectStorm provided the answer here, confessing he is C-c-c-c and claiming he is trying to be a "good guy" now. I guess it is up to you to weigh the pros and cons of keeping or banning PerfectStorm. But my life experience tells me that people do not change significantly in a month's time, so I believe PerfectStorm should be banned. --Zmaj 13:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, he's staying off Balkan-related articles this time, so I'm not going to interfere. --ajn (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for checking. --Zmaj 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps of Bosnia

Hi,

user:Dado has created some new Bosnia locator maps, but without entities marked (except badly visible inter-entity line). I think this is a bad idea, so I created my own maps, with separate colors for each entity (we have that already, but those maps are in low resolution and small).

I couldn't reach a compromise with Dado, and I believe we need third opinion.

Please, see:

• Image talk:BHMunicipalities.png (talk page of Dado's map)
• Image talk:BH municipality location.gif (talk page of my map)

Could you please find some spare time to comment this. --Ante Perkovic 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reporting a user

Hello Andrew,

Sorry for bothering you. Could you please explain to me how to report a user for violating wiki rules?

Thanks

--Burgas00 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution --ajn (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ifnfo

how do you do infoboxes --Underage

Unprotect

Can you unprotect Slovenians? You seem to have forgotten you protected it. 72.144.139.170

Nope, not forgotten. There has been no activity on the article's talk page since I protected it, and the reason I protected it was because of edit-warring with no discussion. --ajn (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is quite astonishing

Hey. I was searching for my name in Google. Did you know we share the same name?! It's quite incredible that two people with the same name are working on the same website. Normy132 12:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My brother's an Aussie too - he emigrated to Perth a few years ago. --ajn (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures

Foking is in cases an acceptable maner to divide content that does not fit in a certain category. An accepted name encompassing the entire spectrum of information was found but was brutely and unjustifiably reverted and created a situation when 90% of the information contained in the original article is off-topic and has no place in it. One solution exist and involves addering to the naming conventions and using the next level of administration, the region, the encompass all buildings contained within it. It is also important to have a certain knowledge of the area which I believe the admin User:ALoan does not possess did not permit him/her to act appropriate safe in the knowledge that his change was accurate. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion and disagreement is precisely about whether that information does or does not fit into that category. --ajn (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's header itself contradict its name. The title is in Paris whilst the header speaks of a metropolitan area. A term not used in French nor is present in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Follow_local_conventions.

An easy example is Courbevoie. A building in Courbevoie (see the table) is in Courbevoire, not Paris. If it were in Paris, it'd be in Paris, not Courbevoie. You can do that with all of the other buildings mentioned as not being in Paris but in an other municipality. The communes (see Île-de-France) are in different Départements of France, themselves in the same region in France as Paris. There is no division below région to group Paris to anything surrounding it. this horribly piwelated image of the region [3] shows the reason behind not only my beliefs but how things are drawn in Île de France (Paris is département n°75). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, no matter the actions taken, this article is on the wrong side of fact, and if you'd take a few minutes to verify, or ask both parties to provide reference backing their claims, you'd see this soon enough for yourself. Everything between here and then is just a waste of time, and we are more than a few to know it - this does not pardon the revert silliness, but can explain a large part of the motivation behind it. What you have here is a (series of) low-traffic article(s), since long under the heel of one, finally getting factual attention now that Wiki is growing. The only acceptable "appropriation" of any article should be by the verifiability and comprehensibility of the fact it contains, not the unreferencable opinions of a few (in this case, two) contributors. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

...and I might add that a week-long block against User: Captain scarlet is a bit much. This story with the 'opposing' contributor in question is not new, and a veracity check - or even demand - would quickly make reasons for frustration apparent. THEPROMENADER 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could have a look at this too

Thanks for stepping in at List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris yesterday. I completely agree with you when you say that the proposed move is motivated by "mindless literalism and pedantry over common sense and common usage". If you have further time for pedantic arguing, maybe you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (région). The same user, User:ThePromenader, has been repeatedly deleting the following sentence from the introduction of the article: "Its territory corresponds for the most part to the metropolitan area of Paris." Despite being told by two users already (User:Metropolitan and I) that the sentence is perfectly fine and should stay in the introduction, he has repeatedly deleted the sentence for the same mindless literalism that you have already witnessed. You can find everybody's arguments on the talk page. In my experience over the last 10 months, it's almost impossible to have ThePromenader change his mind, so a third party comment would be helpful. Thanks. Hardouin 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

apology

I apologize for taking up a whole bunch of space on the noticeboard and for that I'm sorry. However, I do make useful edits, involve in project, comment in arbitration, and strive to maintain NPOV. On the noticeboard, I already propose to stop edit warring even though other independent users reverted his revert back to mine. [[4]] [[5]]. But anyway, all I can say is I'm sorry to put everyone into this situation and wasted everybody's time. Hopefully this issue can be resolved.--Bonafide.hustla 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The diffs provided by Bonafide.hustla are clearly irrelevant. The other user clearly stated "I don't agree with his other edits, but we should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state. To do otherwise isn't NPOV." Another user reverted Bonafide.hustla's POV pushing. This shows that many other users disagree with Bonafide.hustla's POV edits. Note that many admins have also continually reverted Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) tendentious edits. See his contributions for evidence. Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your post on AN/I. However, I am no longer edit warring with the user above after pledging not to do so for the sake of the object on my talkpage. And my contribution shows. On the other hand, the user above continues to crusade and make borderline POV stuff. So basically I'm staying out of the articles since nothing can be achieve anyway. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Bazzajf

I would like to alert you to a problem regarding this user and his block log. You may remember that he was initially blocked for a full month (after a series of shorter blocks) for blatant, repeated incivility. After discovering that he was using a sock puppet to get around this block, you told him that you were going to block him for an additional month, but according to his block log, THIS BLOCK WAS NEVER ACTIVATED--it is not listed at all. Since today is the day his original month-long block expires, I feel you should look into this. Thank you very much. 71.101.224.144 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Hi Andrew, My name is John and I write to you about a romanian -american writer and philosopher,Sorin Cerin.Please see on english wikipedia about him.Somebody,Ricky administrator want to delete.Why? I ask you because I see about Norman Manea history who are romanian writer too.If you can help this philosopher Sorin Cerin to remain there is Ok.I think is many envy. Thank You ,John

bluespaceradio

How is that spam? I have seen dozens of links for internet radio stations on band pages. The website that i have features all of the bands that I am linking, how is that different than other band sites? Did you bother to visit the site?

If there are links to internet radio stations on other band pages, those need to go too. Basically, external links should only be inserted when they are directly relevant to the subject of the article. --ajn (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

British female MPs category for discussion err discussion

Hi there. As someone who had commented earlier today at CFD for British female MPs, I wanted to inform you that there was a later nomination in the day regarding the same related categories and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to view the newly refactored discussion. Both original nominations and their discussions are preserved. We can try to sort out the best decision regarding these categories if you choose not to clarify, but I'd appreciate it if you could. Thanks very much for your understanding. Syrthiss 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Block

Okay I cannot find the password for Qho.

So please block it and the Dop. account associated with it but if you block it will I still have access to the stuff like my archives?

Or better yet could we move the archive to under this account?

I appreciate the help.

Thanks, --Missingno.^(talk) _(contribs) 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking the account will only prevent people using it, it won't eliminate any of the history (deleting pages will prevent non-admins from seeing the history, but I'm not going to delete any pages). I'll just block Qho, which means that even if someone else has the password for that account, they won't be able to use the account to do anything. --ajn (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your talk page

Just leaving you a note to explain why I reverted your talk page: the text I removed was a spurious/vexatious request from User:HotHotSoup, the latest sockpuppet of User:PoolGuy, spamming the talk pages of admins (and a few non-admins), and apparently working alphabetically. Contributions of a banned user may be reverted by anyone, but if you would still like the message to be included here, feel free to revert back. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I have no wish to see anything from PoolGuy here (I was the one who finally blocked him indefinitely, but as you say he seems to have been working his way down an alphabetic list). --ajn (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovenians Locked

A while back you locked Slovenians because there was an edit war. You said to dicuss the matter on the talk page and not simply edit war. I just wanted to tell you that I tried doing that, and this was the response: [6]. So as you could see, there was little choice but to edit war. 72.144.158.77 12:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, thank you for protecting the Slovenians page. Can you please revert the page to the version of 21 July 2006 (last editor being YurikBot). If you take a look at the page history, I added another source for the figures for Italy and Argentina on 18 July 2006 and it is missing from the current version. Regards, --Jalen 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and don't delete anyone else's comments, and I'll consider unlocking the article. --ajn (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain to you what the problem is: There is an anon user vandalising the Slovenians and other Slavic ethnicities page throughout Wikipedia [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

I noted his vandalism in the Slovenians page where I was disturbed by the false figures for Slovenians in Italy and Austria. There are considerable Slovenian minorities living in those two countries and the anon user was constantly distorting the figures. For example, he attempted to claim that there are only some 2300 Slovenians living in Italy, while the figure is in fact around 90,000. See this article by a Slovenian ethnographer for more details: [18]. The anon user was removing sourced figures for these two countries. His comment on the talk page of 11 May 2006 was completely nonsensical and was merely an attempt to justify these misrepresentations.

I am not going to waste my time discussing nonsense with an anon user who has no other work to do than giving vent to his anti-Slavic sentiments. If you refuse my request, I'll ask a Slovenian admin to revert the page to the version of 21 July 2006. Regards, --Jalen 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk page of the article. If you insist on edit-warring instead of discussing this, I will take further steps. Deleting other people's comments from talk pages is particularly egregious. --ajn (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to understand the problem though I took the effort to explain to you. Have you taken a look at any of the links I provided above? Once again: the anon user was continuously distorting the figures for Italy and Austria, removing sourced figures [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], and putting insulting edit summaries [25].

Distorting figures, writing nonsensical and misleading comments as an attempt to misrepresent and deny the existence of a strong Slovenian minority in Italy and Austria is vandalism. Moreover, he claimed I was using Ethnologue reports when I was in fact providing official population census links which he was removing. In this edit [26], for example, he replaced the official Austrian census report with a disfunctional link [27] and gave a figure that is more than three times smaller (7,000) than the true one (24,855). His edits were reverted by other users as well [28].

I did nothing wrong by reverting vandalism and obvious nonsense. You should also bear in mind that I am the one who provided most of the current population figures and sources on the Slovenians page, as is visible from the page history. I will send to a note to a Slovenian editor who is an admin on the English wikipedia and will have a better understanding of the problem. I did not ask for the page to be unlocked. It should better remain locked to prevent further vandalism. I asked for it to be reverted to this version [29] which gives an additional source for the Italian and Argentinian figures. Regards --Jalen 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a very simple one - you are refusing to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and deleting someone else's attempts to discuss it. I'm quite serious - start discussing the matter on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the other user's behaviour in general, use the dispute resolution process. --ajn (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will address a Slovenian admin on the matter and ask him to put the page on his watchlist. I would remind you I did my best to explain in detail the reasons for the edit reverts but you have been indifferent towards my clarifications. Regards, --Jalen 06:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you feel a Slovenian admin would be more sympathetic to your point of view speaks volumes. The problem is not that you are right or the other user is right, it is that you are not discussing the matter properly. I have no interest in the racial-nationalist question of who is a Slovene and how many there are. --ajn (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine do what you will

I have been spell checking many many pages and have not found any errors. Nothing can I find to edit and you do not see that. I am sorry but I cannot find any thing to do. So if you have any suggestions please let me know.

,Missingno

Andrew Please Unblock

I have been editing. None of my edits have showed up as me doing them though. Please try to understand what has been going on. My computer sais that the ip. i am editing frome is trying to change 80% of the time and nothing seemingly is showing up as me edits. I currently have made 300 edits since adding kittens to the cat page. To name a few James Bond. Kittens. trees. Cars. Computers. Frogs. Ect. Ect. I thank you for being protective of Wikipedia But blocking me is upsetting, due to all the useful edits i have made to many articles. I hope you have a good week, Missingno. I will be a on a WikiBreak for the rest of August. I will be checking in now and then. Congrats on all the edits you have made. I am thinking of possibily going to another encylopedia to contribute to. I will think about it. Well Until then, Have a great week.Missingno

Tallest structures

I have to express my disappointment at the attitude you have taken in the 'tallest structures' debate - if anything, your involvement has helped to make what should be a very simple situation into a complicated, draw-the-line standoff that has nothing to do with fact.

No reference in existence takes the sort of largesse this article does, and no self-respecting reference would even think to try to do so, and if you'd look at any reference for the fact of the matter in this, you would see for yourself why. Wiki askes at the bottom of every edit that contributors make referenced information the standard - not general ignorance, not opinion, nor agenda, and not an ability to 'convince' other contributors into publisihing unverifiable opinion as fact. One person's 'definition' of something is very often not another's, and it is for this very reason that the Wiki standard is verifiable fact.

If you can provide referenced proof about the correctness of the article's present title, then you have every reason to impeach a move. If you cannot, please avoid making any such declarations because any such impeachment would be unfounded.

The talk page in question now explains very clearly why the title is wrong. I ask you to reconsider your position, and to make a statement to this end there confirming this, even if it is to say that you do not care one way or another. There canot be consensus on error, and the hasty and uresearched involvement of a few has done much to complicate things.

Regards, thepromenader 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some good news on the above - there's been a swing towards a new article title. Talk is in that direction now, anyways. Thanks. thepromenader 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

Thank you for your attention to the Jane Grey page and for removing the recent fictional additions. I am a historian and will soon (this fall) receive a PhD in history for a dissertation on Jane Grey. My biogrpahy of Jane Grey will be published in late 2007 or early 2008. Thus I have a special interest in the topic. One entire chapter of my dissertation/book deals specifically with the many fictional accounts of Jane's life and how those fictional accounts have come to be accepted as authentic, even by legitimate historians. Some of the edits that you "undid" do actually have a basis in history, however. For example, Jane was actually presented with the crown, though it was not called the "Crown Imperial." And she was asked to try it on. But this action was taken by the Bishop of Winchester acting as Lord Treasurer, not John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. Jane did refuse to put it on. Winchester did state that a second would be made to crown her husband Guildford, and Jane did refuse to name him king, saying she would be content to make him a duke but nothing more. The events are decribed in several manuscript sources of the period, including the diary of Thomas Hoby (British Library Egerton MSS 2148). Framlingham Castle is obvioulsy in Suffolk, not Norfolk. The confusion arises often, largely because the castle had belonged to the Duke of Norfolk prior to being given to Mary by Edward VI. But I'm sure you knew that already. The anonymous editor's addition of material concerning a letter submitted by Jane to Queen Mary, a letter in which Jane protested her innocence, is probably true. I say "probably" because accounts of the letter do not appear until 50 years later in Girolamo Pollini's "Historia Ecclesia Restaurata." In my own dissertation, I offer evidence for the authenticity of the letter. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Jane did indeed offer Mary her own account of events and did protest her own innocence, and that she did so in August 1553. I am not sure why you removed the sentence about Jane having been raised in the reformed religion and refusing to convert. That sentence is entirely true. Likewise, the sentence covering the execution and Jane's panic, "Where is it? What shall I do?," is also true. The words are contained in numerous original manuscript accounts from 1554, as well as in printed accounts published in the summer of 1554. The part about commending her spirit to Jesus is entirely fictional, however. I am wondering: is there a way to lock an article on Wikipedia so that unqualified people cannot add non-factual material? This article on Jane Grey (and probably many others) seems to be subject to frequent editing by people who have read some trash novel and taken that novel as fact. I do not mean to sound too full of myself, but since I am the only trained academic historian in the past century to write a biography of Jane Grey, I think I can safely say that I am the ranking expert on her. (Alison Plowden, for all her popularity, is not a trained historian. Her biography of Jane is simply a paraphrase of Richard Davey's work of 1909.) One of Wikipedia's great failings is its policy of "article by blind committee." All and sundry can create or edit articles, without qualified expert oversight. The results are sometimes quite good, but too often untrue or misleading. It would be nice if, when a qualified expert has edited a particular article, that article could be locked out, so that all further editing must pass through the identified expert on that topic before any other changes are made. That would give Wikipedia articles much greater legitimacy and put the whole enterprise on a more respectable footing than it currently enjoys. PhD Historian 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any particular expertise, my interest comes from spending a lot of time in Bradgate Park and having hacked the article around a few months ago to make it read a little easier and to remove some obvious nonsense. I get suspicious when an anonymous editor adds stuff that conforms to romantic stereotypes, has at least one obvious error and has no cited source. As you're well aware, historians are supposed to give references, it's not that big a deal to say where you're getting your information from (even in the edit summary, or a quick note on the talk page). I thought it better to remove the whole lot, because without references or expertise there's no way for me to validate any of it. --ajn (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing obvious nonsense. In order for Wikipedia to gain credibility as a valid resource or reference, it must take measures in quality control and "fact-checking." I would rather suspicious or questionable material were removed than have erroneous material remain. It just seems to me that once an article reaches a certain point, it should be "locked" so that no nonsense can be added. So long as Wikipedia is subject to nonsense additions and vandalism, it will be very difficult for it to gain the respectablility of better known encyclopedias and references that do have control over contributions. PhD Historian 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I saw that you are a sysop. User:ThePromenader, whom you already know, filed a complaint against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin_reported_by_User:ThePromenader_.28Result:.29 Could you have a look at it please? It's based on contentious edits made tonight by Promenader in the Paris article. Promenader, with the same narrow-minded pedantry that you've already witnessed at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, is arguing that there was no municipality of Paris before the French Revolution, that the provost of the merchants of Paris was merely the head of a trade guild. It's a bit like arguing that the Lord Mayor of London was only the head of a trade guild and that there was no municipality of London. I brought evidence from the Encyclopédie showing the existence of the Paris municipality, but to no avail. You can see the evidence at Talk:Paris#Municipality bis. Because I reverted Promenader's edits, I'm afraid some admin will block my account (Promenader knows how to use all the rules of Wikipedia). After double-checking, it seems there's no exception to 3RR in the case of reverting factually wrong edits (which is crazy, I think, because it favors people who add factually wrong information to articles). Anyway, I don't know what will happen, but I have little doubt that if my account is blocked Promenader will reinstate his factually wrong edits. What can be done? He edited the article and introduced this contentious issue (denying the existence of a municipality of Paris) without discussing it beforehands on the talk page. Shouldn't contentious issues like that be discussed on the talk page first, and then edit the article only if several editors agree? Hardouin 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. All Hardouin had to do was open a discussion on the talk page - or continue the one that was already there. Instead, for over a week, he chose to ignore all discussion on both his own and the article talk page. The above post is not excuse for reverting the whole passages not even concerned with the "error" insinuated. My edits were completely normal and in good faith (as all others, if you care to look at the page history). Rather than edit discuss, Hardouin would rather follow and revert and has always been, without exception, the instigator of every revert war, even when clearly in error. I disdain the insinuation that I'm gaming the system - I broke the WP:3RR rule once because of Hardouin's nonsense, and I told him that I would never do so again, and it is only normal that I ask the same of him.

As for fact, Hardouin knows full well that to those not in the know of a subject, semantics sound like fact - the very reason that he is coming to you I'm afraid. I also like his attempt to flatter you in using your own criticisms of myself, but pedantry is not fact, so thanks for that. I also find it odd that one who has never engaged in any pre-emptive discussion and a knee-jerk reverter should speak of discussing things beforehand. It's all in the Paris page/talk history if you care to see for yourself. If we haven't caused you enough grief. thepromenader 01:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

King Bugsy

I assumed I was removing information that he inserted. My mistake. – ClockworkSoul 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think we've all been a bit confused! My fault as much as yours, too many cooks, and all that. --ajn (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means you were warring with me? ;) – ClockworkSoul 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto

Andrew, Ever since I can remember scientists have doubted Pluto as a planet. Even in university, I could not get a straight answer out of any of my profs. Why is a citation needed here? It is not a very outlandish claim that needs a backing. Even the ongoing Prague conference just goes to show how divided the scientific community has been on pluto, and this is not recent. --Bangabalunga 21:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So it won't be difficult to find a reliable source to say so, instead of just removing the {{cite}}, will it? "I know it is true" isn't good enough here. --ajn (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there you go I found a source I still dont think its necessary. Every sentence in that article could use a citation if we are holding it up to the standards you say is needed. --Bangabalunga 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, two questions:

1) What do you mean by saying my description of clearing its orbit is "original research"? All of the information in that section comes directly from Wikipedia articles.

Here is the quote you removed: This means nothing of comparable mass may orbit near the planet. (While the phrase "comparable mass" sounds vague, there's no comparison between the eight planets and Pluto. The Earth is more than a million times as massive as any near-Earth asteroid. Pluto is only about 20 times as massive as Orcus, which has a similar orbit.) Everything in this may be verified by checking out Wikipedia entries for the articles that I linked to. I have no idea why you are calling this "original research."

It is original research because you're taking information from other sources, and synthesising it into a new statement. The concept of "clearing the neighbourhood" is described very clearly in that article, it doesn't need amplification in an article which is about Pluto, not about general astrophysical definitions.

Taking info from other sources and synthesizing it? I thought that's what encyclopedias do! And there is nothing "new" about that statement. All I was doing was clarifying the term. MiguelMunoz 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

2) Why didn't you address my questions on the talk page? Did you miss the comments that I put into the text? (You deleted those comments when you deleted the text.) I put that sentence in because, from what I've been reading on the talk page and elsewhere, there is enormous confusion about the phrase "clearing its orbit," and I wanted to immediately put readers on the right track by comparing Pluto's mass with that of the other Kupier Belt Objects. I will be happy to put in a citation, if you would only make it clear what details you need a citation for.

A citation is needed for the comparison of the ratios of masses of Earth/Pluto and their nearby neighbours. That's the original research, in a nutshell - has anyone else explained things in those terms? If so, provide a reference. I'm not convinced that even with a reference, it would be appropriate for an article which is supposed to be about Pluto, not about how the IAU defines planets. --ajn (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. While I think that a simple numerical comparison hardly qualifies as "original research," I'll dig up a reference. As for the question of whether this is appropriate in an article about Pluto, I would agree with you if there wasn't already so much confusion about this question. I've read many erroneous statements about what this means on several web sites (including Wikipedia), so I thought I should clarify the point right away. BTW We can probably come to agreement about what the article should say, but I would have appreciated if you had tried to communicate with me before removing the passage. Simply directing me to this page would have sufficed. MiguelMunoz 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's are the comments you may have missed: "The clarification of the term comes from the original source, and the data of the masses of Earth, NE Asteroids, Pluto, and Orcus, all come from Wikipedia entries. Please see "Definition Clarification" in the discussion page for Pluto. If there is anything else you need to know to remove the {{or}} reference, please say so here or on the discussion page."

RFC Biographies

I would appreciate your sane opinion on Kyra Phillips and I will do the same on Miguel Pro. I have removed your name from the RFC request as well. Electrawn 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The Pro biography has been driving me nuts over the last year or so - I read about him in Graham Greene's The Lawless Roads, which was written on commission from a Catholic organisation and even more pro-Catholic than usual, so I turned to Wikipedia to see if there was a less biased account of his life (I love Greene, but when it comes to anything concerning Catholicism he's never objective). The article has ping-ponged between Catholics painting him as the holiest man who ever lived cruelly executed by a foul and oppressive government, and supporters of the Mexican republic painting him as a fascist terrorist. I did find today that the library at work has a book about the Cristero War which might well include neutral biographical details. --ajn (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled on Kyra Phillips after her recent gaffe on CNN. I could care less if she is a conservative/liberal analyst, however she is tied in with the wikipedia siegenthaler issue/debate. This makes for significant urgency for when that issue gets revisited by the media. For 6 months, a defamatory controversy section was in place. I have been trying to dismantle it as a whole, then dividing and conquering on a fact by fact source by source way. A serious number of wikipedians are not understanding of defamation and why we have to treat biographies of living people to such an extreme high standard. the underlying issues have a potential to erode wikipedia, better to discuss them now than another Sigenthal/Wales confrontation on Live From. Electrawn 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Bertrand Russell

I count one two three four. I will leave up to you how you're going to go about undoing it, unless you don't care to, in which case, just let me know and I'll go ahead and give you your 24 hour obligatory block. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't break the 3RR unless (as in this case) by accident, but I would never enforce it either - the rule says that infractions may result in a 24h block, not that they must. Personally I feel it's more important to look at the context (in this case, a long-term editor of the page versus someone who is pretty clearly a follower of Lyndon LaRouche and therefore bound by the arbitration committee ruling not to push LaRouche's viewpoint in any article). 3RR ought to be a tool for improvement of the encyclopaedia, not an automatic process, which is why I ignore enforcement (though, as I say, I try to stick to the rule). I have self-reverted my last edit within that 24 hour period. --ajn (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in enforcing rigid rules, but 3RR has a rationale behind it. Instead of making judgments about others' views and acting upon those judgments to the extent where you find yourself reverting the same text even twice [with the exception of cases in which the editor you find yourself opposing is clearly a troll--something I don't see evidenced in either the edits nor the talk page discussion], indicates that the editing is not being driven by consensus, but rather by a desire to have the article reflect one perspective rather than some other. Anyways, enough pontification from me. Have a great day. :) Tomer^talk 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. --ajn (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

hi

Hey Andrew,

Long time no see. Whats up? Anyways, I noticed something that may be of interest to you. User:Bosniak has a photo in his userpage (Image:Srebrenica Child Raped Hung.jpg) that is copyrighted. I have warned him that he should remove it, but he refuses to do so. I remember how swiftly you acted when I refused to remove a copyrighted photo from my page a few months ago, I hope you give Bosniak the same treatment. Thanks in advance, --Bormalagurski 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --ajn (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

help with Bormalagurski's disruption of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Andrew,

This is Fairview360. I work on the Srebrenica Massacre article. We have a problem with repeated disruptions at the article by editors who do not, I believe, want to improve the article but rather have an agenda of denial and obfuscation.

Every now and then, there is relative peace and then editors who do not all agree but have a common goal of improving the article begin constructive discussion and edits. If you look at topics #47 through #54 on the discussion page, you will see that indeed we do get down to constructive discussions when it is peaceful.

Currently, we have a problem with Bormalagurski and two of his associates Svetislav Jovanović and KOCOBO who are deleting sections of the article without good reason. This has happened before. Then we descend into an edit war. And then it takes a week to repair the damage and get back to constructive discussion.

The article definitely needs help, but we can't improve it when all of our time is spent thwarting users whose actual purpose is denial and obfuscation.

Given Bormalagurski's track record well researched by user:Kseferovic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Just_so_you_know , would it be possible to block Bormalagurski editing the Srebrenica article? There is no place for his belligerence towards editors and outright denial of genocide. Nothing good will come from his being at the Srebrenica article.

Given the recent onslaught, my guess is that Bormalagurski, KOCOBO, Svetislav, and others of their ilk have decided to attack the article.

Can you help?

I welcome constructive disagreements but not false arguments that are only meant to distract people.

Thank you. Fairview360 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures - "Paris area"

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph

I'm tempted to initiate an RFAR or RFC on the whole issue between Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia in their stead. I was the first MedCab mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute between the two editors, and it was flatly refused by Zeraeph. Further attempts at resolving this peacefully were rejected. Since then, it seems to have blown up to the blocking point. -_-

Got any advice for someone who just wants this whole affair between them to end?

Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd come to that conclusion too on thinking about it today - if Zeraeph doesn't do it, we should. I think it's way, way beyond the RFC stage, plenty of people have looked at the situation and nobody seems to think Zeraeph's allegations make any sort of sense. Arbitration's the way forward. I'm going to be offline most of next week (when Zeraeph's block expires), but I'll look again at the situation when I get back. --ajn (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be around, though I may be taken up by other matters outside WP. I'll get it done if Z or SG don't. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to this page, ajn. I am traveling and have limited (and excruciatingly slow) internet access for the remainder of this week and the beginning of the next. I will also be traveling for two weeks during October. The pattern thus far has been that 1) she refuses any type of mediation, and 2) any attention to the matter causes it to continue, and to escalate into further unprovoked and unfounded attacks on me; I hope anyone who engages Zeraeph is prepared for that, since I'm the one being smeared every time someone else engages. What hasn't been tried is simply ignoring the provocation: even though I have disengaged from the articles she edits and wasn't even aware of the drama unfolding on the AS talk page, others (including the anon AOL users) keep engaging. Torinir, I'm not comfortable with the terminology of the "affair between us": no one yet knows what her complaint about me is, I attempted mediation, which she rejected (as she did all 3 mediations), and I disengaged from the article (User Keyne notified me of the most recent mediation); she continues, and has escalated. I'm willing to mediate in good faith or do whatever is best for Wiki, but the pattern so far doesn't give me much reason for hope. Sandy 06:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anyone looking at the situation can see that there's no sense to it. I'm coming to the conclusion that the answer's a community ban, without dragging this out any further - it seems unfair to drag you into an arbitration case (which you obviously would have to be involved in, even peripherally) when you haven't done anything wrong at all. Mediation's obviously a waste of time. --ajn (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ajn, and I appreciate your efforts, but I sense this is not going to go away easily. If I have to help with ArbCom, I will, but I do agree it's likely to be a waste of time. I saw the claim that I had e-mailed her, which I have never done (indicating she still believes I am the anon AOL users), so I suspect there is much more to this whole business than meets the eye. I walked into the middle of a big one, simply for being active on WP:FAR. I am going to be very busy through mid-October, so please let me know if any input is required. Sandy 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. Per the AN comments, I am agreeable to giving DeathPhoenix time to try to come up with a hopefully longer-term workable solution. I do not believe an ArbCom will help in the long run, as Zeraeph may just use socks, proxies, impersonations, or any other means of harassing me. Perhaps some time will allow DeathPhoenix and Zeraeph to come to some agreement. Sandy 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe myself and Justdignity made some important contributions to the Bully and Workplace Bullying topics back around May 2006 but the text kept on being immediately deleted by Zeraeph on the basis of no citations. But very little else on those topics had citations either. Zeraeph said she would be happy to reinstate my text if it had citations. But that left me at her mercy as to whether in her view i had enough citations or in the right places. She should have left my text in place with citation markers in place and I would have gladly provided citations. On her basis i hardly felt motivated to bother doing any more work. I would love to contribute more to the Bully, Workplace Bullying and NPD topics but not with Zeraeph around.

Please also check the huge number of revealing comments made by Zeraeph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bully I even created a subtopic called "Zeraeph" on that page back in May. The "Characteristic of Bullies" subtopic is also particularly revealing. User "Justdignity" makes the following revealing comment about Zeraeph: "I have read some of the feedback on your page and I realise Penbat and I are not the only ones to have fallen foul of your personal crusade to uphold what you think is WIki policy. While I accept Wiki policy applies to me, please will you accept that it applies to you too." --Penbat 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Pluto

Well youtube does not get much time on the page. You know it is a bit of a loss not to have a fun section in wikipedia where humor related to the subject can be linked to youtube. Information tough guy, and wikipedia policy not flexable. How are young people going to enjoy information if guys like you are into deletes and rvt. delete is so final. That is what happened to the dinosaws 65 million years ago, they were the deleters of youtube back then. Extinction. Poor pluto

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of links to videos of teenagers trying to be funny. --ajn (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We forget that Kepla, Kapernacus, Newton were all kids at one time in their lives. What is important is that young people come to wikipedia for one reason, to see some good links to fun stuff on youtube and learn some good knowledge from wikipedia. You tube is not a print medium. More people watch tv than read books. youtube is the way to say a message. take simpsons cartoon. Need a mixture. One link to youtube will not corrupt wikipedai but deletes in wikipedia will. wikipedia is just as much ours as it is yours.RoddyYoung 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tall Structures

Ajn - almost all of your remarks in the vote discussion concern my acts and nothing fact - and your vote seems to reflect the same. The very reason for my frustration is that the problem/solution is so head-holdingly simple - it is the opposition to any move - but two, not counting you - that is complicating things through any argument but fact. Look at the arguments in the page - who is asking for reference and stating realities, and who has nothing but vague ideals as argument? Have a look around at other references, namely other websites on "tall structures", and ask yourself why they don't do the same. No self-respecting reference would. The most "Paris" way I have ever seen it put an any site in any language is "Paris (including suburbs)".

Please put the personal aside and take a good look at fact: this is what the world sees of Wiki, not silly long-winded talk page argument. Regards. THEPROMENADER 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph

new posts added to the admin page. -I am Kiwi 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jane Grey Article

Thanks for editing out the snarky comments by Wiyam on the Jane Grey article. I really do wish there was a way to lock that article so that all edits had to pass through a screening process of some kind. There have been three insertions of fictional material in the last week alone. It seems a waste of energy to have to keep track of that kind of stuff. And it degrades the overall quality of Wikipedia when people insert stuff written by BBC screenwriters and novelists ("popular historians") into what is an otherwise reasonably accurate and well documented article. It's enough to make a legitimate contributor give up and stop working on articles. PhD Historian 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, to some extent - but it's very difficult on an open project like this to prevent that sort of thing. Having "registered authors" for articles would really defeat the point of Wikipedia, even if it would produce far better articles in some areas. I'll keep watching LJG. --ajn (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, Wikipedia has a poor reputation in the academic and upper-level teaching community, owing in large part to its relative lack of control over content. Many of us involved in teaching do not allow students to cite Wikipedia when writing papers because there is no way for those students to know whether or not the content of a given article is valid. The Jane Grey article is a perfect example. Because of Wikipedia's open contribution policy, there is virtually nothing to prevent people from adding non-factual or unsupported material to any article. The scholarly quality of any given article is entirely reliant upon the presence of some person or persons keeping continuous and daily watch on that article to ensure that it is not rendered non-factual by a misguided contributor. So long as Wikipedia refuses to institute reliable quality control measures, it will continue to be a non-trustworthy information source. And that is truly sad, because it has the potential to be a really good free source of information. I'm quite happy to keep track of the Jane Grey article for now, but my patience will be limited. If contributors insist on fictionalizing the article, I will stop trying to keep it scholarly. If recognized experts in a specific field routinely have their work altered by non-experts, why should we contribute to Wikipedia? The effort if pointless unless the work can somehow be reliably protected and subject to quality review. Until Wikipedia asserts some kind of quality control over its content, it will always be little more than a billboard subject to constant grafitti. PhD Historian 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I work in a very different field, but overheard a despairing conversation a couple of days ago about our masters students citing Wikipedia articles in their final dissertations and expecting to be taken seriously. I don't think it ever will be a proper scholarly resource. --ajn (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Just to let you know, I've unblocked User:Drdavidhill. -- The Anome 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris skyscrapers (sequel)

Hi Andrew, I remember you took part in the discussion at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and I don't know if you are aware that there is now a mediation going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris. This mediation was called for by User:ThePromenader whom you may remember. We're having a problem now because two users (ThePromenader and User:Grcampbell, aka Bob) have bypassed the mediation and unilaterally edited the La Défense article as well as about 20 La Défense skyscraper articles (such as Tour AXA, Tour Total, and so on) despite lack of consensus on the points edited. The mediator (User:GofG) doesn't answer messages anymore (gone on vacation??). The only admin who was part of the mediation, User:ALoan, whom you may also remember, tried to stop Grcampbell from making these unilateral edits ([30]), but he's now made it clear that he is fed up with the controversy and that he's giving up. Crazy situation, isn't it? A mediation with the mediator gone, and the only admin involved giving up. So I think it's time for other admins to step in.

I have already explained things clearly at User talk:ALoan#Thanks for stepping in and User talk:ALoan#Can you say something?, so I won't repeat myself here. ALoan left a note on the incident noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and other pages), but I'm not sure he will be heard. Is there anything that you can do? These articles need to return to how they stood at the start of mediation, otherwise there's no point in having a mediation. Hopefully you can help. Hardouin 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to further bother you with this, but I must comment the above. All of the above claims are baseless - Hardouin is alone in reverting these pages that are in no mediation at all, and he is acually opposed by three contributors. For further explanation please see my reply to the same complaint on the administrator's panel here, and if you like a message I left on Guy's talk page. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation bypassed by ThePromenader again today: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. Still no news from the mediator. Hardouin 12:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, these articles are not in any mediation. Their present state is the result of an agreement between three contributors. Kindly stop the baseless and disruptive reverting and complaints, Hardouin. Again apologies for having to respond here. THEPROMENADER 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you two please knock it off. As far as I'm concerned, you are both currently engaged in disruptive edit-warring, and I'd strongly advise both of you not to make any changes regarding the precise status of areas of the city to Paris-related articles until you have sorted the matter out. Wiki-lawyering about what is or is not covered by mediation is not important. --ajn (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right on that, but the changes have already been made by ThePromenader and Grcampbell, disregarding the mediation process. So what are we to do now? Hardouin 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. He's asking you to revert back to "his version". The edits in question were made by Bob and approved by Metropolitan and myself, they were not made by me. This "mediation" connection is only an invention of Hardouin to overturn this because he doesn't agree with it. Myself I won't be editing anything until this mediation is over - this nonsense won't leave any time for it. THEPROMENADER 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The "mediation connection" is my "invention"? Really? Read what ALoan has to say about it: [36]. Hardouin 15:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please put this on the talk page of the article in question. The talk page is not protected. --ajn (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Intervention

I noticed your intervention at List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Did you notice, however, that User:Netscott didn't just change the title of the article, he also split the skyscrapers table in two, creating one table for the City of Paris proper (or "in Paris" as he called it), and one table for skyscrapers outside of the City of Paris (or " in Paris' satellite communes and suburbs" as he called it). This idea of two separate tables, with the bulk of skyscrapers ending up in the second table (because of La Défense), was opposed by almost all editors, including those who would like to change the title of the article if you remember. Hardouin 19:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

Can you be more specific as to the block reason for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.18.119.242

Also - is there no warning?

Why did you revert the edits? I consider them to be Lay Philosophers as defined on the category:lay philosophers page (although I may have mistyped the category as "Lay Philosopher" instead of "Lay Philosophers".

Can you please correct the edits to say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lay_Philosophers

Thankyou 75.30.202.252 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 75.30.202.252 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Read WP:POINT.
2. No, there is no warning for people who are behaving in ways they ought to know they shouldn't.
3. Read WP:POINT, again.
4. No.

--ajn (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I read WP:POINT and I do not know which point you are making - I used clear edit summaries and tried to correct my misspelling of the category (although I think that the category should have an 's' on the end) I don't have a tool and had to use cut and paste and I used the spelling of the other members of the category.

Is there a tool that is supposed to be used when a new category is added?

There are a lot of members of the new category and it will take a while to complete. I assume there may be disagreement about a few of them, but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis by people who are more familier with each philosopher.

Thankyou for your listening75.30.202.252 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: The category:Lay Philosophers description was changed after I made my changes. It originally said "A lay philosopher is a person who publishes philosophical arguments but is not a professional philosopher."

But, afterward, someone changed it to include: "To be included in this category, there needs to be easily verifiable reference of the use of the term lay philosopher to the individual in question."

This change may be what confused you. 75.30.202.252 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you accidently reverted my edit that removed costume designer as one of Ayn Rand's professions - This was discussed on the talk page to be removed until there was more evidence and more information that this was a significant part of her life experience 75.30.202.252 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, my IP address changed when I rebooted my DSL router, but I have edited only this page as per the 24 hour block 75.30.202.252 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

My block is finally over.

After reviewing your "terse" - "Read WP:POINT." answers to my questions and your cryptic mention of "people who are behaving in ways they ought to know they shouldn't", I deduced that you must think I am someone else. I am not someone else and never have been - we have never collaborated before in any way - I was totally unaware of your existence prior to my receipt of a block notice from your.

Anyway, you seem to be a very busy and serious Wikipedia monitor, so good luck! (But try to slow down to avoid this kind of "accident" in the future) 75.11.190.106 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (previously 75.30.202.252)

You are no better at deduction than you are at understanding philosophy. Mucking around with the articles of real philosophers in order to prove a point about Ayn Rand is most definitely violation of WP:POINT. Don't do it again. --ajn (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)