Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 25 July 2008

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21

Please add new comments below.

Edit summaries

Please try to keep your edit summaries civil. Saying "loony conspiracy theories" was not. Also, what was this one about? He's not even editing the talkpage. --Elonka 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - that should have been addressed to Canadian Monkey, not Tundrabuggy. It's hard to tell all these SPAs apart... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do we need to talk to in order to have your edit privileges revoked? You banned me for 24 hours for "personal attacks" and completely ignored all the personal attacks against me, and now you're attacking others. You are ill suited for the role of impartial referee. Dkendr (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dkendr, it's not at all clear what you're talking about. Could you please provide links or diffs? Thanks, Elonka 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clear?? Look up 8 lines - he's calling me a SPA. You've lost all credibility with me, Elonka. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, Canadian Monkey has a point, though he could express it better. But it is true that he has over a thousand edits on a variety of articles, of which Muhammad al-Durrah isn't even in the top ten. He has definitely participated quite a bit at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, but why do you feel that justifies referring to him as a SPA? I see little resemblance between his editing, and someone like Tundrabuggy. --Elonka 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if logged here.

--Elonka 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One week page ban from Muhammad al-Durrah

ChrisO, I am sorry to have had to take this step, but you were clearly not honoring the restrictions which were placed at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on June 10. One of the restrictions that I placed, as an uninvolved administrator, was "No reverts". I have also been giving you steadily increasing cautions that your behavior was causing concerns. On June 12, you reverted the article twice, I then told you clearly, "one more revert and you were going under ArbCom sanctions". Since then, I have also cautioned you about incivility in edit summaries, such as when you referred to things as "Loony conspiracy theorising". Then today, I saw that you did another revert. The edit is not labeled as a revert, but it clearly is one, as you cleanly wiped out all intermediate edits, back to your own last version. As such, I am formally placing you under ArbCom restrictions. Specifically, I would like you to avoid the Muhammad al-Durrah article and its talkpage for the next week. At 01:00 UTC on 22 June 2008, you can resume talkpage participation. The article-editing restriction remains for at least 30 days, though it may be lifted sooner depending on your ability to discuss things calmly at talk. --Elonka 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You placed a restriction of .... no reverts? How the hell does that work on a Wiki? Arbcom said you could make restrictions as an uninvolved admin, but that's assuming the restrictions made sense. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see that page, Elonka, and it's a very bad way to deal with the situation. I'm not particularly interested in what it is that ChrisO or the other user is fighting over, but a "no revert" restriction is fundamentally flawed. As long as an editor adds something with good intentions, you've basically said no one can remove it from that article, no matter how much it may violate our core policies or not.

It's pretty easy to see who's disputing who, and who the main players are here. Why not just restrict them instead of applying a blanket restriction? That's just one possible idea, too, there could be many more that would be much better than "no reverts". -- Ned Scott 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Restrict them how? You are welcome to make suggestions at the talkpage. --Elonka 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Ned. The fundamental problem with Elonka's mediation (well-intentioned though it is) is that it gives parity to edits that meet policy and those that violate it. The edits I removed were unsourced (violates WP:V), highly POV (violates WP:NPOV) and sourced to a pirate web video (violates WP:V and WP:COPY) - highly problematic and clearly within the parameters of what Elonka had said could be "deleted on the spot". We seem to have a situation where "good faith" is being elevated above our core policies. I personally don't think such edits are being made in good faith, when the editors making them have been told repeatedly what our core policies require.

Elonka, in answer to your question the obvious restriction is a topic ban, isn't it? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. ChrisO (talk · contribs), may I point out that over the last few days that your edits have been focused 99% on the Muhammad al-Durrah article and related controversy? You are of course not a SPA, but over the last few days, aside from 15 minutes you spent working on CSDs, your behavior has been very SPA-like. I strongly recommend that you move along here, and work on something else for awhile. --Elonka 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

May I say, Elonka, I'd suggest that your handling of this page could be studied as a textbook case of how not to handle fringe theorists? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage ban lifted

ChrisO, as it has been one week since the initial ban was placed, I am pleased to notify you that the talkpage ban is now lifted, and you are welcome to participate at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah.  :) The article editing ban remains in place for now, though it is my hope that we will be able to lift it early after some demonstration that you can participate in a civil way with all editors.

Regarding the specific edit ("the last straw") that resulted in your ban, I would like to offer that I do agree that there was a BLP violation as part of the edit that you were reverting, and that in hindsight, part of your removal was appropriate. The "scars" language that was added to the lead, was indeed a BLP violation as it made a negative claim about a living person, was a prominent such claim (being in the lead), and did not have an adequately reliable source, at the time. As you and I both know, better sources have been presented more recently, which do confirm the information. But based on the information that you had available to you at that time, I agree that the removal of the statement was appropriate. Where I still disagree though, is that you removed all of Julia1987's edits, not just the BLP violation. This was still an assumption of bad faith towards Julia1987, and also a violation of the 0RR restriction. Also, you labeled your revert as a "POV" violation, rather than a "BLP" violation. Looking back on things with 20-20 hindsight, if you would have removed just the BLP section, and would have used a clear edit summary such as "removing BLP violation", and if you would have followed up immediately with an explanation at the talkpage as to why you felt it was a BLP violation, then I probably would not have banned you for that.

I think that we have both learned a great deal from this (especially about the details of BLP enforcement!). Ultimately, I would like to say that I do still think that you are a valuable editor who has made many superb contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Hopefully our interactions will be more positive from this point, your ability to communicate in a good faith way with all the editors at the talkpage will be improved, the editing ban can be lifted early, and we can all move forward towards our common goal, of high quality articles on Misplaced Pages. Welcome back to the talkpage, Elonka 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

please restore

Damage control (electronics) has references to indicate at least a minimal amount of notability & thus doesnt qualify for speedy. Of course, I could simply undelete it myself, but I want to ask you first. (watch out for the guy who tagged it--rather overenthusiastic with his g11's) DGG (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ditto with Direct Scientific, a major company in its field. DGG (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request for appeal: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Hello ChrisO. Please could you refactor your statment on the above appeal so it is under the 500 word limit? It's currecntly 1334. Many thanks in advance, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I've tried to reduce it as much as I can but I very much doubt I can get it under 1000 words without removing essential information. I'll do what I can but it is likely to remain substantially over 500 words. Any advice? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the problem here and what we normally recommend is giving a brief overview of the appeal on the main RfArb page, and link to the full appeal in your userspace. The arbitrators will read your full appeal, but it could be a good idea to bold it so it's abundanctly clear that that your main appeal is situated elsewhere. We have to limit it to 500 words so the main arbitration page doesn't get overly convoluted. I hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. Thank you - I'll get on it straightaway. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Chris - it's just unfair if we start enforcing rules for one and not for the other. Your understanding is much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the "general sanctions" clarification is related to this one, it might help to say so. I've commented there, but, really, efforts should be concentrated on one or the other. It looks like you are splitting the discussion, without actually making the connections clear. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-related. I was seeking some feedback on an underlying policy question before I went ahead with an appeal. To be honest, that clarification is probably now redundant and should be archived. Who should I ask to do that? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An arbcom clerk. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Also best to note on the clarification itself that you don't want to take it any further. I think one other person commented, so let them bring it back if they want to. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wrong diff?

Thebainer, I'm wondering if you're looking at the right diff in the Muhammad al-Durrah case. This was not the edit that Elonka page-banned me for; this was. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 </ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video.

I would be grateful if you could address whether this was in fact a BLP and probable copyright violation, and if so, whether my removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The diff I mentioned was one several that Elonka referred to in her series of warnings to you, and as such was one of several that directly prompted your sanction. I can certainly see how a potential BLP issue is raised by the particular content that you refer to (since you have now pointed it out), but that was only some of the content you altered in that edit, which was in fact a bare revert of seven intermediary revisions to one of your previous revisions to the page. Your edit summary referred to POV pushing and not BLP. It would not have been reasonably apparent to any uninvolved admin viewing that edit that you had BLP concerns, and instead it would have been quite apparent that you were edit warring.

You may well have been able to justify that edit on a BLP basis at the time (you would have had a much better justification if that was the only content you altered) but you at least had to take reasonable steps to communicate that this was your intention, given that it was not apparent that's what you were doing. In this case, mentioning BLP in the edit summary would have been sufficient, but that of course was not done. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin

ChrisO, I am concerned by your edit summary here, where it appears that you are threatening blocks, at an article where you are clearly an involved editor. I agree that there's a potential BLP violation here, but please be cautious about whether you are using your administrator access to try and gain an advantage in a content dispute. Thanks, Elonka 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if I apparently wasn't the only administrator who's willing to do anything about that article (I've raised it before at the BLP noticeboard). If you would like to have a word with 6SJ7, please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. And if other issues come up on articles where you are involved, feel free to let me know. --Elonka 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your kind offer. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You deleted Child labor law back in October 2005

It's now on the "requested articles" list, and I'm thinking of creating it. Do you remember your reasoning from back then, and would you have any problem with it being recreated now? I will wait for your response before creating it. I may begin working on it in userspace, though. S. Dean Jameson 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warnings from Elonka

I'd like to know your opinion ChrisO if my previous message was a "borderline" civil attack. I keep getting ridiculous warning/citation messages by administrator Elonka and I would like to know if those messages are justified. Here is my userpage describing said warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wikifan12345 Here is my response: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Elonka It's the last section.

I'm afraid to continue discussion in al-Durrah or any place else if I'm being spied on by Elonka every second. thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is taking a tough line on civility violations because, frankly, it's been a recurrent problem with that talk page. I'd suggest that you avoid making any comments about what you think the motives of other editors might be ("political allegiances", etc). If you focus on the arguments being made, not what why you think people are saying particular things, you should be OK. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I just feel Elonka is singling me out because I can see other members are bordering "personal insults".

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Al dura stamps.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Al dura stamps.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashley kennedy3

Hello ChrisO,
This lady has some knowledge about the events that occured in Palestine in 1948 but her lack of knowledge of wp:policies make here very difficult to manage. She has difficulties in managing her own analysis of the matter, which lead to wp:or (with some wp:own, wp:battleground and a little wp:pov).
I was asked by user:Gilabrand to have a look but I lose patience...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

It would be nice if you coult intervene...

She has removed here 4 info sources from Benny Morris arguing he is poved (bec. Israeli) while he is the only wp:rs secondary source in the article. She doesn't understand we cannot make WP:OR from 1st (even if reliable) sources.

user:Nishidani on the talk page tried to explain her but she clearly doesn't understand.

Thank you.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure

I've got some copyediting to do, be there tomorrow morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not surprised that you move-protected the Priština after it was reverted to the false version. But feel free to continue pretending you're neutral on the issue, I'm sure your administator buddies will one day realize how it's NOT a coincidence that you always pick the anti-Serb, anti-UNSC Resolution 1244, anti-UN side. God bless you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 18:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Hi, could I ask you to have a look at the recent history of this article? One user in particular (User:Ancient Land of Bosoni), has been pushing two issues lately. First, he's been changing the lead sentence to refer to the "Bosnian War of Independence," despite providing no sources showing that anyone refers to the conflict with this name. Secondly, he's attempting to insert 10 or so paragraphs of exhaustive and graphic (though sourced) details into the "Mass Rape" section. I reverted both changes and discussed them separately on the article talk page, as well as his personal talk. The discourse on his side has spiraled into accusations of vandalism and pro-Serb bias (both of which are ridiculous to anyone who takes even a cursory glance at my history). Anyway, I'd rather have some experienced opinions here before this turns into an RFC. Thanks! // Chris 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll certainly have a look. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pathologies

Re: this edit and this one Chris, we are trying to be civil here and this constant business of name-calling others who disagree with your POV is really difficult to deal with. It so happens that I am a psych major among other things and there is no question that "pathological" means "sick." The definition that you suggested I look at to clarify your views says "being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal as in <a pathological liar> <pathological fear> etc. Those of us who believe that there is evidence to suggest that the Al-Dura killing may have been a hoax or staged, really should not have to put up with constant aspersions regarding our thinking and/or mental health. I believe that Elonka has asked you and others to stop already with the constant personal aspersions. I ask you again to strike them at the TALK page and to leave them off in the future. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one promoting conspiracy theories, am I? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, the term "pathological" in reference to other editors is uncivil, as well as accusing another editor of "promoting conspiracy theories". Please keep in mind that you are still under ArbCom sanctions. I recommend that you refactor your posts, and endeavor to be more civil in the future. --Elonka 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits DYK

On 8 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits, 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.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD to close

Hi,
Some time ago, I critized you because of the way you had closed Afd.
Could you please close this one : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956.
I think it is finished and it has now become a "dialogue de sourd" (deaf dialogue in English ?) and I think nobody will accuse you of given a direction that could be in favor of my analysis.
My motivation to ask you to close this is that I don't want to be involved in discussion with Ashley kennedy any more (because it will not finish well :-(.
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That is wise. :-)

Thanks anyway.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Given you will not close the AfD, would you mind intervening here and reverting this modification of the chronology of the discussion (with in more uncivil comments). :-( Thank you... Ceedjee (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

afd formatting

when rosammi added that list, he screwed up a whole bunch of comments and deleted mine and anothers'. I would try to fix it, but I don't understand the wikicode.

OK, I'll see what I can do to fix it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

How is your current spree of notifications different from canvassing? Jehochman 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You are way across the line of a "small number" of "friendly notices". Please stop. You can post to the appropriate noticeboards or WikiProjects if you like. Jehochman 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is permissible, depending on how it's done. In this case, the criteria were: editors who participated in the last four deletion discussions, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid, excluding those who are currently blocked or who have not edited in the last month; a "friendly notice", limited in scale, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and open. The more input from uninvolved parties we have, the better. I should add that there are no more editors to notify. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith, but I think inviting 115 editors who participated in past discussions would bias the discussion towards producing the same results as before. 115 is not a small number. It would have been better to announce the discussion at the relevant WikiProjects. This would bring in a representative sample of currently interested editors. Jehochman 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I did consider that, but the scope of the article is so general (not to mention vague) that it's hard to see which WikiProjects it would be relevant to. On the "representative sample" side of things, I obviously haven't notified people based on which way they have !voted in the past. I don't think there's any reason to believe that they wouldn't constitute a reasonable cross-section of editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones listed on the article talk page? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Discrimination. If no other project has "claimed" the article, then perhaps they are not so interested in the subject. Jehochman 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Much more than that: potentially all the country WikiProjects concerning the countries against which allegations are being made, or perhaps all the WikiProjects concerning politics, race, ethnicity, class issues, globalization, international development, gender issues... Frankly that's part of the problem with this article - it's so broad and so vague that it's hard to pigeonhole. Note the profusion of categories at the bottom of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's a sign that the article should be deleted or merged into other things. Perhaps we should nominated it for deletion... Jehochman 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not advising editors to take any particular side, for or against, but if you have a view on what should be done with the article then I'm sure the AfD would benefit from having your opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to your note on my talk page: I just started, and I am not necessarily going to finish in one sitting. I haven't overlooked anything yet. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - don't just tag the "delete" votes, though, as that will be very misleading. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assumption of bad faith. In any event, I have removed the first two notes (the only ones I had done so far), because it became clear that notating all the "votes", including the diffs, would be way too much work for now. If I do put the notes back at some point, I will include all the "votes" (as I was going to anyway), along with one editor's note to my notes. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad

You're right but "Yunanistani" isn't exactly the height of civility, either. Taking it to "the court" usually takes much more time. Since no one's feelings are hurt... 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also asked MacedonianBoy to avoid being provocative. Please let me know if there are any further civility problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not offend. It is the Turkish name of the country. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And considering Greece's history with Turkey you think that's not likely to offend? Please don't use the term again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or considering the history of Macedonian users calling their fellow Greek editors "Christian Turks"...;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

>Well, honestly I do not know the history of my southern neigbour. It is Turkish name and I always use it, I think there is no a big problem with the name.Many southern neighbours use the name New Macedonia such as at the page of NikoSilver, so I do not cry because of it.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And 3rd... this term thet you are mentioning is used fir the first time by you. We call you subsahars in Macedonia but not in public. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that term before - another one to avoid, please. Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is international, so what you use in your own country might not be appropriate in an international context. I see no reason why you should have to call them anything other than "Greeks" - this is the English Misplaced Pages, after all, and that's the English name for that people. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but Македонци on English is Macedonians not Macedonians (ethnic group) or FYROMIANS. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FYROMians certainly shouldn't be used, as it's seen as offensive (as you know). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And also, my language on English is know as Macedonian Language but not Slavic dialects in Greece. It is rediculous, isnt it? And many Greeks use the term SLAVOPHONES even in articles. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, "MacedonianBoy" insults another user. User insults back, MacedonianBoy whines to random admin. Another admin comes up and warns both users (MacedonianBoy second). MacedonianBoy goes on, at length, about the 'subtle system of insults' the educated types in his country utilise and how the other user "should not cry about insults" (ie accept MacedonianBoy's right to complain to editors without saying a word). Admin 'tells him off' in the most pleasant way possible (we don't want to lose any racist editors; God no). MacedonianBoy whines some more about every random thing possible without even understanding a bit of it.

See why insulting him back is just so much more fulfilling? I'm sure you can. Thanks for your time, admin. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not impressed with the name-calling and complaints on either side. That's why I'm saying to both of you, please don't waste everyone's time by engaging in futile point-scoring and insults - it doesn't benefit anyone. If it continues, I'm quite happy to start handing out blocks. Stop biting chunks out of each other and focus on making productive contributions. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked - you might be interested in reading this, especially the "hey, dreamer" part and "BG are from Asia" (this is a reference to his previous block when he was on a "Tatar spree" again). He managed to hit two in a day. --Laveol 14:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I looked into it again - it seems he hit Gligan first and then started it out with 3rdAlcove.--Laveol 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

>As far as I know, Laveol was not invited in this discussion. Thet guy from SOUTH started first (just for your info).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Judging from your userpage, I think that you qualify for one of these. Read the page over. Shapiros10 _{My work} 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations: Chinese apartheid

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the heads-up. I think that the process of articles-for-deletion is way too speedy. Not everybody is on wikipedia 24/7 (are socializing, sleeping, working, etc). So, when I checked this article, it has already become deleted.

Honestly, I cannot remember the issue. I was interested in looking back at the article, and all of a sudden it is gone! At risk of repeating: just for fairness, there should be a longer period, like four days, not fourteen hours, for discussing deletion. Dogru144 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP troll you just blocked

That IP needs to have his block extended for several months, maybe a year. He threatened to shoot User:NawlinWiki, and also threatened to reveal personal info. Shapiros10 _{My work} 22:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The same guy's been using multiple throw-away IP addresses for at least the past week. Blocking one wouldn't do any good, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute mass deletion

Hi Chris,

(Hopefully the above discussion isn't related to me! :) I am relatively new to Wikipeida and my ISP has been dropping me that last few days (and why you'll see edits from the same class C). I generally use an "anonymous" IP just to keep my edits in different areas of Misplaced Pages distinct not as a method to avoid banning. (I'm a programmer that could find a zillion proxy methods to do that if that was my intent)

I noticed you mass reverted the Macedonia naming dispute article and are currently the admin for the article. Because of this I will not attempt to revert the article like I did prior for non-admins. However, since you are indeed the admin for the article you are also bound to arbitrate correct? (and supposed to retain a NPOV regardless your personal feelings)

While I did expend effort to address "balkanfevers" concerns... he instead ignored my points, (and request for itemized justification of removal of so many points at once). He then went on to clean up his talk page which lends the appearance he has no real arguments against my points.

Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BalkanFever&diff=226473772&oldid=226473305
After http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BalkanFever

This is not a case of someone saying "FYROM sucks" or some other derogatory comment meant as vandilism. It's was a legitimate attempts to add pertinent information missing from the article (e.g. US resolution condemning FYROM for propaganda against Greece is hardly a minor point.... nor are quotes by the Prime Minister of FYROM saying they aren't the descents of Alexander the Great... etc...)

Because he will not address the specific points and you have chosen to do a mass edit... I therefore officially request you to please provide an itemized (aka one-by-one) justification for the mass removal of the following facts and why they are not relevant to an article on "Macedonia naming dispute". (most of which were painstakingly added one by one with justifications).

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia_naming_dispute&diff=226354239&oldid=226344058

You will find I am open to reasonable arguments and rewordings in some aress. However I don't think trying to silence facts contributes to the article nor to the larger naming dispute issue.

I thank you for taking the time to review my concerns. 209.161.239.100 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Comments such as this are extremely uncivil and condescending. The editing conditions stipulated by Elonka for this article and talk page very clearly say “Bottom line: Stay civil”. Please strike them out. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I agree that the diff shows you making an uncivil comment. I've also been seeing other language of concern, such as when you referred to someone else's text as "ridiculously POV". Please try to adopt a more professional tone? Thanks, Elonka 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see your e-mail, Elonka. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene

Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Misplaced Pages:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a background in Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.

In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Thanks for the alert. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist? Hijacker? Cute and misunderstood wannabe pilot?

I noticed you had edited the Words to Avoid article recently, and was wondering if you could give me/other editors a little advice.

If you have any strong feelings either way, then ignore my request, as I really wanted someone impartial to give an honest opinion.

The discussion is very simple. Is the term terrorist acceptable in the 9/11 article - I think as a quote yes, but only using it in the manner that the Words to Avoid article recommends - other disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist sock

Hi, ChrisO. You might remember the nationalist editor you delt with early last month who went under the names User:Aegeanhawk and User:Kwahnaegea. He appeares to be back under the name User:Aeg2008, making the same tedious arguments and reverts at Florina and threatening to do the same on several other pages . Can you help? Regards, Aramgar (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your last revert

Hello, I have noticed that you reverted my edit here and I was wondering why you did such a think, are you implying these people are the same with those? or is it a mistake? Papastis (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was a mistake on my part - apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Behavior

ChrisO, this has gotten out of hand. Can I please ask you to take a break on this for a day? I won't make it a formal ban, but can you please stop anything al-Durrah-related for 24 hours? Don't edit the article, or the talkpage, or post to related user talkpages (mine is okay). Would you be willing to voluntarily agree to this? --Elonka 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds, Elonka? I'm not the one removing sourced material because I disagree with what the source says. Are you also going to be asking the same of Tundrabuggy? I'll consider your request but I want to understand why you're making it and what you propose to do about Tundrabuggy's behaviour. Will you ask him to cease removing that sourced material and let it go to mediation instead? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me a diff of where he violated the editing conditions? --Elonka 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Added here by myself , removed by TB here with no edit summary and no attempt at rewording or tagging - simply deleting outright the segment attributed to O'Loughlin. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that as a revert, I'm seeing it as an attempt to try and find compromise wording. Tomorrow, you are welcome to re-edit the paragraph to offer a different compromise. --Elonka 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can it be compromise wording if he's taking the relevant wording out altogether? The source says specifically that Shahaf did not have "any forensic or ballistic qualifications or experience". Do you see this wording or any compromise version of it in Tundrabuggy's version? It's completely removed. The point the source is making - the lack of qualifications - no longer appears at all. This isn't compromising, it's whitewashing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, why does the above sound familar User_talk:QuackGuru#What_is_a_revert? BTW, Elonka, there has been some more "reverts" going on at QW, but I'm sure your on top of it, or rather "it won't be seen as a revert" :-). Shot info (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, let's get this straight Elonka and everyone else - removing sourced and relevant content previously added by another editor simply because you don't like the journalist involved is not a revert, but by implication returning that legitimate material to the page is a a revert and is not allowed. Starting a debate on a talk page trying to get that same journalist effectively blacklisted as a source does not elicit any comment, whereas pointing out basic WP policies brings threats of blocks. Sorry Chris, but that's why I'm staying away from that page as much as I can. The conspiracy theorists and truthers have taken over, and effectively have backing from an admin, who appointed themselves as page arbiter, to do what they want. --Nickhh (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this was a clear revert, in which you also removed a clearly reliable source, both of which are violations of the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. If you self-revert immediately, I won't ban you, otherwise, I'll make it formal. You are welcome to change his text, to condense it, rewrite it, but no reverts, and no removing of sources. --Elonka 18:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Netzarim diagram.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Netzarim diagram.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)