Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 21 January 2010

Welcome to NJA's talk page! Please click here to leave me a new message.	01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 06 • 07 • 08 • 09 • 10 • 11 • 12

Question on Tags

Hello NJA, first of all I want to thank you for your suggestion on the http://en.wikipedia.org/Inspiring_Education:_A_Dialogue_With_Albertans page.

I was the one that created this page, and would like to work with you in making it follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

I did not intend to represent a group of people, and to this end I have created a user account with my name only, which will be used exclusively in the future.

When writing the entry, I used information available in publicly published materials and other cited information. I had thought that it was written in a neutral tone, but would greatly appreciate any suggestions to improve the tone or quality of my entry. It was never my intent to "promote" anything, just create a compilation of information.

Once again, thanks for the time and help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a minor edit to the intro and removed the intro rewrite tag. I have a feeling this may end up at a deletion discussion because it's essay-like. Unfortunately I haven't the time to guide you too much right now, but as a start you may wish to browse over Misplaced Pages:Notability_(events).

Also keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and it's not a newspaper or place to promote or adovocate (see here). Again welcome, and I wish you all the luck. If you get stuck and need help, consider posting requests at Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests. NJA (t/c) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! I read the links you provided, and while I believe I understand what you are saying, I do believe this topic would qualify as "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of significance is likely to be notable." As an ongoing government initiative, wouldn't that qualify since it has the chance to change or impact legislation?

Also, if you do have the time, my other question comes from the mention on the article being "essay-like". I am not quite sure what this means, and do not recall a Misplaced Pages link mentioning it. Do you have a link to the guidelines area that would assist me in changing the structure to something more acceptable and less "essay-like"?

Again, thank you for your time and expertise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Not saying this article is a good example, but consider the structure and tone of Equality Bill vs your article. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, NJA. I have been looking for the update you mentioned, "I've made a minor edit to the intro and removed the intro rewrite tag." unfortunately; I cannot seem to find it in the edit history or any other area. Could you guide me to where the changes are? I am still seeing the intro rewrite tag. And when you said, "I have a feeling this may end up at a deletion discussion because it's essay-like." Were you referring to the intro area specifically, or the entire article?

Once again, your efforts are greatly appreciated, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamRauh (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that the article which you deleted earlier today has been recreated. Amsaim (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war in Dimitrije Tucović page.

I want to say hello, and thank you for having blocked the Dimitrije Tucović page. I´m not quite sure if you had the desire to have the resons (at least from me) explained here on your talk page (I don´t want to bore you with this). But, I do need help and advice because this situation, the other user in question, have made me have more edit wars in the last week than all reverts ar any other "incidents" in my past year and a half. I must tell you that I edit WP mostly as a hobby and for all this period I have been a creator and editor of exclusivelly Football (soccer) related articles. I was never a player, but as I like the sport and the historical statistics, that has been pretty much my work around here. But, as a person born in Belgrade (Serbia), althou I only lived there 3 years of my life (I´m 30), as I like history and geography, geopolitics too, I can´t resist from time to time to have a look at WP articles related with those areas. With all the recent (and no so recent, Yugoslav war,WWII, etc.) events there, I´m very much used to see many of those articles edited in a non-Serbian POV. Until here, I supose I´m not telling you nothing new, and I never edited, even less engadged in any edit wars, in any of those articles. The problem appeared when I saw this user User:Mladifilozof making massive edits in big number of Serbia-related historical and current articles. His edits promply called my attention, since it was pretty clear that the editor was a heavy anti-Serbian nationalist. His edits were sow NPOV that was almost absurd. The editor in question likes to present himself as a "moderate Serb" and in one of the talk pages of an another editor that had an edit war with him, he said:

"Moramo plakati i pisati o zločinima koje je naša država počinili prema Drugima, ne bi li smo se na taj način iskupili.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tadija" here

in translation: "We must cry and write about the atrocities that our nation (he means Serbia) commited against others, so that way we could be redemed."

Until here, there is also nothing strange (Some Serbs and its polititians did some horrendus stuff in recent past), but that looks more like an disguise, because his edits go way beyond that. His edits all go around the same, that is to show how Serbia occupied in the past (all history, middle ages and Renesance included) other peoples territories, and made mass murders, ethnic cleansing... and very much around the Kosovo Independence issue. He uses sources, but he changes the text, or the meaning, as the necessities of his purposes (some editors cought him doing this). He was warned by many users, and throu said, he doesn´t receve support from any other editor. But, if left, he would harm greatly a great number of those articles, that were mainly written in a good way (neutral). After being warned many times to at least try to edit in NPOV, nothing never changed.

I´m not certainly a Serbian nationalist (they destroyed a nation!) but, as much as I dislike the Serbian nationalists, I also dislike all other "blind" nationaliosts, racists or any other discriminatory moviments. There should be a limit imposed on how far the editors of such tendencies should be allowed to go. Fighting Serbian nationalism with even more nationalism, but reverted, just isn´t the best solution.

In the article in question, he wants to use a citation in wich Tucovic speaks about the suffering of the Albanian people, but that is just one of the sentencies in thousands of pages of his work, and there are much more important ones that should be used first. I´m not in deniyal of Albanian suffering, right the oposite, but there are already articles in with the issue is well described, and the citate used (despite being decontextualised, but anyway). It´s like if I writte an article about David Beckham, and among the most important information, I chouse to writte about his declarations in one trip he made to Albania where he said that he was robbed and how dirty and primitive the country was... That would just be ridiculous and decontextualised, right? Please, is there a way to fight extremist (politics) editors? FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the best advice I can offer is to get assistance from other interested editors so that together you all can work out what's best. The guidance document on dispute resolution offers a structure for dealing with issues you may encounter with other editors. Options for you may be to get a third opinion, or possibly listing the issue for attention at a relevant Wikiproject (perhaps these), or possibly seek assistance at the conflicts noticeboard. I'd definitely recommend a read over WP:DR and the other links I provided. I wish both of you the best of luck. Regards, NJA (t/c) 07:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many, many thanx. That were exactly the kind of alternatives I needed to have. I´ll definitelly have to spend more time learning the different WP policies here. Many thanx again, and I´m really sorry to bother you with this. FkpCascais (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hadith Deletion

Hi NJA. Just wanted to say Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar also included the sister article Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an which you have not deleted. Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done NJA (t/c) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lion0256

Re your warning for userpage vandalism, it's actually pretty funny—that account is a sockpuppet (the second of two so far) that User:Majestic27 created to award himself barnstars after I called him out for displaying a fraudulent one with a real user's signature, and then urged against vainly awarding them to himself in a conversation at my talkpage. Serves him right to get a warning.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's just sad. NJA (t/c) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton

Can you provide any guidance on the close relationship tag on the Greg Caton page? Off2riorob has conducted a pretty good scrub. Jettparmer (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It was in response to this. Though if it's been scrubbed then by all means take it down. NJA (t/c) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you unofficially mediate?

Rapido has so far refused to engage in an healthy discussion, and has sparked an edit war, remaining quiet, stubborn and refusing to engage in my numerous requests for him to discuss before reverting. I'm not sure if he has a strategy to get me blocked or is just arrogant, I started an discussion on the discussion page in "BBC Persian Television" discussion page, and during reverts and edits provided my reasons. A number of times people have cleared the discussion page for unknown reasons, however, i've tried to revert it more or less to how it was when I came. Please be professional and try to look at it through neutrality, political interests you may have and help for an outcome which will provide a more accurate account, which is what I will I strive for, accuracy. Hope you can help. My next step is official mediation, and other avenues, but I thought I'll see if you can help first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history < Article history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute < Discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/BBC_Persian_Television < Article itself

Thanks

--94.193.135.142 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)