Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 9 February 2011

Archives

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 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re

Ok, I will not change more. Raulseixas (talk) 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I thank you for notifying me but I don't know where to give my comment. Best (Salmon1 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but I did not see any discussion. There is always room to resolve problems but at the moment it does not seem to be clear how to go about it. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

There is a discussion on . The comments are important and there is clear relevance to it. Thank you for your interest. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am willing to agree to your suggestion if it applies to Modernist and to me simultaneously with the additional stipulation, that no deletion or addition of any sort can be made without explanation on the talk page. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am writing this response to you with the hope that it will help to restore civility. In my entire 5 year history in Misplaced Pages editing I have only uploaded three images. The three images were used to replace the extensive use of images for Ronnie Landfield by Modernist. I have replaced with . Similarly I have replaced with . There are several of the same image remaining in use in other general articles on and . The replaced two images were by artists who are highly recognized both in the US and internationally. I explained my action in each case in the respective talk page. In the third instance I chose an artist who was exhibiting in an exhibition along with Ronnie Landfield, John Seery . I explained my action in the talk page . The rest of the problem is discussed at the same section of the talk page for the article Color field, . I do not have the tool to revert and I did not revert. Actually I only tried to upload once but I thought that I was repeatedly unsuccessful so I kept trying. Shortly after to my surprise there was added a double image of Ronnie Landfield’s along with the replaced image of John Seery’s, . In the future I will not touch the images associated with Ronnie Landfield. It is really the role of the consensus to determine what endures.Thank you for your help. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your help to resolve this edit-conflict complaint presented against my editing in the article, Color Field. I will do my very best to comply with your decision. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Nicolas Carone is listed in the article, Abstract expressionism Major artists. On 28 January, 2011 Modernist deleted the link of the video from youtube.com on Nicolas Carone by Nicolas Carone with the explanation: “mv irrelevant gossip.” However the video is in the collection of the Archives of the American Art, ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONIST ART MOVEMENT IN AMERICA VIDEO DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, 1991-1992. The description of the video in the Archive of the American Art: ”The Herskovics produced the videotapes to document the recollections of the artists involved in abstract expressionism. The selection of the artists was based on participation in the "Artists Annuals" between 1951 (9th Street Show) and 1957. ” Please help to restore the link, into the article, : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kMxtJ0GfA Nicolas Carone-Abstract Expressionism-Artist of the 9th St. Show—video from youtube.com] (Salmon1 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Please make a case for your change at Talk:Abstract expressionism. That page is on the watchlist of almost 100 editors, so you have a good chance of getting a real discussion there. If no one will respond, ask me again. Note that Abstract expressionism is an extremely popular article and was viewed 45,000 times in January. Since it is such a major article, our editors may only want to include links to very important items, as determined from reliable sources that have commented on them. Linking to Youtube videos is often questioned here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed your advise, Thank you. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

On 28 January, 2011, Modernist deleted the following references: with the explanation: “rmv non-references.” Each of the books has 4 pages dedicated to Jack Tworkov. 1 Page, Jack Tworkov’s statement with reference and © to each given statement by the artist. This guaranties the artist’s point of view rather then a critical point of view. 2 full pages 12 x 9 inches of images by the artist Jack Tworkov with accurate description including ©; 1 page, biographical information. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books: won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. The referenced books carried the page numbers. Please help to restore the deleted references to the article. I made the case on Talk:Jack Tworkov as you requested in the case above. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Jack Tworkov's article and its talk page are watched by only a few people. I suggest that you make your request at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Your case would be stronger if these links actually serve as references. That is, if you change the article to include some relevant facts from these works. Another possibility is that you may have the rights to a photo of Tworkov that could be added to his article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please see the request and reply, . I was advised by a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Misplaced Pages articles with proper page citation. No article exists about me in Misplaced Pages. The existence of the books is presented on my user:page. On the other hand I believe that I can make a strong case for violation of WP:NPOV along with WP:BLP regard to Modernist using the information from Misplaced Pages. This should only be the concern of WP:ArbCom. Please give me the benefit of your advice. Sincerely, {Salmon1 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I was not aware that these were self-published books. Can you clarify what you are asserting about Modernist? It is by no means guaranteed that these books are usable in reference lists. If you think that someone gave you the go-ahead to do so, please link to where that discussion occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The books are published by the New York School Press. I am chief editor and co-owner of the company. The Company, New York School Press exists in good standing since 1999. Best, {Salmon1 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I just found an article in Goggle . (Salmon1 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I understand the point of WP:SPS. I believe that my circumstance is different. My books are not critical interpretations. They present the artists statements and works on an equal playing field. These books present 262 artists in as neutral point of view as possible. About me: I received my PhD from New York University of Arts and Sciences. I also have a certificate in appraisal studies in Fine and Decorative Arts that I received from New York University. I produced 27 videos on the art and lives of the artists of the New York School abstract expressionists.They are in the collection of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art . These videos were repeatedly shown in cable TV. They were listed in "Art on Screen,—a joint venture of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Trust." I hosted numerous artists' seminars and spent the past two decades documenting the New York Painting and Sculpture Annuals, the participating artists and their art. 991 of my books are in the art libraries of colleges and universities documented by worldcat.org. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books, American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s an Illustrated Survey, won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. I was advised by DGG, a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Misplaced Pages articles with proper page citation. DGG is a PhD with a career in academic library science. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Raulseixas

Minor I know, but he changed the name of another club on the Diego Milito page. I thought I'd mention it. Regards Footballgy (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP edit war game on this page is starting up again, very Raul-esque Footballgy (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one month. If you see more IPs taking up the banner for Raul's renaming issues, please consider reopening the sockpuppet case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raulseixas. From now on we probably would need behavior evidence since checkuser would not be an option. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed, I will carry on to monitor the pages he has been kicking around on and will re-open the case if I come across his editing traits again. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Scarmudgeon

The warning and an offer for them to join the noticeboard discussion had already been left. They removed it without comment. --Onorem♠Dil 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He wanted to go down in a blaze of glory, I guess. His wish has been granted. I have not looked into the possibility that this editor might have a real-life connection to the issues being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at Onorem's talk page concerning this. Not sure if you were aware of the history. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

João VI or John VI

Hi, Ed. Could you spare some time to share your thoughts about the João/John issue in Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)#An exception to the rule?? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I should promise to stop responding in kind?

Look at User_talk:Dmcq#The_Z3_wasn.27t_the_first_computer_according_to_other_reliable_cites. I was responding in kind, as I thought that was acceptable. Is this a statement that it is not? —chbarts (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit warring

I was reported for edit warring? What did I do? On what page? I don't recall reverting a page to a former version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.222 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

With this edit a person using your IP address removed an entire section from David Newman (political geographer). If you are using a dynamic IP, perhaps this was a previous user. If this was you, you can understand that removing an entire criticism section without discussion would lead to questions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording of the restriction about Orthodox/Catholic editing

* Former section header was "I do not accept that I can not post comments in Eastern Orthodox articles and sections that are critical of the Roman Catholic church"

I agreed that I would not post or edit or make comments in various articles under the Roman Catholic sections nor would I post in Roman Catholic articles. I do not agree that I will not post comments from Eastern Orthodox sources in Eastern Orthodox sections that have content that is critical of the Roman Catholic church. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My actual proposal did not, strictly speaking, restrict either Esoglou or LM from describing their respective faith community's views of the other faith community. It was aimed at stopping them from making edits which represented the beliefs and practices of the other faith community. I would be open to them posting comments by writers from their own faith community, on the beliefs and practices the other faith community, as long as these comments were WP:RS, on topic, and non-gratuitous.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some articles where this would be a problem? EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A perspective that is not allowed to be express potentially under this restriction as I can not post Orthodox theologians being critical of the Roman Catholic teachings. example..

"At the same time, the theological issues which it brought to the forefront both helped to define and distinguish

the peculiar traditions of the Orthodox East and to form the course of future dialogue with the Roman Catholic West. In this latter sense, it was the incisive formulation, by the Hesychasts, of the spiritual “psychology” and theological essence of the Orthodox Faith which doomed subsequent attempts at Church union, if simply because this formulation brought to bear on such efforts the profound chasm, with regard to Church polity, on the one hand, and spiritual life, on the other, that had developed between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West during the age of the emergence of the Papal monarchy and Western Scholasticism. If various union councils during the century that followed the Hesychastic Controversy and closely preceded the fall of Constantinople to the Turks achieved rather remarkable results at a theoretical level and by way of compromise spawned by political expediency, they fell flat and failed at a practical level because of the enduring legacy of the genuine, honest theological debates that marked the dispute over Hesychasm. Holy Tradition, the perpetuation of a theology drawn from common Christian experience, rather than philosophical speculation, and the very goals of spiritual life as the East saw them came into direct conflict with the rationalistic, Hellenistic presuppositions of Western Scholasticism and the ecclesiological and anthropological foundations of the theory of Papal primacy that Scholasticism, wittingly or otherwise, came to serve in Roman Catholicism." LoveMonkey (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not the kind of comment I intended to restrict, because it represents only your faith community's position, using a source from your faith community. As long as it is used only to describe how your community views the RCC's position, it is entirely acceptable to the proposal I worded. It would only be out of bounds of my proposal if you used it to represent what Roman Catholics believe about their faith community.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that LoveMonkey is determined to maintain his insertions of negative judgements about the Catholic Church, and that the long-standing problem is destined not to go away, unless an unambiguous directive is issued at administrator level. When LoveMonkey then presents the view of some Orthodox bishop or theologian about a matter of Catholic teaching, not as the view just of that individual, but as the view of the Orthodox Church, I feel I should, while leaving LoveMonkey's citation untouched, add statements on that same matter by other Orthodox theologians or, more important, in official documents such as the decrees of the 1672 Panorthodox Synod of Jerusalem or the Russian Synod's Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, letting the reader decide which view, if either, to consider to be that of the Orthodox Church. LoveMonkey generally reacts either by deleting my citations (even ones that, brought to the noticeboard, have been declared to be reliable sources) or by adding an unsourced statement that my citations "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church statements", and he claims that I, not being a member of the Orthodox Church, have no right to cite Orthodox statements - as if Misplaced Pages had such a rule! I hope that somehow Ed will be able to remove this problem at last, which has been going on for far too long. Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to continue your argument here. LM is seeking clarification from Ed and I. He is not talking to you, and this discussion has nothing to do with you. You are wikistalking him and posting accusations about him every time you do so. Then you drag in an entire paragraph of your silly little theological crusade, as if we care. Please understand that your theological hangups are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop trying to make it sound as if this was all LM's fault when you are 75% of the problem and you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a proposal which I made for a war which you persisted in dragging on for over a year. If you really thought it had been going on long enough, then you could have ended it in a single day. You didn't. You have been identified clearly as a long term serial edit warrior, who hasn't given so much as a single apology for their conduct.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's confine ourselves to the technical matter of what is the best restriction to use. This discussion should not become an RFC/U about either person. I would consider adding a clause which says, "If one of the parties is not allowed to edit or discuss a certain article section which is about the other church (either the EOC or the RCC), but their own community has sources which pertain, they may add those sources to the talk page, with no more than one sentence of neutrally-worded explanation for each one. If they wish, they can also present a verbatim quote from each source of no more than 200 words. They may not reply to questions or make any further statements about each source, though people can ask them questions via email." EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulty in understanding the import of the conditional clause, "If one of the parties is not allowed to edit or discuss a certain article section which is about the other church". In what conditions is one party not allowed to edit or discuss?

I presume that it is meant to be even-handed, and that, if either side can insert criticisms of the other church in the article itself, the other side is not then confined to adding balancing verifiable information only on the talk page, leaving the article page untouched. And if those criticisms of one church are presented as those of the other church (not just of individuals within the other church), the balancing verifiable information must surely be taken from sources of the church presented as doing the criticizing: for a true exposition of a church's teaching, the best sources are surely that same church's sources, not those of another church.

If the clause suggests that it is OK to insert criticisms of Church A within article sections about Church B, and that no balancing information of the kind I mention can be inserted in the article, but only on the talk page, it seems that the only way of balancing the article would be to insert criticisms of Church B within sections about Church A, a horrible solution! If I ever, even once, inserted into these articles a criticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I cannot at all recall it. Negative evaluations of the Eastern Church expressed in the old Catholic Encyclopedia have been mentioned, but by the other editor, not by me. Surely we don't want these Misplaced Pages articles to become a series of accusations and counter-accusations between the two churches. Misplaced Pages articles concerning doctrines on which Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans differ expound the view of each church without expressing criticisms of another church. Surely the same is possible when expounding Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrines. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the clause is to stop you making the disruptive edits you keep making. There is nothing to stop either of you continuing to post comments from members of your own faith community, which are critical of the other faith community, as long as they are from WP:RS. You can add all the balancing comment you want by adding information only about your own faith community, from WP:RS; it is not "balancing" to add commentary critical of the other faith community. If you believe that an edit has misrepresented your faith community, then post something about your faith community which corrects the balance. This has all been explained to you repeatedly, and you initially claimed to agree with it. Stop stalling, and start acting on what you said in the first place.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to not edit Roman Catholic sections on Eastern Orthodox theological articles, I can not agree to the idea that such a thing is the same as not allowing Eastern Orthodox sections to not contain data that is critical of the Roman Catholic church's theology as I posted here a Roman Catholic critical of the Eastern Orthodox and the reverse. I am trying to see how if I posted either or both I would not be violating what is being proposed as I would not be allowed to answer things like this as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just told you that what you posted here is perfectly acceptable under the proposal I have made. Please let me know if you agree to this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to give this discussion 24 hours before recording the proposal wording on the WP:Editing restrictions noticeboard, and noting that the two editors involved agreed on the proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Ed who, as an administrator, was deciding what to put as an editing restriction. It appears I was wrong. Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I made the proposal in my own words. You agreed to the proposal. You then both asked me specifically what the proposal does and doses not cover. I have explained in detail what the proposal does and does not cover. You have agreed to the proposal. There is therefore nothing left to do but record the proposal in the WP:Editing restrictions noticeboard. Ed has said he would consider adding a particular clause, and invited you to comment. You say you have difficulty understanding it, so we can simply leave it out. The fact is that you both already agreed on the proposal in the wording I gave, which is why Ed closed the case on the noticeboard where it was raised originally.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I think I know what's causing all this confusion. In my gloss of Taiwan boi's proposal, which I posted back on the noticeboard, I did include a clause about LM and Esoglou not adding criticism of the other's church by their own church's theologians. I thought this was what Ed and Taiwan boi were aiming for, and Taiwan boi at least appeared to endorse my gloss. Apparently he interpreted my gloss differently than I did. Anyhow, since LM clearly has problems with the intention behind my gloss's wording, let's just drop this argument.

In the interest of ending this dispute, I will now offer a second gloss of Taiwan boi's proposal:

1. Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding EO teaching or practice.
2. LM will not make edits or talk page comments regarding RC teaching or practice.
3. Esoglou may add information about RC commentary (positive or negative) on EO teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice.
4. LM may add information about EO commentary (positive or negative) on RC teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

Taiwan boi, Esoglou, and LM: do you agree with this wording? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Phatius, thanks for your clarification. Your two points are exactly what I had in mind. the key point, as I have said repeatedly, was the controversy over each editor representing the beliefs and practices of the other's faith community (largely Esoglou's representation of the EOC).--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I find Phatius' version easier to understand. (His points numbered 1-4). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. "In the body of the article" is of course more than a mention in a footnote. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am asking for clarity as if this outline above means that Esoglou will restrict his editing and commentary on EO teachings to RC sections and not edit the EO sections of the article then I agree. Its that simple, and I don't see that in what Phatius wrote. I see that I can't mention anything that says RC teachings or practices but then its saying that I can edit anywhere in the articles so long as I attribute it as opinion? How can any of you think the above (which appears to contradict itself) is any clearer? Why is there any option for restricting what anyone has to say when the issue is that people need to say it in the respective section. If Esoglou wants to preach ecumenism or be pro schism as long as he can source that he should be able to put it in the Roman Catholic section of the given article and not put it in the EO section and vice versa for me. I agree to that. However for the sake of wikipedia I will compromise even this if need be. If this will resolve the issue so that we can move on I then agree to the above but again simply wish to voice my concerns. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LM, my proposal is that

• You and Esoglou can't make statements about what the other church's teachings/practices are (either in RC sections or in EO sections or on talk pages). For example, Esoglou can't argue with you about whether EO theologians' descriptions of hell as "separation from God" run counter to official church statements.
• But you and Esoglou can make statements about what your church's theologians say about the other church, as long as you identify it as opinion.

I do not think that simply restricting you and Esoglou to different sections will do the trick. (Moreover, I don't think that that was what Ed and Taiwan boi had in mind when they made their proposals.) Why don't I think that you and Esoglou should simply be limited to different sections? There are a number of reasons, and if you want me to explain my reasoning in more detail, you can post on my talk page; for the moment, I will simply note two reasons:

• Not every article that includes EO and RC information necessarily has separate EO and RC sections.
• If we just limited you and Esoglou to different sections of articles, that wouldn't prevent fights on talk pages (which I see as the bigger problem).

However, if you wish, we can also add another pair of clauses (1 and 2 below), to form the following final version:

1. Esoglou will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to EO information.
2. LM will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to RC information.
3. Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding EO teaching or practice, with the following exception:
4. Esoglou may add RC theologians' comments (positive or negative) about EO teaching/practice. However, any such comment must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such comment must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice.
5. LM will not make edits or talk page comments regarding RC teaching or practice, with the following exception:
6. LM may add EO theologians' comments (positive or negative) about RC teaching/practice. However, any such comment must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such comment must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

I know it's become a bit long, but I don't think it will be very hard to remember. (It seems like common sense to me.) Esoglou and LM, do you agree with this wording? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were done, so I have already entered Phatius' original points 1-4 in WP:RESTRICT. I suggest we try this version for a month and if problems arise, it can be modified by mutual consent. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and patience. As you can tell, we're a loquacious bunch. Hopefully this agreement will help smooth things out. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Phatius, thanks for your clarification. Your most recent edit is what I had in mind also. Ed, thanks for your patience.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And renewed thanks from me. I think this should remove all grounds of dispute between LoveMonkey and me. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Phatius wrote above and hopefully this will give clearer guidelines so as to resolve the issues at hand. LoveMonkey 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with 3RR reports

Hi Ed, thanks for taking action on the recent edit warring I reported at Richard Boyd Barrett.

This is only the second time I've reported someone for 3RR, and it looks like there are a couple of things I might not be getting right. Would you be able to provide some pointers?

First, my diffs look different (as displayed on the 3RR noticeboard) to those provided by most other people. I've concluded that this is because most of the other people are using a semi-automated tool to generate their 3RR reports, which expands the diff itself to a date and also adds details of the edit summary. Does this make a difference, or is the way I'm doing it acceptable for this noticeboard?

Second, you said that you didn't see there being four reverts made within 24 hours. This puzzles me, because looking over the four edits I listed as diffs, they look to me to fall within the broad definition of being reverts as described on WP:3RR. Specifically I'm thinking of "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." So for example, the first, second and fourth edits all re-inserted the mention of the DVDs, which in each case had been removed by other editors. And the third edit re-inserted material about the TV station guy, which had been completely removed by me on BLP grounds.

Am I misunderstanding policy on exactly what constitutes a revert? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR reports need to be closed quickly, because there are so many of them. I stepped through the history one time, and I noticed that some of V's changes were not reverts. If you had used the 3rr.php tool which is mentioned in the Listing instructions at WP:AN3, it might have been easier to follow your reasoning. Also, your presentation here is easier to understand than the original report. At present, V is on a short leash due to BLP worries, but BLP is not a blanket excuse for removing criticism from an article about a politician. I hope that all sides will try to reach a consensus on sourcing for any controversial statements before protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hill & Knowlton

Hi there. I responded to your request for info required to change some of the basic facts about the company on the talk page. Appreciate it if you could take another look. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) | Talk 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC):

Why not propose on the talk page some new language to add to the article. I am still wondering if this is a big change if reliable sources have not taken much notice of it. Two units, both wholly-owned by WPP Group, have 'merged', but presumably there is no change in ownership, no issuance of stock etc. Some executives must have changed their titles, but this happens all the time. I note your mention of an article in PR Week, but it's unclear if any actual reporting was done for the article, or if it's just giving the contents of a press release by the WPP Group. If you propose new language on Talk and if nobody objects in a reasonable time, you should go ahead and change the article. The book by Karen Miller is presumably a reliable source, and I wonder if any information from that could be used to expand the article. Another PR Week article mentions a DowJones study comparing coverage generated by H & K and other firms. The DowJones study certainly has enough independence to justify a reference in the H & K article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets

Hi Ed, sorry to bother you but I thought I'd message you and ask for a little advice. In the past I have had several problems with IP user 82.5.224.162 for constantly vandalizing and dumbing down the Grimsby Town F.C. page. His edits which were last on that article in August 2010 were in the most part good faith edits but the infomation he added was either incorrect, bizarre changes of sub sections and text or badly constructed sentences. The IP user consistently failed to respond to any messages sent to him by myself or other users on his talk page and upon recieving any talk page messages he simply removed them. He continued to try and force his material on to the article numerous times and was eventually blocked for a 3 month period as well as having the right to alter his own talk page taken away from him. By looking at his contributions he also spent a lot of time altering different British TV shows, with a lot of those edits also reverted down to the same reason as on the Grimsby Town page. This user last edited the Celebrity Coach Trip (series 6) article on 9 January 2011, however a new IP user....81.109.92.81..which I know for a fact is the same person cropped up on the 28 January 2011 editing the same pages with the same usual waffle, I didn't notice him until he made editions to the Grimsby Town page on the 6 February 2011, most of which was with the same sentences and strange text alterations he had attempted to force on to the article in August. He has also gone back to editing numerous pages associated with British TV shows some of which have already been reverted by other users. I made contact with the new IP on his talk page...and as expected he removed my messages from his talk page. I've initally re-instated them which I know I am not really supposed to do but this is to only make other editor's who are dealing with him aware of his persistent vandalizing. I was contemplating reporting the original IP for sock puppetry but I wasn't overly sure whether an IP can be reported for controlling other IP's. I just wondered what can be done..if anything and how I can go about resolving this problem as I know this IP can be kind of relentless at times. Thanks and Regards. Footballgy (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've given enough warnings, you can report him at WP:AIV. Include some diffs which you believe show him adding false information. Since I don't know much about these article topics I can't easily tell which edits are nonsense. Both of these IPs are DSL customers in the Coventry area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

His main editions are mainly just bizarre word edits..or just plain dumbing down and changing of text and section headers. Obviously with Grimsby now residing in Non-League following relegation last year..he changed the Non-League sub section to "In the lower basement division" which makes no real sense. He used to add the line "relegation slapped Grimsby dangerously hard" at the end of several sections, and often states in the 1980's section that Grimsby never returned to the second tier of English football after that period...when they did in 1993 and 1998. Other additions are adding different clubs into the rivals section like Doncaster..who have never really been viewed as a rival. He has since been doing that on the Cheltenham Town F.C. page by placing Grimsby and Accrington Stanley in the rivals section when neither of them are. He is quite a strange chap and although he is not your every day vandal..he just seems adamant on adding the same incorrect or bizarre waffle to certain pages. Not all of his edits seem to be troublesome which leads me to think he must think he is contributing in some way but I honestly do not know why he finds the need to constantly add his rubbish when he has been told numerous times about it. I will keep a close eye and if he continues to make the same alterations then I will report him. Thanks again Ed. Footballgy (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Occupation of the Baltic states

The issue in dispute in Occupation of the Baltic states has been the naming of the article. As mainstream sources state, the period 1940-1989 had features of both occupation and annexation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. The specific quote used by Martin presents one side of the issue. Martin in fact uses it to object to the name suggested by Mälksoo.

The view that 1970-1989 can only be seen as annexation has been interpreted by some to mean that the ethnic Russian population are not citizenships, therefore not allowed to vote and subject to deportation. Russia, as the successor state to the USSR, is required to pay compensation. There is a moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and Nazi collaborators should be rehabilitated, while the resistance are seen as unpatriotic.

TFD 14:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say, I see the issue somewhat differently.

1. During the discussion, I provided the sources that confirm that in international law occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive: occupation is something intrinsically temporary, and it implies a control of some territory by hostile army. The term "non-military", or "civilian occupation" (in a context of the occupation of some foreign territory) is being used extremely rarely. By contrast, "annexation" implies absorption of the territory by another state, extension of the legislation of this states on this territory, and is deemed as something permanent;
2. I also provided the evidences that the Soviet regime in the Baltic states allows us to speak about annexation of these territories;
3. I also provided the results of the google scholar (not google) search that demonstrated that more reliable scholarly sources use the word "annexation" to describe these events than the word "occupation" (note, by contrast to google, google scholar database contains mostly reliable sources, not all web pages);
4. Nevertheless, a number of reliable sources that discuss the Baltic issue specifically have been found that claim that, by contrast to the normal practice, it would be not completely correct to speak about termination of the occupation after the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR. Let me reiterate it: in this concrete, very specific and unusual case we can speak about continued occupation of already annexed territories. However, this aspect was important mostly in connection to the issue of state continuity of the Baltic states, not as a characteristics of a regular life in the Baltic republics in 50s-80s: all citizens had standard Soviet passports, there were no difference in the status of the Baltic republics and other SSRs, and even the restoration of independence had been done following the procedures set by the internal Soviet laws (using the constitutional right of secession). Regaining of independence was accomplished by the decision of the SSRs' Supreme Soviets, i.e. the parliaments that were democratically elected based on the occupational Soviet laws. Would that be possible, had the regime been a purely occupational one?
5. Based on all said above, as well as based on the conclusions found in the detailed Malksoo's monograph I supported the idea to rename the article "Occupation of the Baltic states" to "Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states";
6. Since some editors argued that, whereas this monograph per se was a quite reliable source, my interlretation of the Malksoo's book was incorrect, we obtained the explanations from the author (Malksoo), who, based on what his book says, supported the idea to add the word "annexation" it the title as more accurate. He also advised us to keep in mind that the article must clearly state that that annexation was illegal (the latter statement is currently present in the article);
7. After that some editors ceased to object to this change, and others stopped to provide new arguments;
8. Finally, the discussion has become dormant.
   

If I understand the policy correct, consensus is not a right of veto, and only legitimate concerns (not bare objections) should be taken into account. In that situation the article should be renamed. I fully realise that after making your last post on the TFD's talk page you cannot be considered as an uninvolved administrator, however, in my opinion, it would be good if you make needed steps to close the discussion and rename the article.
regards, --Paul Siebert 17:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I must not have explained my position. I was referring to the use of the isolated quote from Maiksoo in order to support the existing name of the article. As it says in the neutral book From Soviet republics to EU member states "The specificity of the Baltic case... illustrates the tension between the principles of legality (ex injuria non oritur jus) and effectiveness (ex factis jus oritur)" (p. 60). Malksoo would appear to agree with that approach. Martin is using a quote that supports the legality principle over the effectiveness one. But Malksoo also wrote, "The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities".

From Soviet Republics also says, "A number of hard line politicians went so far to propose the expulsion of the 'Russian colonists', referring to the forced migration of ethnic Germans after the Second World War.... As a result of the nationalistic rhetoric and excluaive approach to citizenship, a large part of the population remained without clear legal status." (p. 71) These politicans base their understanding on the legality principle and ignore the effectiveness one.

I believe that neutrality requires us to explain that there is ambiguity in this case and not use a title that supports one side or the other. I had originally posted to the talk page in response to an RfC (RfC: Is the title of this article appropriate?) My response then was:

• Not neutral Editors should be aware that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. That means that unless there is a consensus that the Baltic states were occupied, we cannot state There are in fact other ethnic conflict articles where the same arguments are made, e.g., Gibraltar and the Falklands (or is it the Malvinas?) Doesn' matter - we don't take sides. While I appreciate that editors wish the story to be told, choosing a name like this makes readers assume it is biased before reading it. Just stick to neutral writing and trust readers to form their own opinions without a heavy dose of propaganda. TFD (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sander Saeda and Martin replied:

• Can you please provide valid non-propaganda sources or other examples supporting your statements? Or are these just empty words yet again? --Sander Säde 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• It is apparent that TFD hasn't read the literature, otherwise he would know that ethnicity plays no part, unless of course he believes scholars like John Hiden, David J Smith and Konstantin Khudoley are Balts. Ofcourse I may be wrong and he has in his possession a paper published in a peer reviewed journal that claims no occupation took place, by all means TFD should post a cite here. --Martin (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize however that it is important to clearly distinguish between the views presented and the people presenting them. I have found however that I often find martintg posting to discussion pages just after I have (ones he not posted to before) which probably influences my tone in responding to him, and will take care to phrase my responses better.

TFD (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise that my meaning has not come across and will now attempt to explain my view again. Malksoo presents the view that there are two sides to the story, but Martintg seized on just one side of this. Martin quoted Malksoo as saying, "The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR".

In fact Malksoo also said, "The Baltic Sattes were occupied in June 1940 and annexed (incorporated) by the USSR in August 1940. Thus, both occupation and annexation DID happen. The fact of annexation - and that the USSR proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own, not occupied - changed the nature of the occupation, if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities. For example, when 1980 Moscow olympic games took place, the olympic regatta took place in Tallinn. This cannot be a typical occupation situation."

If a critic were to say, "Despite serious flaws, Gone with the wind was a great movie" and an editor quoted the critic as saying "Critic x says Gone with the wind had serious flaws" or "Critic x says Gone with the wind was a great movie" then it would not be criticism of the critic to disagree with the representation of what was said.

History has redrawn maps, compromised territorial integrity, and moved entire populations. While we can look back and pinpoint specific violations by specific states, we need to approach these topics in a neutral manner. That means explaining all views and not concentrating on one.

TFD (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your explanations don't seem to answer the question I posed. It appears that you are no longer defending the original talk comment that Martintg complained about at WP:AE, . You no longer, it seems, want to ascribe an 'right-wing extremist ethnic nationalist point of view' to either Martintg or Mälksoo. If so, why not apologize for your comment and we might close the issue? If you think that someone else is the person who is holding a 'right wing extremist ethnic nationalist point of view', who is that person exactly? To want to use 'occupation' in the title of the article is ipso facto to be a right-wing extremist ethnic nationalist? So Misplaced Pages editors who want to put 'occupation' in the title should also be described in this way? EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD has a tendency to describe sources in that manner. See for a debating style which uses:

it presents as fact that Communism killed over 100 million people, while this article presents that number as an extreme upward estimate dismissed by mainstream writers, and the organization is run by Lee Edwards, the self-desribed historian of the American Right (who does not write for an academic audience) and has been involved in a number of extreme anti-Communist organizations.

as a rationale for rejecting a Congressionally chartered organization from merely being an "external link" on the topic of mass deaths under communist regimes. If a person can be so typified who is not an editor here, then WP has serious problems. Collect (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that EL does not require an organization to specifically be "authoritative" in the view of a specific editor, that was not my point. The point is that an editor referred to the subject of a WP BLP as being involved in "extreme anti-communist organizations" which is a fairly clear WP:BLP violation per se as being a contentious unsourced claim about a living person. If I recall correctly, this establishes a pattern of that editor making unsourced contentious allegations about living people on a large number of pages. Generally labeling them fascists, extremists and the like. Collect (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My use of the expression related to the naming of the article, "Occupation of the Baltic states", which is used to describe both occupation of the Baltic states by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and the subsequent incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. The neutrality of this title was questioned in an RfC raised by User:Lothar von Richthofen entitled, "Is the title of this article appropriate?" Malksoo suggested the title, "Occupation and Annexation of the Baltic States". My objection to that title (and Martin agreed) was that annexation is an event and therefore it would be incorrect to refer to the continued inclusion of the Baltic states in the USSR as "annexation".

I do not understand why you continue to assert that my comment describes Malksoo's position when it clearly represents the selective use of Malksoo's comments.

The right-wing view relates to the naming of the article. Editors who support a specific name may or may not be aware of the implications. The implication of this name, as I have explained, is that all actions undertaken by the Soviet Union in the Baltic states from 1940 to 1991 were illegal and therefore Russia must compensate those states and the nationality of people born in those states during that time are in question. That position has been adopted by " number of hard line politicians went so far to propose the expulsion of the 'Russian colonists'...."

TFD (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I welcome your reply to Collect's comments. Do you think that I am wrong to consider Edwards to be outside the academic mainstream or should his organization which is linked here, be considered an authoritative source? TFD (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to chime in here. First TFD claims his comment was related to the view of Prof. Mälksoo: "The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR". Here Mälksoo is discussing sovereign rights. Now he claims it is related to the naming of the article (so therefore by implication the editors who support a particular name). TFD mis-characterises the debate about the illegality of the Soviet occupation, it is not about the expulsion of Russian post war settlers (although some extremists were advocating it back in the early 1990's and the source he is referring to is discussing that period).

TFD's contention that calling the soviet period an occupation an extreme far-right viewpoint is both wrong and totally unsupported by any reliable source. This is the view point of many mainstream scholars like Professor David James Smith, head of the Department of Central and East European Studies at Glasgow University, who writes: "This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that de jure, Estonia remained an independent state under illegal occupation throughout the period 1940-91". Russian scholars like Konstantin Khudoley, vice Rector and head of the School of International Relations at St Petersburg University, also view it as an occupation.

With TFD I am reminded of the "Reds under the beds" hysteria of the 1950's, except for TFD it seems to be "fascists under the beds". Combined with his evasiveness here, his unhelpful charactisation of the issues as far-right or even ethnic based, I just don't think that kind of mindset is appropriate for editing articles related to Eastern Europe. I suggest a EE topic ban with a review after some period of time, prehaps he can get up to speed with the literature on the topic during that time. --Martin (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you missed the first part of the passage, "This policy of non-recognition gave rise to the principle of legal continuity, which held that...." Smith later writes, "...in the eyes of the majority of its members , Estonia had never formed part of the Soviet state". The fact that as you state 2/3 of ethnic Russians do not have Estonian citizenship and 1/3 are in fact stateless is a matter of concern. As Smith writes, "One factor differentiating Estonia from neighbouring Latvia is the way in which it has addressed the somewhat thorny criteria relating to 'respect for and protection of minorities'.... the refusal to grant automatic citizenship rights to the large Russian-speaking settler population is the issue which has aroused the greatest controversy amongst outside observers since 1991." (p. 67)

"Ethnic issues" you are talking about belong to article Human rights in Estonia. Why repeatedly bring them here? Biophys (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how members of the post-war immigrant community in Estonia decide which citizenship they wish to adopt is relevant to TFD's behaviour and tendency to accuse people of editing from a "fascist viewpoint" or claiming they are "far-right ethnic nationalists", unless he thinks formenting some kind of ideological battleground in Misplaced Pages's EE topic area is some how helpful in redressing what he perceives as injustices in the wider world. --Martin (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The status of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states was determined by those governments' assertion that the three republics were occupied. In the other former Soviet republics, where it was determined that they had been incorporated into the Soviet Union, all Soviet citizens in those states at the time of independance became citizens. In the Baltic states however they did not. In 1989, 1/3 of the population of Estonia, 1/2 of the population of Latvia and 1/10 of the population of Lithuania were ethnic Russians. Since then the ethnic Russian population has declined by one third. BTW Martin I did not use the term fascist in relation to this article. TFD (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This just reminds me And you are lynching Negroes.Biophys (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being factually incorrect, confusing Russian speaking with ethnic Russian and Lithuania also granted blanket citizenship, how is this related to the thread discussing Prof. Mälksoo's POV in which you stated "While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV." Was it directed at Mälksoo's POV as you claimed at WP:AE, or at me? I find the first part of your statement alluding to my alledged "ethnic nationalism" offensive enough. FWIW my partner of 13 years is of ethnic Russian descent, her grand parents coming from Narva, so I find your attempts at playing the ethnic card appalling. --Martin (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, yes TFD did not use the term fascist in relation to this article, he used it in another article but was given a warning after attempting the same "edit vs editor distinction" argument. But as Collect above noted, this is part of a tendency of labelling editors or sources he disagree with as "far-right", "fascist" or "ethnic nationalist". To exemplify this trend he was also previously warned for calling someone a neocon. Enough. --Martin (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, I was referring to the selective use of Malksoo's writing, not Malksoo. The issue of the status of the Baltic states 1940-1991 is nuanced, and it was my impression that you used that your use of only part of the writing did not accurately reflect mainstream thinking.

Also, THF's complaint was not about calling an editor a neocon, but calling the Weekly Standard "neocon". My orginal comment was, "According to the WP article, "The Weekly Standard is a American neoconservative opinion magazine". Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for BLPs. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)" In later conversation this became shortened to "neocon", a term to which THF objected. Could you please avoid hearsay. TFD (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Might you explain the civility in Can you name any mainstream writers who support your views? Can you even point to where these writers support your views? Collect, can you please not refer to people like Jonah Goldberg. This discussion is about experts not fringe theorists. Also avoid presenting OR arguments about the DPRK (N. Korea Communists). All of this is merely detracting from the issues. It is typical fascist (and right-wing populist) resentment that they are squeezed between big business and big labor. Your wording violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE I have now done my own research and such a section did exist in 2005 and said "Fascism tends to be associated with the political right". However it was later deleted, so Collect's understanding that the section has consistently represented his views over a four year period would appear to be an honest mistake. in fact the section only represented Collect's views after he added them in January of this year. BTW I think that there are only 12 quotes that Collect uses to support his view, not 18, as Collect states. Collect used "reflist" and therefore obtained sources that were footnotes to other sections. However it really is not very helpful to have numerous references if none of them support your premises. Recently I filed a report at ANI against Collect for wikihounding: he voted on AfDs I had but in exactly the opposite way. (In most cases I had filed them.) (note that I have !voted on well over five hundred XfDs :) ) The neoconservatives had their origins in Communist ideology as well, but that does not mean we should include the American invasion of Iraq in the article. ... "In their youth"?! They were well into middle age when they switched and brought with them much of their Communist past including unfortunately a tendency to re-write history . I did not say you deleted it but that you hid it, for whatever reason. But it now appears to have been deleted. (while making a kindasorta apology for a clear attack), The only part of that book that could support your theory are contained in the introduction which was roundly debunked by several of the contributors to the book. All of this has been explained to you The only sources that connect mass killings with communist ideology are far right extremist theories published outside the academic mainstream This article should also point out the anti-Semitic nature of the theories expressed by far right anti-Communists I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing In fact Collect your comments about me are a personal attack. As I clearly pointed out, the far right draw a connection between Jews and Communists, which is why the theories of Cpourtois, Nolte, etc., have become so popular with them . If you have any good sources that are helpful for this article please provide them, but do not expect others to make the same leaps of logic that you do I think you are misreading that. By the way, in your next edit you seem to confuse the terms "drought" and "draught". A drought is an absense of rain. A draught is a current of air The sum total of subjects covered in all encyclopedias, e.g., encyclopedias of rock'n'roll, genocide, ming vases, etc. would run into the millions and none would have this article Collect, could you please stop misrepresenting what other editors state. No one has claimed that Stalin did not kill people and it is extremely offensive for you to suggest they did especially considering that there are laws in many countries against this type of historical revisionism and your comments could be interpreted as accusing other editors of committing a criminal offense(which was a legal threat ignored by everyone due to the nature of the source :) ), That is a high school essay, Do you believe that articles should be based on 1950s Cold War texts? It was published by Bloomsbury Publishing which is not an academic publishing company. As someone with a PhD in economics you are well aware of the difference It says on your user page that you have a Ph.D. in economics and I assume that Biophys is short for "biophysics". I have said nothing beyond that. I do not believe it is advisable to provide personal information on Misplaced Pages. (after making comments about a PhD knowing better), In the last U.S. election did you vote for Obama because he told you to and he is an academic and therefore a reliable source or were you able to distinguish between his scholarly writings and his pronouncements in the popular media? and most of those are from a single page Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes/Archive_24 And also Could you please provide evidence that "Communist" is the term used in the sources? (when it was clearly a weird comment from TFD at best), and this barely scratches the surface. Routine rejection of AGF, NPA, NLT, and so on. Collect (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

An important keyword in the diffs is "mainstream". TFD thinks that he is an expert and therefore only his personal views and sources are "mainstream", whereas all other RS and views are "fringe", just as I noted at AE . But this is wrong in every area of knowledge, no matter if this is social sciences or biophysics. In fact, an expert (if he is indeed an expert) has enormous advantage while editing in wikipedia. Here is an example of civil discussion that involves myself as an expert . Note the existence of disagreements that are easily resolved. Biophys (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO from Portugal here,

please do something about this "user" ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/95.92.2.82), he specializes in inflating (grossly!) stats in football players, namely connected with F.C. Porto. Last time i checked, that's vandalism...

I thought his IP-range was neverending, but found out some "good news", he has used this one in two separate days. Since i believe protecting all the pages he has edited in would be too strenuous (but he does seem to have a preference in "contributing" to Silvestre Varela, several anon IPs from him there), could you block this IP? I'll fill you in on any further developments.

Attentively, ty in advance, happy week - --Vasco Amaral 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

95.92.2.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We don't usually block people who haven't been warned. His talk page is a red link. Please leave a message for him, explain what you think he did wrong, and if possible include a diff of an example. In general, WP:AIV will handle cases like this if you go through the procedure. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes i know this is WP procedure, but i fail to see why should i talk to a VANDAL who is doing this on purpose, without leaving any explanations as to his "contributions". Furthermore, i already left him - in my (our) mother tongue - a warning to his behaviour in the Varela article (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:94.132.72.169), did it do any good (if he did read it, he has many many anon IPs as i have said)? No! But i see your point. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Another attempt (i report these punks, my conscience is clear after that, even though i known it's really easy for them to just open another account, rendering the work from the people who report them USELESS): please have a look at this "user", Joeyvolos, account is used ONLY for vandalism ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Joeyvolos). I am not going to talk with him because: 1 - i don't talk to vandals, i would only feed the troll, know from my past experiences; 2 - chances are he speaks no English, and my Greek is non-existent; 3 - he has already been warned, TWICE.

If these two diffs i provide are not clear evidence he is a lowlife vandal (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ethnikos_Olympiakos_Volos_F.C.&diff=412074732&oldid=411845248 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ethnikos_Olympiakos_Volos_F.C.&diff=409991826&oldid=409907034, several others are found at Ethnikos Olympiakos Volos F.C., he really must hate that football club), then i don't know what else can i do.

I will also report this at WP:FOOTY. Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

Here - thanks Lionel (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)