Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I hate my conscience, sometimes. --] 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate my conscience, sometimes. --] 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
: I was trotting off to ru.wiki when I noticed this message. No offences, Golbez. I believe the IRC incident was for my remarks and . I like to be prophetic, sometimes. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Andrey, I am always amazed and delighted by the periodic DYKs that appear on my talk page, largely thanks to the work you do on the raw material I provide on the Humanities Desk. We make an ideal partnership, a little like Marx and Engels, or Laurel and Hardie! All the very best from Anastasia. Clio the Muse22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you know? was updated. On 31 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ladoga Canal, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Made some additions based on Brook and an article by Ehud Ya'ari. They both call the site "Khumar".
Should we rename the article "Khumarinskoye gorodishche" or "Khumar", as Skhimar seems a rather obscure Georgian designation? --Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- are both just dic defs. I've left pleas in a couple of places, & can chip in myself, but I'm sure you could make a great job of them. Any chance? Johnbod19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My feeling (lurking as usual) is that any material that could go here would be more encyclopedic if incorporated under Noble court (bad title), even as separate sub-sections. These should be redirects, IMO. --Wetman22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that. It certainly is a terrible title, but the article is a start. "Courtier" should probably redirect there, but "favourite" certainly deserves its own article. Johnbod01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why there is an Uspensky/Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki
Hi Girlandajo!
You wrote on the talk page of the article on Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki that: "There is no explanantion why a church in Helsinki should occupy this generic title". There definitely is an explanation: Finland and Russia happen to have a common history 1809-1917. Kindly read my comment on this on the talk page of the article. By the way, your analysis about Misplaced Pages
on your user page is thoughtprovoking! Cheers! --Tellervo11:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Mongol question
Ghirla, hi, I'm needing the help of a Misplaced Pages editor who actually knows something about the Mongols (in particular about their activities in the late 1200s). Preferably someone who actually has access to reliable sources, as opposed to someone who's just doing Google searches through pseudohistory websites. :/ Would you be a good person to help with this, or could you point me at someone else that might be able to help? Thanks, Elonka19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that PHG has done a lot of fine work on other articles in the past, so I was a bit surprised to see the use of some unreliable sources as regards the Knights Templar. Hopefully it's just because PHG was putting too much trust into some websites that turned out to be pseudo-history fluff (there's a lot of that where the Templars are concerned). I'm hopeful that once we find some reliable sources, things can be straightened out fairly quickly. Thanks for the help, Elonka20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article was not "bypassed" due to Kazanowski Palace, but due to the fact that the nomination for Anne de Joyeuse was accompanied by a good quality image and including the article in the update indicated by Camptown would have resulted in the image not being used. In the past, you have expressed extreme displeasure when this was not done. Have you changed your attitude about image use since then? --Allen314:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne de Joyeuse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Paintings depicting battle, death and war (new articles)
Hi there. I saw your suggestions at the Reference Desk thread. Do you know of anyone (maybe you?) who would be able to draw up a more complete list of the most famous "battle" and "war" paintings that we should have articles on? commons:Category:Battle paintings might help. The list so far is:
Did you know? was updated. On 12 September, 2007, a fact from the article pseudo-Nero , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think the general idea is good (temperature information is encyclopedic and useful), but I, too, don't care much about this particular implementation. Peacock colors aside, the template is so wide (regardless of whether it is hidden by default) that it would more often than not clash with infoboxes and images. In Irkutsk in particular, there is no way to fix this situation unless the "Geography and climate" section is expanded (more than twice) or moved down (which isn't desirable either), or if the infobox is removed. I don't really know if there is a good solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Normally, people get warnings when violating 3RR, but since move-wars are probably the most annoying wars to clean up, you aren't getting that courtesy.
In the future, also, please do not completely retask an active page without clear consensus. You are being blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is absolutely outrageous. I am told the block was prompted on IRC to prevent me from commenting on WP:ANI. "Reverts ##1-2" and "Reverts ##2-3" have nothing in common and are different by nature. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I prepared the evidence before I noticed you had commented on ANI, and I had no clue you were planning to comment there. I prepared the evidence for the block on IRC once it was realized that you had reverted twice by your moves alone. That reverts are different by nature does not exempt them from the Three Revert Rule. This is a statement of the block, not a decline of the block. --Golbez21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not an "IRC block". I merely collected the evidence there. This was a personal decision by myself after looking at the recent history. A cabal cannot consist of one. --Golbez21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are expected to drop a line to the editor instead of "preparing the evidence for the block on IRC" (that is, if you don't want the block to be punitive). I am well aware that IRC is full of folks who want me away from Misplaced Pages, and your action just confirms what IRC is abused for. I have to expect some kind of blow in the back all the time. --Ghirla21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on you or the folks who want you away from Misplaced Pages. I saw a 3RR violation and acted appropriately. As for dropping a line, having been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, you know the rule well enough. --Golbez21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Blocked for 3RR multiple times before"? This is simply false. I have *never ever* been blocked for 3RR, apart from a fraudulent report submitted by a self-professed sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte. After a block engineered by Bonny, I don't give a hoot about another IRC-prompted block from Digwuren and the crowd. From my experience I know that such blocks are never helpful, being used to escalate the problem rather than defusing it. --Ghirla22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In this regard I will admit fault; I saw the two blocks on December 30, 2005 and did not notice they were for the same incident. --Golbez22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) What? I'm as big a critic of IRC as you can find, but I see no problem here. Looks like Ghirlandajo was edit warring. He got blocked for it. This is routine. Friday(talk)21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a routine case when anything goes to have one's opponent blocked from editing, even frivolous deletion of pages (see my ANI post). I find it improbable that Golbez suddenly decided to "sort out" the mess that is under ArbCom scrutiny now. If he thinks himself a better judge, fine for him. For my own part, I find it difficult to believe that his action was not prompted by a bunch of interested editors who lurk on IRC and threaten me with block buttons all the time. I feel sorry for block-happy admins who prefer to go easy on the buttons instead of talking with a wikipedian they feel was revert warring, especially when the case is pretty borderline. --Ghirla21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of an Arbcom case, and the exitence of an Arbcom case does not exempt you from 3RR. Not borderline in the least, especially considering you started a move war. --Golbez22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely borderline! diff 3 is not a revert in any way. Golbez, your involvement in this issue is deplorable. --Irpen22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The conflict was originally noted on IRC. I looked ar the article, and pasted revert diffs there as I found them. The same result would have come about had I seen the conflict on ANI. (which is where Ghirla himself posted it moments later) IRC had nothing to do with my decision. --Golbez21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I can vouch for Golbez here. After I came online, he asked if a 12-hour block would be acceptable for a user who had no warning, but had engaged in a move war. I asked if the user had a history of 3RR blocks. He said yes, and I said 24 hours was appropriate. After Golbez did the block, I found out Golbez was referring to Ghirlandajo. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I could not, as #wikipedia does not allow for public logging. The discussion was mostly unilateral amongst myself. I noted the sequence of the move war, someone commented that Ghirla had made two reverts in the course of the move war, which spurred me to search for more reverts to see if he had violated 3RR, which he had. The other people involved with this decision are not relevant, particularly as I don't remember them off the top of my head. --Golbez21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you at least say, who was initiator of this discussion on IRC. Or this info also not for public? M.K.22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I understand what happened. I can figure who known to be on IRC was there and went block-shopping. Sneaky and dirty! --Irpen21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You continue to misrepresent me. No one went block shopping. My discussion with you on this matter is over. (By the way, it HAD been noted on ANI, before Ghirla deleted it, he says in an edit conflict) --Golbez21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Golbez, you should know better than act on snitches' prompting. "Someone" "noted" something over IRC while there are 3RR and ANI boards because that someone knew that "noting" something behind user's back when the user can't see and respond may be more effective. --Irpen21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if there was a "snitch" prompting.....it was a clear violation of the rules. Just because you don't like the way that Golbez found out about it, doesn't mean that the block isn't valid. It is. Break policy, pay the price. ⇒SWATJester22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's allowed to report things in different areas. When someone reports a vandal on ANI instead of AIV, or a 3RR violation on VPA instead of AN3, we don't say, sorry, we won't act on it because it was reported in a different place. AN3 is simply a helpful clearing house. And, need I remind you (I don't think I do), that when this issue was first brought to my attention, it was not a 3RR issue. That came about later as *I* realized you had engaged in a revert war as well as a move war. It wasn't like someone came up to me on IRC and said, "this guy broke 3RR". --Golbez22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, Swatjester. It does matter that there was a snitch prompting. And, second, there is no clear violation either. Diff 3 is not a revert in any way. --Irpen22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages was made transparent for a good reason. You have been told never to issue blocks based on IRC discussions and advice. My opinion about the judgment of trigger-happy IRC guys has always been low, and this is just another proof of their facile attitude. --Ghirla22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "trigger-happy IRC guys." Just because it was brought to someone's attention via IRC does not mean that WP:AN3 should be shut down or that you did absolutely nothing wrong. You moved what was originally Soviet occupation three times today and you editted the redirect made in the initial move so the page could not be moved back except by an administrator, and one you apparently don't like very much. Don't you see something wrong with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is no 3RR. Even in your interpretation, there are 3 reverts, not 4. You can say that 3RR is not an entitlement. Is that what you are saying as the block's justification? --Irpen22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe Ryulong (as usual) argues that "cool-down" blocks should be made without prior conversation or warning, preferrably on IRC advice, with a taunting block summary like "you aren't getting that courtesy, etc." Have you expected anything different? --Ghirla22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not only that. It also gives a chance to analyze and discuss the allegation by bringing it to more eyeballs. It also allows the accused to see the accusations and respond. And, yes, it also matters that the snitch has no guts to state the allegation in public. -_Irpen22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't be labeled as a "snitch" for making valid 3RR reports. They should be applauded for bringing it to the attention of administrators. We're here to enforce policy, buddy. There was no other shenanigans being pulled around here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(Changing the subject a bit) Personally I don't really think a 24 hour block is that appropriate. Just a several hour block to prevent further move changes would have been enough to get the point across that we shouldn't be move warring.. but yeah, Ghirla, after your first move was reverted you probably should have stopped there and taken it to discussion Cowman10922:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You can see what you get when you try to engage in discussion under such circumstances. None of my reverters cared to comment anywhere but IRC. I have long been disappointed by what happens in English Misplaced Pages and been spending most of my wikitime in Russian Misplaced Pages. So it's not a big deal for me. --Ghirla22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
I came into this blind. I saw four reverts and acted appropriately. Considering 1) You're obviously a good editor, considering the awards and laudations higher on this talk page, 2) I misread your previous block list (though that doesn't excuse you), 3) There was no warning, 4) The article itself is move-protected, and 5) the block occurred after the protection, I'm cutting the block to 90 minutes.
