Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:39, 4 September 2009

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

South Korea orthographic projection

I don't see how I'm the one being accused of "edit warring" when I'm the ONLY one offering to discuss this issue in order to reach a consensus. I've started a discussion on the talk page, and provided reasons for my edits, yet no one has participated in the talk page, and no reasons have been provided for the undoing of my edits, including (as of this edit) by you.

I will continue to patiently wait until someone provides a reason to the contrary. Until then, I will continue to promote a maintenace of the original. Thank you, :) Sourside21 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you accused me of being an "edit warrior", and that I was not interested in discussion of this issue. Quite to the contrary, to this date, I have been the only one discussing this issue on the talk page. I will kindly link you to a discussion about this issue on said talk page. Please participate there. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:South_Korea#South_Korea.27s_orthographic_projection

Sourside21 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ninjas!

Hi Rjanag, I know you're busy, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion/assistance on something. The ninja article is currently a poorly constructed mishmash, and very prone to vandalism. If you take a quick look at the history, you'll see that most of the edits during the last few months have been vandalism from IP editors. This includes childish insertions, trolling, and what appears to be copyright violations. There is also a persistent trend to add poorly written, unsourced, and somewhat dubious information to an already controversial article. I was wondering if it is perhaps appropriate to apply semi-protection to this page.

I will inform you that I am currently working on a total rewrite of the article here, and plan to put it up probably sometime this week. I will also try for a DYK nomination. Please let me know what you think about article protection. Cheers ~ AMorozov  21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

From my quick glance, I'm not sure semi-protection is necessary or appropriate. While there is some vandalism reverting (as there is at just about any prominent article), it's not as nonstop or frequent as it is at other articles that I've seen get semi-protection (take, for example, Perry Meridian High School); likewise, the IP edits don't appear to be 100% unconstructive, it looks like there have been a few legitimate edits from IPs as well, and those would be blocked if the page were to be semi-protected. A lot of the vandalism has come in spurts from single IP addresses (which can be handled with blocks, rather than protection). Furthermore, it appears that not all the stuff being reverted is vandalism. While bad writing and unsourced additions may be annoying, it's not vandalism, and pages usually aren't semi-protected over those things (an example is Spoonerism, which gets pretty much nothing but junk additions, but has not been semi-protected; another is Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette Syndrome).

It seems to me that your best bet would be to wait until after you've posted your new version, and then see what form the IP editing takes—if people don't feel a need to add junk to the new, bigger version, then there might no longer be a need to semi-protect. The main thing to worry about is making sure the new draft you're writing has the support of other editors there and nothing important is lost from the original, but it looks like you have already started a discussion to keep people involved in the rewriting, which is good.

As for DYK, that will probably not be possible. The draft would have to double in size before it meets the 5x requirement (it's currently about 25,000 characters, as compared to 10,000 in the actual article), and by then it would be longer than a typical article should be; furthermore, even if it technically meets the 5x expansion requirement, I would be hesitant to feature an article that has already had such large and prominent coverage on Misplaced Pages (it's mostly for featuring new topics, or things that were just expanded from stubs). You'd probably be better off taking the new article for a GA assessment and then to FAC (and if it makes FA, then it would be able to get an even more prominent spot on the main page anyway). If you disagree, though, you can ask for comment from DYK regulars at WT:DYK. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right. For some reason I had always thought the required amount of expansion for DYK was 2x.. too bad :(. I am worried about the ninja article because in the entire time it's been on Misplaced Pages, I have yet to see anyone take serious initiative on it, nor anybody who seems to have any background knowledge on Japanese military affairs involved. I am most concerned that if I stop watching the article, it will descend back into a mess, and I can't always be here. But like you said, I will wait and see what happens after I update it with the new version. Thank you for your time. Regards, ~ AMorozov  01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag, sorry to bug you again. There seems to be several IP editors , , bent on reverting the ninja article back to one revision, where some uncited and exaggerated nonsense was added. One, who is clearly a troll, has reverted to that version 4 times in a row . Could you take a quick look? Thanks, ~ AMorozov  21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. ~ AMorozov  22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know Nomination

Hi. I've nominated McGee Airways, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Smallman12q (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you get credit?Smallman12q (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sing girls

Hi m8

Sorry no reply, had a few problems here with failed hard drives and blown up graphics cards and then holiday - just got back on sunday and made a few posts announcing my return - surprise surprise I giot exploited and just finished reinstalling windows again

should be back on more at the end of the week once all my progs are back on the PC

thx for the reminder, I had a quick look and loos good - will get back to you later once I have more time - at the moment just have installed vista, teamspeak, firefox and putting FSX on now so maybe two or three days before all is back to basics...

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang

Someone recently made some bold changes to the Xinjiang-article with regards to th meaning of the name, and an IP pointed it out as incorrect on the talkpage. I have no way of checking it. Here is the 3edits-diff. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Turpan & water system

The link from Turpan to Turpan water system is only present in article picture annotation, not in main text, hence I do believe a See also link would be appropriate. Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a link in the main text, which displays as karez. It's not a huge deal either way; I don't believe the seealso is necessary, but if you want to restore it it won't be the end of the world either. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the birthday wish

We spend so much time on Wiki wrapped up in our intellects, analyzing, debating etc. It can be a bit cerebral at times. Good to warm the heart now and then and share our brother and sisterhood as world citizens. Thanks for birthday post. All the Best to You. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: ITN and Chinese error

Yes, apparently it was reported in The New York Times if the comments are to be believed. Here under 16 August. --candle•wicke 23:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese

Severely needs copyediting and referencing. May be of interest to you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

About Laukkai

The reason is political. Although Kokang is in Shan State, it is not ruled by Shan State. Many people do not know that Shan State is in Myanmar/Burma, and people know it well should also be aware of its uneasy relationship with the central government. So I was wondering that, if Laukkai is listed "only under" the category of Shan State, it will seem like something is being implied. Qrfqr (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kokang incident

I was going to add my support to the nomination but I saw you added it yourself. Even though it began a few weeks back it's getting a lot of attention now, so I think its worth it. Great work on the article though! :) It's coming along nicely. I'll try and find out more about the MNDAA and add over the next few days. Midway (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Guangzhou 2010

Since you have encountered him before, so I'm bringing him to your attention. After checking out, I figure out the user comes from Chinese Misplaced Pages with the same disruption on similar subjects. If you see the history of Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, inter Wiki from Chinese Misplaced Pages has been changed three times, and that was due to Guangzhou 2010 (talk · contribs)'s tendentious edit warring over there and comes here to continue his edit warring.

The user insists on using the name for what Chinese call in China, not in English or in Korea. Would you warn him to use edit summary and refrain from pushing POV crossing over multiple Wikiprojects? Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now the user visited Korean Misplaced Pages with the same title move campaign. I guess he would go to Japanese Misplaced Pages as well.--Caspian blue 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm...I would suggest talking to User:Dferg, who is a sysop or steward on meta; over there there is some way to block a user across all Wikipedias (see, for example, ) but I don't know exactly how to do it. You can e-mail him at es:Especial:MandarEmailUsuario/Dferg. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think his activities at this stage are not blockable yet, so a "warning" would be enough (I hope). If he would not cease the disruption after today, I might need to contact the meta sysop. His POV pushing is not only limited to the article of Annal of the Joseon Dynasty, but also to related articles given his activities on Chinese Misplaced Pages. I expect he would carry out the same M.O to here, so he should be watched by more eyes. That's all. (for an unknown reason, my computer has some errors whenever I access Meta). Anyway, I appreciate your help. Thanks. --Caspian blue 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a 3rr warning earlier; I also believe he is probably a sockpuppet of User:Rayesworried. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Omm, another sockpuppet? (I have enough of Ziggymaster's socks at Seoul and South Korea.... by the way).--Caspian blue 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. The editor did the same thing today on not only Korean Misplaced Pages but also Chinese Misplaced Pages, and I did not report him on the former, but he got blocked for repeated disruption for one week. Well, if he continues the disruption, meta is a possible option.--Caspian blue 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current related

I agree that Uyghur people was an appropriate use of the template, but that was one of the very few recent examples that I could think of. Most of the time, the template is used inappropriately ("Hey, this topic is related to a current event, so I gotta add this template!"), and there are usually no more than 2 or 3 (or none at all, often enough) articles using it. I don't think that we need an extra template for those few cases. --Conti|✉ 16:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should always be used, although the two examples you cite look fine to me. The point of these templates is to warn our readers of rapid change, as you say, but articles related to current events rarely do change rapidly. Heck, current events themselves rarely change rapidly. Mostly I'm just worried about misuse of the template, because there's usually no one monitoring the use of these templates. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kokang Incident

Although I agree that it is dictator claims are not a reliable source, it is the only source available to us. I suggest putting (official figures) or (government estimate) below it. Dictatorships also usually claim to kill large numbers of enemies at a minimal cost to themselves, but in this case, the govewrnment admitted to heavy losses. This suggestds casualties may be higher, but it is the only source we have so far, and should stay labelled (government claim) until an independent estimate can be verified. Reenem (talk)

As it is an official figure from an involved party, it should be included. If it is tagged with "According to Junta Government", readers will understand this is not neccesarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs)

As the police were targeted and attacked, it makes them an involved party. However, if they did not operate except for that incident, than Khin Yi should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 August 2009

yepp :P

thanks for blocking me for 10 seconds :P... I started an SPI on this guy... was getting sick of his fights @ South Korea. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That block was to stop you from destroying Misplaced Pages. I hope you learned your lesson! rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures uploaded / added to McGee Airways article

Your message regarding copyright of the 2 pics I added to McGee Airways article - those are my pictures, in my possession. My father took those pictures and I am in sole possession of his picture collection. I have the negatives - so the statement in the picture page is correct - these are my pictures. Plz advise. Old33 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:RoyDickson#New_images.Smallman12q (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kachin Independence Army

Ah thanks. That might be true. I think this part of the article threw me:

"The fighting began between soldiers from the Kokang minority group and government troops, but it broadened to involve at least two more groups, the Wa and the Kachin. All three groups oppose the central government."

as if to imply it involved others, but it is not mentioned again in the article, nor have I seen it mentioned anywhere else. Of the news items I have seen, there seems to be tension, though it's still unclear as to how many groups were involved. Midway (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

psycho donuts

Hello,

I am not in a war with you. I am new to wikipedia, so I have made some errors in setting up links, etc.

However, it is not possible for a "store" to "describe itself." Your writing warrants minor editing in this instance, and I have done nothing wrong.

You, on the other hand, have not edited, but deleted every entry I have made, and deleted links to relevant material. --Summertoad (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your examples on Misplaced Pages: You are right. It is a common error, and easily corrected.--Summertoad (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess anybody's writing style can be considered prescriptive, yours or mine included, when someone insists on it never being edited. As I am sure you know, neither the internet nor wikipedia is a reliable source of quality writing.

I did not write that you had not edited the article. What I pointed out was that you were not editing my entries, but simply deleting them. You did, however, leave the reference to Pete Earley. However, your use of the quotation changed the meaning somewhat, especially when you changed the chronology, which is an important part of the psycho-donuts story.

I don't mean to be rude, but I won't be replying to anymore talk. I simply don't have time for it. --Summertoad (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

kinda like smelly feet

There's something weird about User:Clockoon and his stuff on South Korea... He claims to be active on the Korean wiki but has no user page, no talkpage, no history there as far as I can tell..."없습니다" -- that's my limited knowledge of Korean. More socks? Seb az86556 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a typo, you forgot the 'c': .  :)

That being said, I was a bit concerned when he first edited the SK page, thought he might be a sock of User:Rayesworied. But he has had an account on en-wiki for a pretty long time (although, granted, it was inactive for a very long time), and he seems to have a slightly better grasp of things than Rayesworied... also, they seem to both be active on ko-wiki (ie, Clockoon probably wasn't just a 'sleeper' account that someone abandoned until getting blocked), although I don't know Korean so I can't tell if there's any similarity in their editing. All things considered, I think they're probably not the same. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate DYK

The Play of the Weather has been featured on DYK before. The nom wasn't deleted from T:TDYK, so it's up again now. Could you take it down or replace it? Shubinator (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fast heads-up. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The cake was quite tasty, and it was nice of you to notice my "birthday."  :-) Textorus (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Smallman12q (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Re: this edit I think you meant to say "signature" not "username". I don't want to correct you on that page because the user is already confused enough - but would you take a look. Thanks.  7  02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Thanks, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen van Rensselaer III

You have moved this article to a lower case "van." What do you mean with "proper capitalization"? Where did you get the info that he used a lower case van, and not a capitalized "Van," like all sources state? Please add sources to the talk page. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in editing this article, other than that single edit, and I don't really know anything about it; you might be able to get more information from User:UpstateNYer, who has worked the most on this article. Van (Dutch)#Conventions also has some information on capitalization conventions. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This amn was neither Dutch nor Belgian, he was American. American usage is "Van", all the sources say "Van" referring to this person. I would appreciate it very much if you refrained from moving articles you admit you don't know anything about. Now I need some admin to move it back, maybe UpstateNYer can do that. 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it very much if you would tone your messages down. Misplaced Pages has a policy called Be bold in editing, and you had two months after this move to leave me a message saying "I think the move was incorrect". Had you done so, I would have (as I did now) directed you to somewhere where you can get more information, and not stood in the way of letting you move the article about—I really don't care where it's located, I was just trying to do some WikiGnoming. Perhaps my change was wrong, everyone makes wrong changes from time to time; there is no need for anyone to be a dick about it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out that American usage is highly variable, with VanSomething, Van Something and van Something all to be found (to say nothing of the occasional vanSomething). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to revert an old edit to ] by User:Nikkul dated 25 august, where he claimed to have removed POV ( about innovation) but was well-sourcved. Hometech (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake

My mistake. Thanks, for improving my mistake - :) LUCPOL (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Leehom Wang's Nationality

Hi! Wang was born and raised in the US. There is no question that he is American. Given Taiwan's nationality rules, he is probably also a citizen of Taiwan ROC through his parents. Calling him American-born Taiwanese implies that he was only born in the US, perhaps while his parents were living here briefly or something. Look to Yo-Yo Ma's page. He is a French-born American. He was born in France, but is not a French citizen. Wang is an American and a Taiwanese (most probably). Therefore Taiwanese-American captures both of his dual nationality.

Penser (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

You can suggest this at Talk:Leehom Wang; there are many editors who watch this page and are concerned with these nationality issues, so it needs to be discussed before changes are made. You may also want to seek opinions from User:Readin and User:Arsonal, who have been more involved in this article than I have. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this has been discussed for a while, going back to 2006, in fact. The consensus is pretty much that he is an American (this is documented and not really something that can be disputed). The real point of contention in the past was whether his ethnicity should be described as Taiwanese or Chinese. That's one of those contentious issues that probably should not appear in the lead sentence unless someone has a source where Wang describes a preference in describing his ethnicity. Cheers!Penser (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

I'm in the opinion that we should not speculate. There is no question that he is an American, but we can only speculate whether or not Leehom (and/or his parents) possesses ROC citizenship. In my opinion, his parents can be considered Taiwanese Americans but not for Leehom. I prefer leaving the lead saying he is an American who gained fame in Taiwan because this is the definite fact, and he never actually grew up on the island. Arsonal (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not the place for unsourced speculation. Penser (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)penser

Actually, I believe Arsonal was saying that your proposal was speculation—anything suggesting Wang has Taiwanese citizenship is. But note that in the article, "Taiwanese" links to Taiwanese people: it doesn't say anything about citizenship, it's about ethnicity, culture, etc. Thus, there is no speculation in "American-born Taiwanese". If it makes a difference, this could also be worded "American of Taiwanese descent", which says the same thing.

I see you have reverted the article again without waiting to get any sort of consensus anywhere; please don't keep doing that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have sources using the "American-born" wording, which helps set a precedent. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"American of Taiwanese descent" is definitely an improvement, although I generally prefer "ancestry" rather than "descent" because "descent" sounds like you're going downhill.

It is common amoung immigrants from Taiwan to refer to their children as "American-born Taiwanese" or "American-born Chinese" depending on their political persuasion, but the term is considered offensive by many of those children and by many Americans in general. "Taiwanese American" is often used with far fewer people considering it offensive. I don't know of anyone who would be offended by "American of Taiwanese ancestry". I'll post this on the discussion page too. However, from what I'm reading on the talk page and in the article, is ancestors are really from China, only making brief stop in Taiwan. If that is correct, then "American of Chinese ancestry" would be ok. Whether that or some other phrase should be found would depend I think on how closely his parents identified with Taiwan. Readin (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point; maybe the best way would be something along the lines of "American singer of Chinese descent, who is active in Taiwan" or something like that. I think it's important to specify his "base" (where he lives, works, etc.), as well as his original nationality and ancestry. Because, let's face it, even though he's technically American, everyone thinks of him as Taiwanese first and foremost—that's where his identity and (in WP terms) his notability are. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobak's Blocking Templates

Look bro, thanks for your help with that fiasco. I just wish I would have known the issue was brought up in ANI. I commented on the accusations there and on his page. Again, thanks, his templates are normal now. Have a great day!! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: MissingNo.

I responded to your comments at the FAC. As it stands there isn't much I can do with expanding those statements as they're a direct summary of what's being said on those three pages.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

protection of page lower silesia

Hi how are you? I hope you are fine. I am writing to you because of the protection of the page Lower Silesia. There is a region in Germany that belongs to Lower Silesia, and this can be proven by the fact that on the official website of that region, there is the coat of arms of Lower Silesia shown. www.kreis-goerlitz.de Thats why i wanted to include three german cities of that region which lie in germany, into a city list of that page. But someone else keeps reverting my changes all the time, because those cities only belonged to Lower Silesia from 1815 on. But that is no reason not to include those cities because the page Lower Silesia is not about Lower Silesia prior to 1815. Now this page is protected and i can't change it anymore. There is mostly just one person who always reverts my changes, and i think that his opinion can't be seen as neutral. I also don't understand why i am in an edit war, because i just change obviously wrong things. But now the page is protected in the version without those cities and i can't add them anymore. I've been trying to discuss the topic on the discussion page, and everyone who has a look on it, can see that i explained the facts in detail, and that i was very engaged in the discussion. But all i get are very short unlogical answers, and a revert of my changes. A neutral person is needed to solve the problem. Or, why is the official usage of an coat of arms of a region not proof enough that this region belongs to the region of which it uses the coat of arms? it is always deleted with the annotation: del original research i thought official pages are a proof. The region belonged to lower silesia from 1815 on, and that is no reason to exclude it, just because other regions were longer part of lower silesia. Take care, Michał Jadran91 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not really interested in getting involved in the content dispute. Like I said already, edit warring is never an appropriate way to solve a problem; even if you are sure your edits are correct, you need to get consensus for them if there is a dispute. Thus, once someone has disagreed with your edits, you need to stay at the talk page only, and not keep on reverting the article.

I already left you a message with a list of ways you can seek neutral people to solve the problem. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ok thank you but could you not just one time open the protection of the page very short so that i can revert the last changes, and then protect it again? because now it is wrong and it stays wrong until the protection is overJadran91 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, unprotecting the page to let you revert again would completely defeat the purpose of having ever protected it. (For more information on this, you can read meta:The Wrong Version, but please keep in mind that that page is written as a joke.) Did you ever read my message above? Again, when there is disagreement, you should not be reverting. Wait to get consensus before making any changes. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ok sorry thank you take care Jadran91 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are just terrible

You are terrible!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

67.180.161.183 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding! You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. 67.180.161.183 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:PasswordUsername

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is going nowhere. You guys both know where to go to continue this debate. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure a warning is sufficient, the guy is a repeat offender. Note he has clearly made his 3rd and 4th reverts after being asked not to delete whole sections of text. It is not the first time. --Martintg (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's as bad as he seems to be, he'll ignore the warning and revert soon anyway. And then he'll be blocked anyway. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered this ArbCom case and I see that you were very close to being put on a 1RR restriction for these articles; therefore you, just like PasswordUsername, are dangerously close to getting blocked for edit warring. So the warning I gave PasswordUsername will have to apply to you and Andora as well. Please deal with things at the talkpage. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, please take a look at the edits going on. User:Andora1 inserts his own WP:OR claim that all of the critics made false claims about the film in a section called "False Accusations". Meanwhile, no proof (WP:RS) of this is offered. I believe this is abuse of Misplaced Pages.

Furthermore, the claim that critics are lying about the movie would be a violation of WP:BLP. Any controversial statements about living people must be referenced. I noted this concern in my edit summary: . It seems that reverting is the only legitimate thing to do per Misplaced Pages protocol–else, we would imply that these living people (scholars, historians, and politicians from different countries, all mentioned by name) are lying about the movie, based off the opinion of one Wikipedian (and, for that matter, another one who often comes in to edit war against whatever I insert).

It is specifically registered that reverting in such a case is not a violation of 3rr. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the content issues, I care about following process. This is a subject that has been under arbitration before and there has been significant opposition to your edits, PasswordUsername; plus, I looked at the content myself and it is not an egregious BLP violation. There may be problems with it or content issues to be fixed, but these must be dealt with by consensus, not by making massive edits like this and changing 5 different things at once. That is the Misplaced Pages process. Stop reverting and start making constructive proposals at the talk page for ways to clean up the article, or asking for third opinions or dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please answer me: if you are a movie critic and I write on Misplaced Pages that you lied about (or made false claims regarding) the content of the movie without any shred of proof, would I be potentially libeling you? Yes or no? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, I am not part of your content dispute and I do not wish to be part of it. If you want a third opinion, follow one of the many avenues for getting them. Ask other people to comment on the article's talk page. That is the way to deal with these issues. If you are the only person who believes the article's content is libel and everyone else disagrees, then you have no right to be edit warring over it. On the other hand, if the article is so bad, then everyone you ask for a third opinion will come in and agree with you. I'm just a janitor; don't waste my time with this, go to WP:3O or WP:DR or a relevant WikiProject. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not part of the dispute, but you are an administrator. Surely, then, you are familiar with WP:LIBEL. I would like you to answer whether you believe that putting up information that five living people are lying about the movie fits the criteria of libelling living people or not. If you are unable to answer, please let me know your rationale for why you think it is a difficult case. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the text in the article backs up these claims with facts about the movie, which I presume can be verified by watching it. Likewise, the article doesn't say "these people are liars", it just disagrees with them or attempts to refute them; disagreement happens all the time in academic discussions. Like I said above, this may be poor writing and it probably is OR and probably is POV, but it is not libel and it does not give you the right to edit war. Now, I see no more reason for you to keep on bothering me here; if you want to be productive, go seek outside opinions through one of the channels I suggested above. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

However. Per WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view, (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research." And the very subsequent lines say: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If no claims about living people were made, it would be appropriate to follow through the dispute resolution process, but here 'uncited' - and contentious - claims are being presented. The proper venue for dealing with this is not dispute resolution, but exactly this fundamental policy of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thing, then, this is not biographical material, but is discussion of a publication. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP is not limited to biographies either - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines." PasswordUsername (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, citing someone's paper is not biographical material. You obviously don't understand what you're reading.

We're just going around in circles now. Unless you have something new to say, I won't be responding anymore. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the user who inserted material that all of these claims were false inserted no citation of anyone's paper. "Biographical material" is that which makes claims about people. Or not? (And per WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.") PasswordUsername (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• PasswordUsername was reported to AN3 just two weeks ago Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29. He returned on September 1st after a short wiki-break since August 21st and immediately he engages in edit warring on his return. How many chances and warnings is he going to get before something is done to curb his disruptive behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you interested in improving the encyclopedia, or are you just out to get revenge? Listen, it doesn't matter what happens to PasswordUsername. Don't worry about other editors, worry about content and the encyclopedia; you should not care what PU is doing as long as the encyclopedia is ok. If PasswordUsername starts disrupting again, I'll block him. If he doesn't start, there is no need to block him and no need for you to be worrying about him. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It is difficult to improve the encyclopedia when editors breach 3RR rather than engage in substantive discussion on the issues. --Martintg (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That one was a false report. I've commented on why I reverted (we cannot post potentially libelous material about living people) right above you. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a false report, at that time PasswordUsername also breached 3rr, but subsequently reverted his 4th revert after being reported. Looking at his edit comments in the current case, the first reason given for his revert was WP:MOS, then WP:OR and WP:RS for his second and third reverts, only now is he claiming WP:BLP, it wasn't apparent at the time. --Martintg (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That's what happens with multiple problems in the material added. BLP is part of the batch. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't care whether it was a false report or anything. It was never acted on, and it is not relevant to this. Please stay focused on the issues, please. If you guys keep pushing an irrelevant dispute here and ignoring the actual article that we are trying to deal with, I will have to start ignoring both of your messages. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

China Daily and trials

I realised that when I added the information, however, I've just looked and it is mentioned by Xinhua. What do you think? Midway (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

True, though if I remember correctly, CD reported these figures before Xinhua last time - as Xinhua is the main government news agency rather than a newspaper, I wouldn't expect it to be 'wrong' about it, as such. I have seen the figures repeated here on TIME magazine though that doesn't amount to independent verification. But while I did attribute the figures to CD - if you feel more comfortable with removing the information for now at least, I don't mind. Midway (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername - here we go again

. This time he didn't even take a short break between his bouts of edit-warring, though now he is self-reverting in order to stay just within the 3RR restriction (fence hugging). This isn't about revenge or anything, it's just that this is a very disruptive edit warrior, on multiple articles, in disputes with multiple users which makes normal editing difficult. I think 3 cases of edit warring within 2 weeks merits more than just a warning, since these appear to be ineffective.radek (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! right on the heels of Rjanag's warning that he will block PasswordUsername if he continues to edit war, now he is edit warring on Monument of Lihula:

• 1st revert: 14:47, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "lol, Estonia wasn't independent.")
• 2nd revert: 18:15, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undo blind revert by Martintg. Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, remember?")
• 3rd revert: 18:30, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters. See material on dedication and "controversy."")
• 4th revert: 18:35, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Sources don't describe this as "rumours." Obviously some feel that commemoraitng collaborationists is dangerous, so please no POV pushing.")

The guy is clearly out of control, he even mentions my name in the second revert even though I haven't edited that article since November 2007. Something needs to be done, I heeded your warning but PU seems to be blowing raspberries at you. Will you now block him as you said you would here? --Martintg (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that my third revert was a compromise attempt, my "4th revert" was unconnected to the previous three and that I self-reverted immediately? Frivolous claims don't look so good. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A revert doesn't have to involve the same material. You seem to be out of control. You were reported two weeks ago for edit warring multiple articles, but it went unactioned. The after returning from a week long wiki-break you immediately begin edit warring again. Rjanag warned us both, I heeded my warning but now you are edit warring again! Rjanag needs to impose a block to let you cool down and re-evaluate your disruptive approach to prevent further damaging Misplaced Pages. --Martintg (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I pruned a few different aspects of the article, which you claimed as your own defense when I reported you for edit warring a week or two ago (that went unactioned as well; although William M. Connolley expressed the opinion that you should have gotten a good blocking, I didn't pursue it as the behavior temporarily ceased). I self-reverted myself when I realized I'd accidentally passed the 3rr limit anyway, two minutes later - and way before what you're claiming now.

Your bad attitude speaks volumes here. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Accidentally" not in as in "I accidentally edit warred again" but as in "I was edit warring again and accidentally made it too obvious this time", right? 3RR is not a "right".radek (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, please take your personal beef elsewhere. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again? Did or did not Rjanag just previously warn you not to edit war again? --Martintg (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a good day. (What time is it in Australia?) PasswordUsername (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm making no blocks for this. Read through my explanation before getting your panties in a bunch, please.

This "report" was filed incorrectly: there are not four reverts here, there are maybe two. The first one is not a "revert", as he wasn't undoing any recent edit I can see; if anything, it was a BOLD change. The second one is an honest-to-goodness revert, ok. In the third one, he didn't restore his own material; it seems to be an attempt at consensus. Maybe a half-hearted attempt, and maybe one that he should have discussed before making, but an attempt nonetheless. The fourth one, like the first, is not a revert of something that came before, it's a bold change. So this is one revert, not four; furthermore, now that I look back on the warnings I gave, I was not clear as to whether I was saying I would block you guys for any new reverts, or only for new reverts at The Soviet Story, so I can't necessarily say that I have the right to block you guys anywhere you go.

Now I have a few messages for each of you. First, PasswordUsername: like Radeksz says, 3RR is not a "right", and stopping just short of 3 reverts over and over again is considered gaming the system; you can be considered edit warring even if you make just one or two reverts, and stopping at 2 over and over again (at different articles, on different days) will make people think you're gaming the system. Particularly, undoing yourself just to avoid being blocked is very poor behavior—that alone could get you blocked, depending on who's watching. You shouldn't have made the first revert I mentioned above; at that point you would have been better off starting a discussion. When in doubt, always start a discussion. To think of it in a more pragmatic way...when you made that revert, I'm sure you knew it wasn't going to stay. You saw you were in the middle of a dispute, did you really think they would all just back off after you reverted? If you know that your revert is not going to last five seconds, don't do it—start a discussion instead, then maybe you'll actually get somewhere.

Next. Martintg: You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by labelling your opponents as "out of control" after one revert, or by following me around trying to guilt-trip me into blocking people. Emotions are high enough as it is, what good are you going to do insulting people on purpose? As for this message of mine, which you cite as if it obligates me to block people at your bidding... like I said above, it doesn't. Again, PU's editing at that article probably wasn't perfect, but it's far less bad than you guys are making it out to be, and perhaps if you all didn't try to get at each other's throat over and over again then you guys would be able to get some real editing done instead of spending all your time fighting over 3RR.

Anyway, that's the gist of things. If I had caught PasswordUsername in the act (ie, in the middle of his one revert) today, then I might have blocked him. But that seems to have been several hours before; and the conduct of the lynchmob here only makes me even less motivated to help any of you. You all should stop relying so much on blocks to get your editing done, and try to learn how to discuss things. There are valid points behind both party's edits, and if you knuckleheads would actually talk about things then you could reach a consensus and fix up POV issues and make Misplaced Pages not have such crappy articles. If no one can be adult enough to discuss these things and have an open mind to other peoples' edits, though, that is never going to happen.

So, to sum up, neither of you is "right" and neither of you is going to get praised for what you've done in this conflict. PasswordUsername, you need make a habit of starting discussions the moment someone reverts you; I would suggest following the 1RR. Martintg, you need to be less hasty to turn things into 3RR reports. If neither of you can have a productive conversation with one another, then you both know ways to invite third-party editors in to evaluate issues.

If any of you disagree with this and still want to pursue a fight, you are welcome to do so—at the appropriate forum. My talkpage is not your personal battleground. In other words, Martinsg, if you feel PasswordUsername should be blocked and you're not satisfied with my message here, you are welcome to file a report at WP:AN3; you can link to the warning I gave before and whoever's at AN3 can decide if it's relevant. But please don't try to blame me for not blocking someone when I wasn't at my computer; you had diffs of warnings and diffs of reverts available, so you didn't have to come to me, and if you really needed him blocked right away then there were 1,600 other administrators you could have talked to. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been long since I haven't edited this article, but I see out of the blue an edit war today on something I fought was happily at peace...

Firstly Rjanag, you can't say "you didn't have to come to me (...) there were 1,600 other administrators you could have talked to". You picked up this dirt, you have to clean it; don't put things on hold, or ask another "janitor" to be contacted, you are not a 1-800 teller. With the mop, expect to smell a lot of s%*t. :) I am really honestly sorry, I do understand how ingrate is this.

Secondly, IMHO, the first edit is not technically a revert; Rjanag is right. The second and third are. The forth edit shows confrontations at the same article, but is self-reverted by the fifth edit. So if we pretend, 4th and 5th didn't exist, there are 2 reverts. But, in regard to 4th and 5th, I agree with Rjanag that undoing oneself to avoid being blamed for policy braking is an attempt to game the system. IMHO it is Rjanag's sovereign call. He decided to warn PasswordUsername but take no further action if such behavior is not repeated; and I personally believe that was a smart thing to do. All in all, imho, Rjanag technical statements were correct, except that the 3rd edit should be also counted as revert. Allow me please to explain why:

The 3rd edit was to remove "who fought for Estonia" from "Monument of Lihula is a monument commemorating the Estonians who fought for Estonia in World War II", rendering "Monument of Lihula is a monument commemorating the Estonians in World War II". For everyone who read the article (which is expected from all editors), it is clear that this edit changes the sense 180 degrees. This was a clear sign of confrontation. 3rd edit just like the 2nd tried to change the same sentence to render its sense as opposite. It came only 15 minutes after the 2nd, and 4 minutes after the 2nd was reverted. Content-wise, one can just as well call 2nd a compromise for the 3rd: none of them is more moderate. What however seals my personal conclusion that the 3rd was a revert are the edit summaries:

• 2nd edit: "Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, remember?" (a play on the sense of occupation)
• 3rd edit: "Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters. See material on dedication and "controversy."" (ad hominem)

These are typical "I challenge you".

I can't but notice after this also the comment to the forth edit: "Obviously some feel that commemoraitng collaborationists is dangerous" and that the main point of the 4th edit was not in the text but in the title of the section (adding "concerns of anti-Semitism"). Read "I challenge you." again.

So, from my understanding, there were 3 reverts with the 3rd immediately self-undone.

Thirdly, the people who reverted PasswordUsername did well to make only "dry" edit summaries. But you should have reported the case also in a "dry" manner, without trying to "get to" PasswordUsername. IMHO, you undermined your case by crying fault too laud, making the impression that you are after an editor and not after quality of WP content. Anyway, it was Rjanag's call. He will have to clean this up in the days to come if it re-emerges, hence he is sovereign to take decisions according to his best judgement. Dc76\ 23:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Story

I've responded to yours on mine, hope it helps. Please let me know if you'd like future responses here instead. Thanks! VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Need a neutral, third-party opinion over at Talk:Hong Kong, if you have time. Thanks :) Colipon+(Talk) 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)