This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article does make clear how she meets notability as it says in there that she was elected to the Spanish Parliament as an MP therefore she automatically meets notability for people per WP:POLITICIAN which states : "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" Valenciano (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Please explain on the talk page what you think needs cleaning up, as the article seems in good shape to me, apart from just the list of artists. Ty10:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I'm still stumped. I'm not exactly a newbie and am familiar with those guidelines, but I don't see what you want cleaning up. The lead provides a concise summary of the main points that are in the article. It could possibly do with a little more detail, but it's about right for the length of the article. Headings? They seem reasonable enough to me and hardly out of the ordinary. The list of artists I have mentioned above, and I'm not quite sure how to deal with that. Lists aren't my speciality. The other list of "Exhibitions and performances" is formatted OK. Please enlighten. It would help if you post on the article talk page for the benefit of any other editors involved with the page. I'm copying this thread there. Ty05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Cerejota, after studying the situation from every point of view, I have come to a conclusion in regard to the infox discussion which I believe may be a just one. Please check it out and express if you agree. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hello Cerejota, I am not going to put up with the "user's" nonsense anymore. I would appreciate if you could give a last comment on the issue before I bring the issue to an end. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I want to apologize for my actions during the Puerto Rican Campaign situation. My intentions were to act as mediator and instead became frustrated with Durero. I would be totally unfair if I do not give credit to his valid observations. Even though we at times got off the main topic which was the contents of the inbox, I believe that the final addition (caption) to the infobox is justifable and will help clear any misunderstandings. By Durero pointing this out in the first place, I think we will be able to aviod future edit warring on this particular topic in the future. Gracias a todos, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
could you comment please?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please leave proper edit summaries that explain what has been done in the edit. "Not needed", "actually", "better" and "move", as you have put in edit summaries for Stella Vine, are not at all helpful for other editors See Help:Edit summary for more information. Ty12:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not really, they are self-explaining with the diffs or previous edits. You might disagree with them, but they are self-explanatory. In particular "move" is very clear, once the content is restored. "better" is only used after a previous edit, and refers to a better (from my perspective) edit. --Cerejota (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You left some broken references
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
On 08:46, 8 February 2009 you made an addition to the article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. You added to the section about "Antisemitic incidents". Apparently you copied that from somewhere else, because there are two references that refer to names that do not appear in this article. They are "name=TO/" and "name=AJC/". If you could please add the complete references (or leave me a note where to fetch them). Debresser (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
One ref I found right away. The other one was a long story of deletion and restoring, and initially copied from a third article. Now I've got them all. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have fixed his attempt with the unblock template - but I will allow another administrator to look at the request - as I was the blocking admin there. Thanks for the notice, Cirt (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Jot of info re Milhist. Can't find your subpage, so I've put it here.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Hezbollah and the Syrian army are not Hamas," a senior IAF officer said. "We cannot assume that things will be the same in a bigger war."
During Operation Cast Lead the IAF implemented a number of changes that it learned from the Second Lebanon War in 2006. For instance, an air force liaison officer was assigned to every battalion and brigade. Liaisons coordinated evacuation of soldiers and strikes on targets on the ground. Also, every brigade was given an attack helicopter squadron capable of striking targets identified by troops on the ground.
Over 1,000 Hellfire and Orev missiles were fired by Israeli helicopters during the operation. An order to use only laser-guided weapons was given to minimize collateral damage. IAF sources stated that as a result, most incidents of friendly fire were not caused by their own force, but rather by tank or other fire.
Still, IAF officers insisted there was a shortage of helicopters. Cobras that had been grounded for six months due to an accident in which two airmen were killed were rushed back into action.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you remove your comment? Cryptonio improperly removed my comment and his own, presumably because they embarrassed him. I restored the comments he removed, but not yours. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I did not claim that the ICRC was not a RS, but that it could be/was seen/ by some as biased. Perhaps Schussel's blog was not the best source in the world, I was merely illustrating the point. It was used on a talk page, not the article, and the information is certainly verifiable, and I noted that (some) of the information was on wiki as well. Their WWII behavior is not forgotten by everybody, and in fact they just recently apologized for it. There are a number of other reasons that some believe it is biased as well, including the unwillingness of the RC to accept the
"Red" Magen David for many years, yet accepting the Muslim Crescent. There is also the issue of Jewish prisoners and kidnap victims, ie the fact that Israel permits ICRC to see Palestinian prisoners yet doesn't require Hamas or Hezbollah to allow them to see their Israeli prisoners. The American Red Cross also boycotted the ICRC for some time because of its refusal to allow Israel in with the Magen David. There are other specific concerns with the ICRC, but I do not intend to document them all, because as I said I am not contesting them as a RS. But to suggest that this is a "fringe" view is laughable. Most human beings know nothing at all about the ICRC, but of those that do, there is a sizeable minority who hold these concerns. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am well acquainted with this history, and the debate around it, as I am with the holocaust denialism. The USA was very much an accomplice of the Red Cross issues during WWII, as pointed out in the Nizkor Reuters article. That is even a topic covered in the ICRC article.
The view on the Holocaust and the ICRC is in fact fact part of mainstream history, and a tragic chapter on the meaning of neutrality in international humanitarian law - and has given birth to concepts such as "responsibility to protect". It has also been profusely apologized for. Less generalized, but still generally accepted, has been the issues around Switzerland and the Nazis. However, these are the stuff of history. I can see why you as an activist can feel compelled to raise these issues. But they are irrelevant when they come to evaluate the validity of a source for an event today.
This are still issues that do not detract from the reliability of the ICRC as a source of information, unless there is clear evidence that in this case they are misrepresenting information. You see, pretty much every publication and organization we can consider reliable sources has as some point or even currently be subjected to controversy on the part of a "sizeable minority". Not because of this do we stop holding them as reliable sources. The New York Times, decried in even "mainstream" blogs like Wonkette as the "Jew York Times", is a reliable source. IBM, whose technology enabled the efficient organization of the Holocaust, is considered a reliable source in technology articles about itself. Etcetera. Iffiness of action doesn't mean lack of reliability as a source, it means qualification as a source. Otherwise, none of the sources we use could be considered reliable: every publication mentioned explicitly in WP:RS has had to retract, fire journalists, and been engaged in partisan political debate as to their lines. Yet we consider them reliable sources. Why? Becuase its irrlevant than they have, as in general these are the exceptions and not the rules.
This was clearly explained to us Jimbo when he spoke about Al Jazeera: a reliable source is reliable if we can verify its information as reliable, and we do this by verifying their standards. Thats the part before and after the part you bolded. Reliability is not like notability, a black and white criteria. It is a gradient that changes with context.
The ICRC is considered a reliable source in terms of casualties and other such information because it is seen not only as neutral, but as interested in correct reporting of casualties, in part because thats what they do. I will tell you something tho - if the Israeli goverment directly and with evidence questions the ICRC as a reliable source, thats another deal. But a few books from non-notables, and a bunch of partisan blogs do not evidence make. Certainly, the ICRC is a much more reliable source, in abstract, than any of those you have cited.
Interestingly enough, the "greatest tragedy" in the history of the ICRC was probably commited by Chechen muslims: The ICRC hospital of Novye Atagi (not a good article by any means, but the lack of sources is lazyness, not lack of verification). The ICRC takes flack from all sides of pretty much very modern conflcit it is present at, which tends to support its claim of neutrality, rather than diminish it. --Cerejota (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not an activist, that is your characterisation. * Again, I was not denying that it was a RS but that it was/is considered biased by many who are one side of that conflict.
Jimbo Wales did not say that we had to verify Al-Jazeera as a RS, he said to concern ourselves with what the information was being used for and since when it comes to text we may not know the facts surrounding the caveats he gave (ie who is reporting), he said 'not to go beyond the facts.' Therefore, it is a good idea to also get the information from another RS. After all, if something is notable (and factual) it ought to be on more than one source. He also said that it was possible to use AJ photos as propaganda for one side. The same is true for text, obviously.
As for the "Jew York Times," people may call it that, however most supporters of Israel do not consider that it supports Israel in the slightest, on the contrary. So the "Jew York Times" concept has more to do with Jews than Israel. I said in my initial posting that it was not the world's greatest source and I was not trying to add it to the article. Many people may not be aware of ICRC's history, and the fact that not everyone on one side of this conflict finds them such a RS -- in fact many find them biased. Ditto and even more so for HRW & AI. Those are facts that all the yammering in the world will not make them disappear. We will doubtless end up using them in the article since RS quote from them, but that doesn't detract from what I am saying, and it is only fair that editors who use these sources are aware of the thinking on both sides of the fence. That they dismiss it is their perogative. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, you are not an activist. How should I describe you then? Neutral you are not. Disinterested you are not. Constant war-like opposition to whatever editors of the other side do is activism. I call spades, spades. You are generally civil, and I learn a lot of stuff I didn't know existed, but thats about it.
As to the argument you make here, certainly it is not the argument you made in the talk page of the article. You clearly questioned the reliability of it as source. I am all for extra verifiability in controversial articles. It makes for ugly footnoting but a better article. If that's your concern, then suggest we add equaly or more reliable sources that say the same thing. Or if there is a difference between the two, then constrast them. But do not question the reliability, because it is reliable. That "many" find them biased is irrelevant, so do "many" who find Magen David Adom unreliable and we use it, sometimes as a single source. Just because a source doesn't say what you want it to say do we have to remove it: it depends on the context. Or the inverse is true, just because a RS says it doesn't mean we have to quote it. Quite frankly, I believe you very capable of civil discourse, but uncapable of ever writing a single line of text that while verified, doesn't fit your preconcieved notions of a given topic. Prove me wrong.
I seldom like to intepret Jimbo or give him undue weight. He clearly re-stated what WP:RS, nothing earth shaking, and your constant (mis)use of him is unamusing. We are requiered to do that of all sources, its called verification. --Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
User:Cerejota accusing editors of "taking marching orders" from CAMERA (redux)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Damn it! I missed out on the fun. Apologies, I would have chimed in with an enormously helpful 'this is silly' comment which would of course have settled the matter instantly.... Sean.hoyland - talk07:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't understand why you would consider it necessary to insult another user at an RfC that has nothing to do with that user? [1] Please try to stay on topic without accusing another user of "usually being off-base" and not assuming good faith. Please try to stay on content and not focus on other users. Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tundra, I copied and pasted what he said about himself, in jest, and so did I, in jest, as marked by the smiley, re-read the tread. You really got to lighten up. Really. And I am not accusing him of not assuming good faith, I am saying that the rationale is - which is obvious by the intervention. Its funny, really, how you are so preoccupied with alleged misbehavior, instead of actually having interesting discussions, like the other thread. In particular around things we probably agree more than disagree, like ArbCom reform. --Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I really like your pro-Wikipedia position in the latest debates; having no agenda and doing small edits here and there that adds a lot to the article readability and professionalism. Please accept this little barnstar ;):
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK. I'll sign my posts. Actually my Signature is a bit lengthy. It may create difficulty while editing. I'll use my default signature temporarily. Lots of issues. We'll do it. Kensplanet (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
List of Puerto Ricans to include ancestry, good! We have a minor situation. One of the main sources in the "Black history of Puerto Rico" ref.#7, is no longer in the net and is a dead link. I think that Jmundo fixed it. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Clear
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Yeah I meant it lol. I personally agree with the neutrality tag and feel that it is necessary, but from my perspective it would take a miracle for a consensus to be reached. Although I think there are far more important issues within the article which is clearly the underlying issue of the whole dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
What about using {{article issues}} with the 4 or 5 options that apply?
On "miracle for a consensus to be reached", well in particular if you and Nablezzy continue your courtship (he-he) in the talk page. I think you guys should call a truce, and refrain from addressing each other directly - rest assured, people form either his side or your will reply. While highly entretaining at times, it does tend to raise the room temperature... uknowhatimean? --Cerejota (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately he tends to follow me around wherever I go. I've done my best to avoid user-to-user discussions but it's practically impossible now considering our past feuds. I'm probably soapboxing anyways LOL. But I'm not lying about the following part, he recently decided to chime in on my noticeboard discussion. How thoughtful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Brewcrewer does the same thing to me, and I usually don't get my undies all up in a bunch (except when he goes bully on me - it activates in me very primal insticts that led to me being in detention almost every other week in junior high for beating bullies up for messing with my computer club buddies).
Yes, you guys are all very interested editors with very opposed POVs. The issue is that you both keep on bullying each other (and wikifan, I say this with all due respect, you have also in the past gone after me). Its a chicken and egg issue - so who started it is irrelevant. But whoever stops it, and stops it even in the face of continued misbehavior is the one that gets the credit. This has to stop, and we have to reach consensus. We are smart people, so we should be able to find a way, however long it takes. And one way to start on that road is to de-escalate, to WP:AGF and to WP:CHILL: if people do crap, revert them, if they continue to do crap, go to WP:DR. But if there is a lesson to be learned is that wikipedia will not let narrative wars get in the way on writting an encyclopedia: it has time and again gone against narrative pushers - be it in IP/AI or in abortion or Evolution v Intelligent Design or any of the major controversies. We all need thicker skins, and a more focused approach. And probably talk more and shout less. ;) --Cerejota (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah but the difference between me and Nableezy is that I try to avoid editing as much as possible. When I see Nableezy POV-pushing, I don't make talk sections like "The Case against Nableezy." I make one lousy revert and there is a 15 paragraph discussion about why I'm the source of all our problems. totally fucked up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I understand and empathize. And while you don't jump, but others do - the first recorded instance of a username in a section was my name. You see my point. I agree with you that section was not needed, but at the same time, more discussion is needed - TLDR doesn't apply here, because the more we leave unsaid, the more people fill in the blanks with their preconceived notions.
The fact is the biggest problem is the "us v them" mentality: it makes one automatically oppose whatever one editor makes, and support whatever another editor makes. This is the root cause of our problems, and all sides are guilty - and this has included me at times. When we do this, we lose all credibility. In fact, there is stuff in the article that I do not agree with, but it seems every RS does, so fuck it, include it - if we all adopted this criteria the problems would go up in smoke. All we would have is interesting debates around around wording and the reliability of sources - instead of heavily personalized behavorial issues (and mind you - I am engaged on that too). All it would take for this to happen is for someone to step up and be the Rabin of this peace process.--Cerejota (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Haha yeah but I doubt the situation will change. Save from everyone whose been deemed POV-pushing or collective doing so (i.e, Darwish, Nab, untirl basically high-fiving each other) then the situation will continue. The article is so big and bloated it's hard to police it, and when it is people bitch and that takes up another 100kb of space. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
babycue
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I dont want to put this on the article talk, not really relevant to the article, but my problem with 'babycue' is that it is a play on words, aka a type of joke, about something that I personally would rather not see joked about. I am probably being over sensitive about this, which is why I havent said anything before, but the picture is about something serious and does bring out pretty strong emotions, so seeing it being dealt with so lightly can be a lil hard. Nothing personal, I have seen you try to diffuse other problems with humor, but this one just bothers me. I wont bring it up again, but you asked why I didnt want to use that term so I thought Id let you know. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why thank you, and if brevity is what you are looking for I think 'ISM baby pic' would work and people will know what you are referring to. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also, the line 'I call a spade a spade it just is what it is' was from a 2pac song, 'Wonder Why They Call U (expletive removed)' that Jay-Z used later. Nobody else answered it, but I think we should follow Jeopardy rules and say you are currently at -5 pretend dollars. But there is a chance for redemption, 10 pretend dollars will be awarded if you can name the artist who gave us this gem: "Chicago aint a city its a nation" (was going to use that in the density discussion when trying to compare Gaza to Chicago). Nableezy (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
See my response. This is misuse of process after a recent DRV, but since chances are this will be allowed to run its course, I also added a reasoning for strong keep.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Gracias
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for nominating "Black history of Puerto Rico" for "FAC". It was one the aticles which I most enjoyed writing. I learned so much while writing it. Have you taken a look at the "talk" page? There is this person who calls himslef "Portoricansis" who has dedicated himself to creating political controversies in the "Puerto Rican cuisine" and "Puerto Rico" articles and is now doing the same in this article. Check out his ridiculous questioning of the articles "GA" status. I just hope that he does not provide a negative influence in the articles nom. Incredible. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Me leeiste la mente... I just left a message there, including a link to the readability analysis. The most worrying part of the thread, which I didn't address, is the racist flavor they had. It really me dejo un saborcito malo en la boca... This guy must be brough under control, all he does is vandalize and troll, and you have been giving him so many chances is not funny. --Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Portoricenssis isn't racist, he just spreads pro-anexionism propaganda blindly, the exact opposite of ultra-separatist Wiki En Wiki. Now, don't be confused by my statement, this guy is a P.I.T.A. that will go out of his way to push his POV. He is already running on a final warning, so if he goes ahead with any disruption, just leave me a message and I will gladly put an end to his run. - Caribbean~H.Q.19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I put a last warning in his talk page, to make things clear. I also linked appropriate policies - he should have the chance to understand the reasoning for any action. And yeah Wiki En Wiki was infamous.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would bet you my house that he will continue, getting his behind blocked in the process. The only reason that I spared him this time was because his ridiculous comment, actually made me laugh. Un burro hablando de orejas? Hilarious! Anyway, if he is blocked, I will gladly begin a consensus to have him banned as well. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, uninvolved admins seem to agree an RfC might be in order, due to the long-time pattern of disruption. Its sad really, cause he has done some good contributions. But sometimes these type of things force people to reflect and comeback as better editors.--Cerejota (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I'm done being lenient, this guy will get a full indef block the next time. Several users (me included) tried talking to him and failed, he just went ahead, ignored consensus and declared Puerto Rican cuisine "his" article. Outside of the constant POV-pushing and trolling, he was already blocked by Tony for posting a direct off-wiki threat towards him and he just issued one against me. If I was trigger-happy, he would be blocked just for that, but curse my merciful nature. Altough, I don't see this ending here, the socks will soon follow... - Caribbean~H.Q.20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You got my back, by what is worth. Remember I am involved in editing the WP:ARBPIA topics, which are a chock full of these type of things: this is pedestrian by comparison, if you will ;). I admire your patience, because it just makes trusting your judgment so much easier.--Cerejota (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, you are a brave one, I wouldn't touch that conflict with a 10-ft pole. My pin has been in there for two years, I might take a look at the "official" one once I update, which will probably not be soon, I still need to list my latest GAs there. - Caribbean~H.Q.21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wow, here I thought that I was inventing something ;). As to the WP:ARBPIA, its a dirty job, but someone is got to do it... its full of POV-pushing, meat/sockpupettry, uncivility etc. I feel I come out stronger out of it, because I would have been to hell and back. Its a good school. Thats why this guy doesn't faze me, he is an amateur. I have been up to the Big Bad Wolves, and come out with barely a scratch :P--Cerejota (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Cerejota, I really care about my view by other editors I deeply respect. Wikifan has several times claimed that my edit that he reverted removed the IDF statement. This is wrong, and it never happened. I never do such behavior. Please check the edits by yourself, it just purely added the UN statement. Wikifan has several times repeated such wrong claim to make it appear as the truth; I urge you to see the edits by yourself before doing judgments. Thanks! --Darwish (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Darwish, I know this to be the case. And this is trivial to verify using tools. I think this might be a mistake of history following... Some wiseman said that these here wikipedia is the mix of our idiocies ;). So, identify idiocy, and handle it appropiately, come from whoever it comes: first deal with the attribution issues in the talk page of the user (in this case, wikifan), then with the debate around additions in the article page. Somethign that always serves right is to find the diff of whoever actually removed the IDF figures.
I do not care who removed the material, I think it belongs, thats my sole point. We really need to start depersonalizing this stuff, except when it is really personal. I think you are usually very good with your edits, and a lot of the uncontroversial material comes from you, editors from all sides should recognize this. Just don't mirror the behavior that isolates and identifies editors, unless they are being really disruptive. --Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
So Darwish gets a free pass because he's made "good edits" before? Let's see, he wrote 2 show-trial sections basically complaining about my edits/reverts which have been proven to be of little importance and/or unnecessary, or the result of refusing to honor good-faith policy. He's followed me to various talk discussions, I think he may be in my noticeboard one..oh, and he groups up with Nab, Unt, and all else he "identifies" with while he makes "very good edits" which "all editors should recognize." Give me a break, Darwish is being disruptive by constantly pausing every discussion with "The Case Again Wikifan." You truly think this behavior is appropriate Cerejota? Let's assume for a second that everything he claims is true and I'm the worst editor here, does that really justify his attacks and personal wars?? Considering this, I think Darwish easily qualifies as a wikihounder. I'm not denying his wonderful and grand contributions to wikipedia, but he's been singling me out which I've largely ignored but his threats are beyond annoying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
No I do not, but I believe in talkign with people before jumping around. Before I took TB to AE, I made many attempts, including his talk page to communicate. I really don't give a fuck if people expect me to be neutral or not, or consistent or not, I am me. I do try to be fair If you re-read my point, you will see I am actually asking him to pursue the matter differently - and you can see my comments on the matter. I understand you feel singled out - which is why I asked Darwish not to do it.
Not you specifically, but just the attitude. I make a mistake and it's a trial, but anyone else (including Darwish) can continue to violate rules without notice. It's especially insulting when people start acting self-righteous like Darwish is right now, ffs man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I know how that can feel. However, I am not sure Darwish gets free passes - I am somewhat more diplomatic dealing with your case because you and me have a history, but your buddies do stand up for you - you are certainly not alone. Let them do it. In fact, look at how things go down. You remember how at the start of the article I would tell you to WP:CHILL. You thought I was fucking with you, but I am not - its not the end of the world, let it slide. You have my word, I will be less diplomatic if things out of DR happen, such as naming people on section headers. But I find it hard to defend you if your response is always thermonuclear: trolls require care and feeding, and you are a classic troll feeder, to the point you start turning green yourself sometimes :D. Witness how Non-Zionist is not around anymore: he got called on his trolling ways, by me. TLDR threads are preferable to edit wars, and usually at the end some sort of solution emerges. Accusation fly, people totally fail to AGF, then we kiss and make up (or at least retreat to regroup) until the next round.
You cannot possibly expect people who disagree with you to suddenly agree with you, nor can you expect them to ignore the history. Just because I can, doesn't mean everyone can. Perhaps you guys need to pursue some sort of mediation over this, WP:MEDCAB might be good. Sometimes and uninvolved third party can help. I learned a lot from my previous experiences, both about myself and how wikipedia actually works... --Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the major difference is that we are not equals. I am continually called on and named even in the simplest of arguments, such as bleh, or using pictures/format from my userpage for satirical pics expressing a "troll" that clearly points to me: DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE WIKIFAN IS A TOTAL TROLL, or Darwish/Nab patting each other on the back back rubbing. I actually laughed at the danger high voltage thing, go to the behavior section and you'll see it. So funny. But seriously, is that allowed? Anyways, point is: I continue to pay the price for any alleged (true or false) behaviors through harassment, false-accusations, justified and unjustified blocks and ridiculous unnecessary noticeboard discussion where Nab and Dar also lend their wonderfully objective opinion. It's not so much us butting heads as it is me using a bat and them using a gun. Unfair fight more like it. I'm doing the best I can to avoid confrontation but at times it is necessary, and even when being cordial they know who I am so it's a self-fulling prophecy. I just don't want all this evidence, which 95% is total b.s to be used in a future class-action 100 million dollar lawsuit against Wikifan12345. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, very well written and convincing Cerejota. I completely agree and I'll strike the latest accusation paragraph as a mean of good will. Thanks for being an "honest" supporter. --Darwish (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey man - I know you messaged me about the POV tag and as a matter of courtesy I probably should have responded to you before I wrote on the talk page. My opinion differs from yours and I don't apologize for it, but my intentions are noble and I do try to be courteous.
I know your intentions are good. But so are those of the editors who do not share your view. On the specific tagging issue, there is the aesthetic considerations I have raised regarding redundancy etc, but there is also the more substantial one of why the tags. Tags should never be placed to "simply" mark or tatoo an article: an argument should be made as to why teh tags ar ebeing placed, to allow editors to ponder and consider edits that lead to the removal of the tags. My point is that you have not presented such arguments or those arguments do not warrant tagging.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, Cerejota. But I did make those arguments - articulately - in the section about the neutrality tag. I can't see how I could have been clearer. Betacrucis (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yup
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
1) Do not call or claim you are being called racist, it will lead down nasty roads, because it will (its a circular, fractal thing)
2) People who go around adding ancestry do so for a number of reasons, not always positive - last big blow up with "outing" Jewish figures was done by a nazi to "prove" Jewish infiltration - so the community is weary of obsessive editing of nationalities. In fact, the community is weary of anything obsessive. Search "Betacommand" for an object lesson - one of the most productive admins and contributors who got in hot water for being obsessive.
3) Go to the deacon of "Jewpedia", User:Jayjg, he and I don't always look eye to eye, but he has done a lot for WP:JEW, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot, which you should probably join, he can probably point you in the direction of others doing similar efforts. I understand the impulse of national identification, we do the same thing at WP:PUR, but its better and less painful if you are mentored by older wikipedians, wo would protect and nurture your efforts, and make sure you don't get noticeboarded, in part by pointing out in an environment of trust that you are fucking up :D.
4) Never try to tell someone they are somethign they deny, even if true, it is soapboxing, has elements of WP:OUTING, and can definitely be interpreted as harrassment. Even if that is not your intention, it doesn't matter, harrasment is easy to not do: stop talking to the person in their talk page.
5) There have been many more before you who have done the same mistakes. Some have left in disgust, unable to adapt. Others, well, they grow up and make amazing articles. Some like me, just like it extreme :).--Cerejota (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah we're in the process now, but we wanted to at least make it comparable to Peter Hanson which I think we've done. I don't think it qualifies for deletion as the WI is a reliable source since Lindsay is employed their and we also included UN-sources for the criticisms. We also have Jpost for the interview, BBC, and CNN. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I honestly don't care. He is trying to justify his behavior while I'm doing my best to explain to him what he (or Nableezy) did incorrectly. Re-read the discussion, this isn't a time for intervention Cerejota. I didn't do anything wrong here, does wiki allows allow users to constantly use personal incidents in the past as argument? I'm trying to edit according to the rules but it's basically impossible when people act like children. Is there something wrong with what I said, specifically, in that actual section? It's becoming quite an issue, especially when it derails important discussion into a wikifan bandwagon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not into the discussion (and I tend on this particular one to agree with your argument). I am talking about how you are vulnerable to such strawmaning for previous incidents, and how one has a responsibility to de-escalate. And for example, describing people as "children", for simply being in total disagreement with you (which they have every right to be), is precisely what one calls "patronzing". For the most part these are adults, to a certain extent smart and articulate, and you will definitely get a negative response if you question that premise. Call them POV pushers, but call them "children" and You Just Lost The Game. That is why we have WP:AGF, not as a stick to beat people with, but as a Zen-like state of mind. --Cerejota (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, by children I mean naive and ignorant, not POV-pushing because [not Nableezy, different user] seemed confuse and totally uneducated about what the actual section and what me and Nableezy are about. His first response was, "Stop scrabbling." That makes me feel like a child, mmmk? I can't possibly be responsible for every users opinion of me and I don't intend to right every alleged-wrong, I just pointed out a problem and explained the issue in a straight-forward "cordial" manner. Everyone seems to feel perfectly fine in calling me a retard, saying they'll ignore me, etc...and I personally don't care, but this is another double-standard which is rather irritating. If you think something is up by all means respond in the section. Next time I'm expected to de-escalate add hearts and flowers. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have looked at it, and I think the reaction was a bit extreme, but I am loathe to summarily overturn Drini without him being able to respond. I would suggest dropping a note on WP:ANI, and if enough sysops agree, then it would be an easier overturn. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have unblocked User: Jumdo on the grounds that a block should be used only as a last resort after all attempts to an open civil dialogue between the parties involved over issues have failed. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
No, you were unblocked by Drini, Jmundo was unblocked by a different admin. Drini won't apologize, and won't even recognize what he did wrong, unfortunately. --Cerejota (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I would have probably commented "support". People make mistakes. There are some people whose judgment I tend to trust who are supporting him. Besides, stewardship is a vital, dirty job, so anyone who can take it should eb allowed to have it. My only weak opposition is that like many stewards, he only knows two languages - I believe in general stewards should be polyglots.--Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you very much! I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time but didn't know this tag existed... I shall be making use of it! Best wishes. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
From all those userboxes you look like you have the necessary knowledge or could provide a reference/link to a question regarding templates for the Organised Labour project. If you have time it would be appreciated if you could have a look at this coding question. Thank you. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I can understand you can feel badgered, but following around like this is not really bad, in particular Ceedjee has been in this topic area for way longer than you have - if it turns into an intervention on everything you say that's another matter.
I added the neutrality disputed tag and the last sentence which contains opinions of Morris' analysis from other experts. It's only a temporary fix and Ceejea has been reverting/replacing most of my edits in spite of lengthy talk discussions. I told him a dispute resolution might be most effective in ending the problem, but I'm not sure if he agrees. Does he have to agree? I don't know how to submit things and I don't know how far my name will go but I'm really concerned this will end up getting out of hand. Can you point me in the right direction here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
What Ceedje is saying about Morris is the truth, academically speaking: "The Birth..." is the most cited work on the time period covered, and praised by even Morris' opponents in histographic terms. If you find Morris "extremely biased", you are finding modern academia, what we call "reliable secondary or tertiary sources" biased. This might be the case (Finklestein among others argue this), but then wikipedia carries that bias, implicitly - and that bias has to be resolved outside of wikipedia before it can be solved in wikipedia. I have read pretty much everything in English by Morris, and even started Israel's Secret Wars - because thats probably the first historical text I read about Israel. So I do not make a good mediator in this case, if you understand. However, this is not a debate I wish to engage in either, as Ceedje can carry it himself.
My recommendation, as always, is to be more patient. You do have a good argument in that perhaps some critical views of Morris' work are warranted, because in Israel this is a mainstream debate. However, and this goes to all criticism, one must be careful not to WP:SYNTH with criticism: it must be criticism directly related to the topic of the page. There are two reasons for this:
1) General condemnations of an academic belong in his or her biography or articles about the generalities of his or her work - so taking a general criticism in an specific topic area is not really a good idea, because its OR. For example, someone who criticizes Morris in general, might find that his opinion on this topic are solid. Unlikely, but thats exactly what WP:SYNTH forbids: the inclusion of "obvious" information unless it is well-sourced.
2) The article is not about Morris, but a topic Morris writes about: changing the focus to satisfy a percieved bias is much worse than keeping that percieved bias in the article. After all, we can wikilink to Morris, to controversies around Morris, etc. I think in the thread you have lost this focus, but this is just my impression.
I still think, for example, that Roof knocking is very biased, but this is due to the relatively one-sided coverage of the phenomenon - and me edit warring on the tag was stupid. Consider that an object lesson.
To answer your other question, he has to agree to any mediation, be it "Informal" or "Formal", but you can also look for assistance in the various noticeboards, like the WP:POVN, WP:RSN, or WP:NORN ones, or you can also do an WP:RFC - I recommend against that option in was seems to be a two person debate - or ask for a third opinion - which I highly recommend in this case - however, a lot of third opinioners are very weary of WP:ARBPIA articles). Do keep in mind you won't necessarily see your argument come on top when you do this, so be ready to accept this (even if you disagree). Who knows, maybe later new sources emerge and the issue has to be revisited.--Cerejota (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not disputing Morris' views, my primary concern was that the section was totally and 100% dependent on Morris' analysis. A subject so controversial and widely-studied should not be explained from a controversial figure 100% IMO. Especially when his exact viewpoint is being contested by notable (and possibly more popular) experts from both the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel aisle. I'm not debating Morris' specific facts or even the possibility that they're 100% concrete, but for a section that important it would seem very wise to include a more neutral perspective, or in the least an alternative perspective to balance Morris'. Does that make sense? Again, Morris belongs to the New Historian group of experts. Do you agree with this? If you don't, I don't see how anyone else would to be honest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Of course Morris is a New Historian. This is an indisputable fact. And of course he is biased, as will be all historians. The issue is if he is wrong on the facts of the matter at hand (ie, chronology, events etc), or if these facts are disputed. The way to fix this is not via criticism of Morris, but by adding other sources of equal standing to verify what is being said. We have articles who use a single secondary source to provide a framework all over the place, some of them of featured article quality - and most of them have some controversy attached to this single source. This is something that there is systemic consensus about - academic reliable sources are the best sources, and any controversy around them have to be met at the same level. Morris is a solid academician, very well cited, and a source - like it or not - at the level of the NYT in terms of reliability. I suggest you raise this at WP:RSN if you have doubts (make sure to cite this thread if you do).
If his exact viewpoint is being contested then dig the source for the specific issue of contention, add the information, and source it. What is unacceptable and un-encyclopedic is to go around opposing every use of Morris as a RS because he is criticized somewhere, as I already explained. This is why your point is weak, because you are making an OR point, instead of backing it up with RS. Permataging an article with neutrality tags simply because one is unable at the moment to find these relevant sources is generally considered WP:POINTy, and in fact is one of the reasons WP:ARBPIA exists.
Academic notability is not a popularity contest, it is based on citations etc. WP:PROF. It is an objective criteria. Long story short, find a counter-history that is as WP:PROF notable as Morris, to insert information that fixes any neutrality issues. But questioning neutrality simply because Morris is used goes against the spirit and the letter of WP:5P, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Be specific, not general. --Cerejota (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok so should I just find a notable professor who has a alternative viewpoint than Morris, and source it? The section is a controversy simply because it is an analysis, there are hundreds of analuysis regarding this exact section and the majority of them don't fit the frame Morris' has attempted to create. Now all I need to do is find another professor who has an analysis on Morris' topic and pair it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but make sure it is equally notable and comparable, using not political/polemical criteria, but actual academic notability. For example, Finkelstein is a weak choice (he is mostly purely polemical, not historiographical), but Efraim Karsh might be a good choice (I have no idea if he has addressed this matter specifically, but he is probably the best known, and respected, academic critic of the New Historians - and if he has done a contrary analisys on this matter it certainly would warrant inclusion, as it would not doubt be at the level of Morris in seriousness and rigor). The best sources are those who do not provide direct criticism, but alternative analysis of the same facts. I would certainly defend a well sourced, well made edit of this nature. --Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You forgot to inform me of this discussion. Wikifan, do you really think that discussing with Cerajota to convince him of your arguments is mediation...
I have given my point in the talk page. In a few words : there is no analysis of Morris in this section.
nb: On wikipedia, Karsh, Finkelstein and Morris must be considered at the same level. ie, they are wp:rs secondary sources. They can be used to report facts and their analysis are welcome. Critics to Karsh and Finkelstein are that while Morris studied primary sources, Karsh (and Finkelstein) only studied Morris's work. But it is not the concern here.
Ceedjee: he is simply asking for advice, which I have given - in the spirit of furthering dialogue and encyclopedic quality. I already expressed no interest, as of now, to edit the article in question - but there are general principles that one applies, and since I do have an interest in the general topic, I gave my opinion.
As to your comments on RS etc, I agree, even if I didn't frame it in esoteric "primary research vs secondary debate" terms, in more layman's "academic vs polemical" work. Finkelstein is certainly a polemicist - which is why I advice he not be used - but Karsh, to my knowledge (as I have not read him with any level of profoundity), has done independent primary source research, even when answering Morris. There is certainly a difference between polemics and academic debates (ie Bohr–Einstein debates) - even within a single source. It is hence concievable (and as I alredy stated, I do not know it to be the case). In essence, I am inviting Wikifan to base his editing and opposition to what he sees as bias in the use of sources and reasoned arguments, rather than general polemical points - which is what some of his arguments are. I apologize for not being clear enough in this respect.
You two should seriously consider dispute resolution, perhaps WP:Third opinion (if this is a content issue) or WP:MEDCAB (if there are behavioral issues). Since this is on my talk page, and there is no consequence to any discussion on it, I find your comment on "not informing you" strange, and ask you to explain why I should have informed you of this thread, or in its defect strike the comment out, in the spirit of civility. After all, these are open talk pages, not noticeboards. Unless you have anything to tell me about anything, I suggest you refrain from further contributions to this talk page: my talk page if not a noticeboard or an article talk page. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Cerejota,
There is a misunderstanding.
The you in my message was dedicated to wikifan, not you, Cerejota. He had wrote to me he was looking for a party to mediate, not advices. I thought it was you and that is why I suggested to discuss on the talk page of the article about that and not here. And, please, note that in his last answer here above, in the context of my discussions with him, this had nothing to deal with advices but sounds rather as a conclusion.
The only solution is third party advice, indeed.
About Karsh, I think you are wrong but this is a complex debate and a little bit unrelevant for wikipedia. Karsh has no academic reconnaissance about the topic of the 1948 exodus among his peers. And definitely less than Finkestein (who is certainly not as much polemist as you think. He is in the references of the Birth... revisited. Karsh has some academic reconnaissance concerning the global critics he had against the New Historian's methodology about the '48 war. He is in the reference of the book of Yoav Gelber about the '48 war.
If you are interested personnally, we can discuss this on my talk page or email but this is not relevant for wp, given : Efraim Karsh is a wp:rs source (even if of less value per wp:due weight than other scholars who published heavily on the issue of the '48 exodus).
It is an analysis, the original section (before I even touched it) referred to Morris' POV as an "analysis." Practically every historian who judges Israel/Pal is analyzing, nothing is 100% concrete. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Request
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If you stil want to I will do it, but I think it serserves it, and we are workign on fixing the different issues. In particular, I have been doing the research around the books etc. I will also take care of the picture issues, they are definitely fair-use. So what do you say? I just think that we should try to turn as much of the GAs around into FAs, to give more prominence to the hard work the WP:PUR - and specially you - has done. --Cerejota (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Cerejota, please re-consider Tony's suggestion of removing the nomination. The article is far from FA. I can provide feedback if you want on this or the article's talk page or through your email. I would prefer not to outright oppose it in the FAC. Joelito (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for the Barnstar. Your words really made me feel good. I believe that our group, and by that I mean all in our community who are writing the truth of our island and the positive contributions which we have made to society, together we are really making a difference as to how we and the world looks at us. Thank you for being part of that. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
title
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
Got a suggestion besides OCL (its POV and not supported by RS - its maybe 25 articles in the title at most - so no f***ing way :)? "conflict" is too broad - in particular compared to the other "conflict" articles, so we have to change the name - I think at most adding the Year In Front might work, because RS call it so.--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have no issue with war, but would prefer Israel-Gaza war or if it were my choice Israel-terrorist scum war. :D—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
(Un)fortunately you KNOW that won't fly ;). But if you have no issue with war (which BTW, is how Jpost, Haaretz, and Ynet refer to it most of the time), why not change your !vote. Maybe even with "I reserve the right to explore other names in the future" For example, "Israel-Gaza war" was opposed heavily, but not "Gaza war". I am certainly not happy with "Gaza war" as it is still ambigous, but it is by far less ambigous than what we currently have, but at least it makes it clear that it is a specific part of the conflict, not the general. And is supported by RS, to boot. I am just trying to find another temporary consensus version to move things forward. --Cerejota (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how the current title could be any less vague than Gaza War. 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict is far more specific than "Gaza War."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
Well, for starters, it is conceivable that there will be other events in 2009. This article is about OCL, called "Gaza war" (among other things) by the RS. We would need an article called "conflict" to cover those further events, but need an unambiguous title to cover OCL. Both are vague, but "Gaza war" is less so, in particular due to recenticism. As I said, we can always change it again. --Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I still disagree. If there is another war, then we can change the title...but changing it preemptively under the knowledge that will have to change it once more doesn't make sense to me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I understand this point, and why it makes no sense. However, do you really feel that "conflict" is less ambiguous than "war", in light of the RS? Why? That makes even less sense to me, becuase "conflict" has very little RS support in "allintitle" searches when compared to "war". I am trying to understand the position. --Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then you do not believe in our policies and guidelines? WP:MILMOS#NAME, which specifically advices us to use "the most common name used to refer to the event", and in the case of Operation names WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, specifically says "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).". You suggested OCL again, but this is a bad choice for all the reasons WP:MILMOS#CODENAME gives, so we are stuck with the "most common name", which has proven time and again to be "Gaza war". I do not see why we should forgo the systemic consensus in this case, as it exists precisely not to allow these things to turn into insufferable wars. You have any reason for why we should ignore these guidelines? --Cerejota (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Is Gaza War truly the most cited title for the conflict? Guidelines exist to be a guide, not follow-to-the-dot. Gaza War is beyond ambiguous and vague, I'm sure dozens of conflicts in Gaza/Israel have been referred to as "The War in Gaza" or "Gaza War" in media because the war is already public, so there is no need to clarify any further. But when the war(s) ended, they would no longer be called "Gaza War." I would be ok with 2008-2009 Gaza War, but simply "Gaza War" is absurd. I would also be ok with a [5] kind of lead. Keep the current title, but call it "also known as Gaza War, Gaza conflict, etc..etc..." Though that is also stupid but just an idea...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Swuccs articles nomination for speedy deletion
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello!!
Section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion states that:
An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except SCHOOLS), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
The articles i've made are about the different Colleges of Southwestern University (Philippines) and i guess those articles didnt violate the criteria you've stated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swuccs (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:NOTE in particular WP:GNG. The articles you have created are for sub-schools of a barely notable college. While the college itself might be considered notable, the sub-schools do not deserve encyclopedic treatment outside of a mention in the parent article, unless they are notable themselves. Notability is an objective criteria established by significant coverage in reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". You completely lack these sources in the articles you have created, and hence they should be deleted. Notability is not inherited.--Cerejota (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
But the source of my articles is Southwestern University (Philippines) Center for Information and Publication including the SWU Coffee Table Magazine. Isn't it enough to be considered as a reliable source?Swuccs (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is not a reliable source that proves notability, because it is a self-published source (Please read WP:RS). If notability is established using significant coverage from reliable sources (as I explained above), then the coffee table magazine might be used as a primary source of additional information. BTW, always sign your post, but always sign them at the end. I have reformatted your message to show this.--Cerejota (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You've said that sub-schools do not deserve encyclopedic treatment but why is it that De La Salle University colleges have their own separate articles?
Swuccs (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Cerejota, Swuccs is right that A7 explicitly excludes schools, and that reflects the non-consensus of the latest discussion about it: being a school is an indication of importance, even if it's only an elementary school or a "sub-school", as you say. If you want to persue this I'd suggest a mass nomination at AfD. --Amalthea 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ... or start a merge discussion at Southwestern University (Philippines). --Amalthea12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Albanians
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I believe that's not how you meant it, but as I said it just reads that way to me. Faith I have, which is why I'm here asking for you to adjust it to better reflect what you meant. Cheers --AbsolutDan(talk)13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Couldn't the "spam" concerns that caused this edit have been addressed simply by mentioning other earlier manufacturers or otherwise changing the article so that it would be on the same topic without giving prominence to—or maybe not even mentioning—that one company? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Adurimovie]] to articles/categories that belong in it.
I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.
If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks! We need a lot more of those checks. Of course what caught my attention in that section was the gratuitous, pornographic use of a non-metric weight unit. Disgusting. Sean.hoyland - talk02:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, didn't know about that one. I notice that the RS use ton, tone? and tonne all to describe the same quantities in this case. Useless bunch of... Not quite as bad as Ynet changing actual word "pool" to editorial word "flood" in their report about recruited bloggers. Sean.hoyland - talk04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Star
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hey man. Can you lend a hand at Israel/Gaza conflict talk for me? It's becoming very heated and I don't think I can deal with RomaC validating everyone who isn't me. :D Trying to avoid a blockage here so any third opinion would be super duper. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The block is not about intention, its about the nature of the name itself. In no way it is commentary on any behavior, except the name of the account, which is clearly promotional.
That said it is worrying that it seemed to be a collective account, something explicitly forbidden in our rules, and strongly frowned upon by the community. If it is indeed one person, all they have to do is open a new - non-promotional - name, and continue editing according to the rules. If it is a collective account, each person should open an individual account - or they might be banned.
All the actions behind the block have been done in the interest of furthering encyclopedic quality, and protect the project from misuse, as it is understood in the systemic consensus. We assume good faith on the part of "Swuccs", so the least he/they can do is assume good faith back - and follow the rules like everyone else. The policies around account creation are, to my knowledge, non-negotiable and not open to interpretation beyond the determination of the promotional/offensive/banned content of a given username. Since in this case it has been decided that Swuccs is a promotional account, there is no recourse, unless a bad faith action is suspected on the part of an admin, in which case you can raise it at WP:DRAMA. However, I do not see any misuse of tools, or bad faith behind the block. -Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I didnt think anyone (including you) intended any harm. I just got the impression that it was a "biting a noob" thing. Have they been told what they need to do? I mean in simple english like something "hey if you could just create separate accounts everything will be fine from here on, no hard feelings." I am going to write that on there page. If saying something like that is not allowed just delete it. Once again I am not accusing anyone of wrong doing I just view this as an unfortunate accident. I mean heck I been using wikipedia for years but until this I never know that you were not allowed to share accounts. Good thing I never did that. Best of luck! The Isiah (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The block message clearly states the reasons, and remedies, and the welcome message provided very helpful advice. I agree with (and actually was the original editor for) WP:BITE's "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section. However, ignorance of rules doesn't mean we should not apply rules: it simply means that we must assume that violating them was done in good faith, by not taking more extreme measure, as we would with a vandal. One should not be bity, but new editors should know that we mean business with those talk page templates inviting them to read the rules. Wikipedia:Username policy clearly states: Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely, but the block should affect only that account (disable autoblocks, and disable "prevent account creation"). If your account has been blocked for this reason, don't take it personally; it is intended to disable the username you chose, not to prevent you from contributing. Please read this page carefully and choose a more appropriate name. and User accounts must only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. When we link to the policy pages, a user has the responsibility to read them, and to continue with behavior after notification - or to raise objections without taking time to read them, is not biting, but simple enforcement of the policies. There is such a thing as individual responsibility and common sense, you know? --Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
February 2009 User talk:82.12.249.252
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I altered this because I've never made any changes to this Wolves page and don't see why I should have a derogatory comment on my user page. How did I get this comment if I never made the chage to the Wolves page in the first place... BTW I'm a Liverpool supporter, so it's all the worse !!!
82.12.249.252 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Steve Cole: NY LA Deletion Request
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
You marked the NY LA album I just created a little while ago for deletion, but I'm not 100% sure why. Steve Cole's page has existed on here since October of 2004, so it's not like this is a random creation. He has had a few number one hits (in the jazz world) and has also recorded with some legends (Bill Withers and Grover Washington Jr). Moreover, the album you marked for deletion also has an 'Album Pick' from All Music and a near perfect rating.
Also, importance is extremely subjective in general for anything.
Thanks - Jhendrix86
Notability is not subjective. Please read WP:NALBUMS, which explains why this article should be delete. Keep in mind that notability is not inherited: not all albums by a notable musician deserve to have their own article, only albums that are themselves notable.--Cerejota (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I guess you better get started on a tough task at hand..I have seen TONS of albums with their own pages on here that nowhere near meet the requirement for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix86 (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is irrelevant to this discussion if there are other albums who fail the criteria but have articles. Feel free to request they be deleted if you feel they should. However, be aware we do not tend to like WP:POINT. --Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, now a question. Would this album in question have notability if I could show it peaked at number six on a Billboard Chart (and higher than any other of his albums)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix86 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have a question about only one edit amongst your several contributions to the article about the upcoming 35th G8 summit in Italy. You deleted the segment about a projected budget (for which details are yet unknown); and your edit summary succinctly explained your reasoning -- "then we dont have to say."
In my view, this might become an arguably defensible edit in July, perhaps; but not now. I'm persuaded that the peculiar forward-looking point-of-view requires mentioning such unknown, unpublicized or unclarified aspects of pre-planning. The context for this seemingly controversial point is created by what is known about the previous summits; and my confidence in focusing on this small detail is underscored by the evolution of pre-planning for the 36th G8 summit in Canada.
As you can see, I've now undone this one edit; and I wonder if you could help me develop this explanation a little further. If my argument is not clear enough, please help me figure out how to explain it better. Now that your edit causes me to think of it, I'm guessing that it probably makes sense for us to post a summary of this thread on the talk page of the evolving article about the 37th G8 summit in France. --Tenmei (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that the section has essentially no content, acting as kind of a place holder. That is not a good thing. As information emerges, a section on the budget. But a statement saying "the Italian government has not released a budget" or something to that effect, in particular without a source, but even if well sourced, is certainly not encyclopedic content. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I did construe this section as a placeholder; and in the context outlined above, I saw that as appropriate for prospective subjects like this one. It was helpful for you to suggest that I re-examine this section in light of WP:CRYSTAL. I don't understand WP:SYNTH as relevant; but now I do see how this small issue could have been handled differently.
In general, most of my contributions to Wikipedia have related to pre-Meiji Japanese history (before 1868). My very limited experience with articles having this kind of forward-looking perspective included the 2008 Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD-IV) and the 34th G8 summit in Hokkaido. I wanted to try to build on those positive experiences by participating in the development of 35th G8 summit and 36th G8 summit; and I consider your comments as the first modest pay-off which flows from my investment in such subjects.
Aha, I see.
As a result of your feedback, I'll remove the placeholder section while I try to find some published mention of costs or projected pre-planning expenses. I almost seem to recall reading that NATO's decommissioning budget for its Sardinian Naval facility was factored into the 2008 projected budget costs ...? If I had simply incorporated that tenuous fact (along with the source citation), this issue would have failed to catch your attention ... and I would have continued to misunderstand. When I created this section, I was thinking ahead to some kind of formal announcement which explained that the Italian government had budgeted lira for x, y, and z -- but, of course, that's only one amongst a number of ways to see this aspect of planning for the summit in July.
I'll plan to restore this deleted section in a day or two -- whenever I'm able to add a minimal foundation. Yes, good. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
