| Revision as of 16:26, 16 October 2015 editDirtlawyer1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,853 edits →Linda Amos Skirton page move (2013): thanks, Ed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:10, 19 December 2024 edit undoEmiya1980 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,779 edits →Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | ||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | ||
| <!--User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=240 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=31 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 250000 | |||
| --> | |||
| ⚫ | {{archives|search=yes}} | ||
| ==Criminal Code (Canada)== | |||
| Thanks for moving the article to the new name; much appreciated! I'm now in the process of going through articles using the old name and updating them; a massive task, I find, and will take a while. Could I suggest a follow-up move? There is one entry on the . The article itself now is just a re-direct. Could that one Talk Page entry be moved to the Talk page for ], and then the old Talk page be deleted? Thanks for your help! ] (]) 11:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have copied the talk comment from 2006 over to ] and replaced ] with a redirect. We normally use redirects for old talk pages after a move takes place. Thanks, ] (]) 14:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks!] (]) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been working my way through the "What Links Here" for ], and changing the links for ]. The thing that is odd is that the resulting list of "What Links Here" is not alphabetical. I can't see any rhyme or reason to the orer the articles are being listed. Is that normal?] (]) 13:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why not ask at ] to see if there is any way to get a sorted list. Of course you could cut and paste the names from the screen and sort them on your own computer. In practice, you can cut down the size of the list by <u></u>. ] (]) 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == AE == | |||
| Hi Ed, if you have a spare half an hour or so to read through the thread, the ] could really do with another pair of uninvolved eyes. Thanks, ] | ] 21:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll try to post something within 24 hours if the report is still open then. At first sight I'm not happy with the behavior of either party and see the proposed restrictions as the minimum necessary. Editors should have the wisdom and the negotiating skills to handle their own dispute resolution. If they are constantly posting on admin boards it's a sign they have failed in their editing of the topic area - unless it is one of the rare cases of truly one-sided misbehavior. ] (]) 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|HJ Mitchell}} It looks to me that the admins in the AE are almost resolved on a three-month topic ban of both parties, while giving an exception for mediation. I took a long time to study this, but I believe the complaint is too badly framed to take any proper AE action. So rather than add my opinion to the thread, I'll stay here. ] (]) 16:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion for better understanding == | |||
| ], can you please make the suggestion that the {{tl|ARBPIA}} template, "Warning: Active Arbitration Remedies," be amended to read that "articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). '''This restriction applies to a literal 24-hour period, counting from that person's very last revert'''." Had I known this, I would not have faltered.] (]) 05:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Davidbena. This is explained at ], which is a section of our edit warring policy. Interpreting 1RR as applying per calendar day (which you might be thinking of) would be unworkable due to the variety of time zones. Thanks, ] (]) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, ].] (]) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about resolving edit dispute == | |||
| ], is there a way to resolve an edit dispute (see: talk page of ], sub-section: "Unbalanced, 1948 section"), by asking an administrator to intervene and without having to go through the regular channel of Arbitration? Just wondering. If not, would you be willing to personally get-involved in the edit dispute between me and my co-editor? See .] (]) 12:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You'll find that ] is widely used as a source in our articles. He is an Israeli historian. Do you have some reason to distrust his findings about ]? If so do you have another source you prefer that specifically talks about Bayt Nattif? ] (]) 13:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I have given a precise excerpt from Benny Morris showing where he quotes from a Palmah officer in 1948 who gave his professional opinion that abandoned villages in the Jerusalem Corridor, those known for their hostility towards Israel, should be demolished. For the quote, see my last response on the Talk-Page ]. Our co-editor wishes to expunge this fact, insisting, in her own way, to paint a very negative picture of IDF intentions in that war. I have other proof besides this one, where in her edits on articles related to Arab-villages where they (the villages) also had a vibrant "Jewish history," she prefers not to mention these facts. A case in point is the article ] and my edits there, all of which were expunged (see history). This happens to be a recurring theme with our co-editor.] (]) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It doesn't seem that anyone agrees with you at ], and some of the people on that page are very experienced. The options of ] are open to you. It would be helpful if you would propose a rewording of the article section you're talking about, and quote the exact passages from refererences that you think support it. People are implying that you are quoting from books that don't mention Bayt Nattif and that you are trying to push your own POV. If you try to use further steps of dispute resolution when there is nobody who agrees with you on the talk page, you will be starting out under a disadvantage. ] (]) 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], I have just revised the section "1948 war, and depopulation," adding "abandoned Arab villages," instead of "conquered Arab villages." (Look there). I have also added in the same section an anecdote about the Palmah officer who advised destroying houses in abandoned villages that were known to be hostile. (Look there). In addition, in the history section, I have mentioned the early Israelite history (in brief) of the region. (Look there). '''By the way:''' The previous disputes with the other editors that you've alluded to were different issues altogether, and they have already been resolved. This current issue is still ongoing between me and only one other editor.] (]) 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''One more thing:''' I wish to call your attention to the fact that when our co-editor, my disputant in this case, first started editing ], she complained that the article was "unbalanced," in that it initially portrayed only the Jewish history of the village. See . I then made every effort to give the article more balance by researching its Arab history. Most of the Arab history entries in that article were made by me, as the history will prove. I have taken every effort to meet the demands of balance, just as she called-out for. Now, it seems that the tide has changed. She does not seem to be comfortable when mentioning Israelite history. I have noticed that this seems to be the case in other articles as well. See , where she claimed that the particular sentence mentioning Israelite history for the town was "unsourced." After I had put the source in, she decided to let it stand.] (]) 21:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As you can see, Ed, the edits that were made by me this evening were undone by her. . See our continued discussion on this subject at the very bottom of the Talk Page.] (]) 21:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please use ] if you can't reach agreement on Talk. You don't seem to be addressing ]'s objections. I'm not sure whether you were actually intending to do so. And now we have the ] being pressed into service as a reliable source about history. Our own article on the ] casts doubt on such a usage. ] (]) 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will most-likely refer the dispute to ], as you suggested ]. In response to your last comment about the ''Book of Joshua'' not being a reliable source about history, here, in Israel, it is generally agreed by the academic circles that it is, indeed, a reliable source of early Israelite history. Although the author referred to in the WP article ] does indeed cast doubt on the "single exodus" theory (from Egypt), Ann E. Killebrew (footnote # 4 in reference), she does, however, agree that there was an "Egyptian occupation of Canaan" in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE, which dates - mind you - I have also mentioned corresponding with the Israelite settlement in the region. See: , p. 152. She also mentions in her own footnote no. 15, in that same chapter (Early Israel: A "Mixed Multitude" - p. 187), that Kitchen 1998 supports the historicity of the account in Joshua. It is therefore my view that, as a source, the Book of Joshua can be used as a reliable source to the extent that all authors agree that there was a massive new settlement of immigrants to the land of Canaan during the late Bronze Age Canaan.] (]) 01:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Question:''' Will you be able to participate in the resolution of this dispute?] (]) 01:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ], if I might ask your indulgence for just this once, please, if you can interject here, God bless you. As you can see by the source, in chapter 6 ("Blocking a Return") of the book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", , where Benny Morris writes: "These processes were the gradual destruction of the '''abandoned''' Arab villages, the cultivation or destruction of Arab fields and the share-out of Arab lands to Jewish settlements, the establishment of new settlements, on '''abandoned''' lands and sites and the settlement of Jewish immigrants in empty Arab housing in the countryside and in urban neighborhoods. Taken together, they assured that the refugees would have nowhere, and nothing to return to" '''(end quote)''', it is clear by these presents that he is referring to ''abandoned'' Arab villages that were destroyed. So, it is important to use the words "abandoned Arab villages" in the article ], instead of "conquered Arab villages" as used by our co-editor, for the simple reason that the words, "conquered Arab villages," leave the reader with the impression that the towns' inhabitants were still present in the towns when their houses were destroyed. Can you make the desired change in the edit for the sake of accuracy?] (]) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :When acting as an admin I should not be engaged in content discussions (unless as a pure mediator, which I am not planning to do here). I plan to archive this thread. Thank you, ] (]) 19:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this an adequate source? == | |||
| ==List of wars involving Cyprus== | |||
| Greetings EdJohnston, | |||
| Following up your conversation with user Mikrobølgeovn, I need to inform you that what he is accusing everyone else to be, is just a portrait of himself. You can check for how long is edit warring the article. It is more than a year now. You can also check the rest of his accusations, and you will find that what he is accusing others for, is exactly what he is doing. Nationalism on the ones that are adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner, and are adding what the two sides have in common, such as in the culture of Cyprus, while he is deleting all the victories of the one side for a whole year now in this and other articles, and reporting the ones that are adding the NPOV version on false charges after trying to push then to edit warring, a game of win, to the ones that are not changing the NPOV versions in almost all articles edited after them, while he is edit warring the article for a year with POV now, accusations that they don't discuss to the ones that they have the whole talk page full of their discussions, and discussed even long time before, they have ever touched an article, while he had no discussion on what so ever, when he made the accusation in the talk page, while he is edit warring the article for a year now e.t.c | |||
| Recently I was engaged in a discussion with an editor over their use of Youtube videos as media sources within the ] article, . While there is no current dispute and we were able to discuss this amicably, I am still quite unsure about whether or not this is correct seeing Misplaced Pages's stance on self published sources and on ]. | |||
| You can also check my own history on articles and my cooperation with other users to add NPOV versions, and how many times I have left unchanged NPOV versions after me, or how long before I start editing I have talked in the talk pages of the articles. My understanding is that user Mikrobølgeovn is a threat to other users, adding NPOV versions on articles that he is constantly trying to push POV, since if they disagree with his POV pushing, that it can go for more than a year, he is constantly trying to block them on false charges, and he is also trying to do it with the cooperation of other users, pushing them to edit warring and then go around accusing them to administrators on false charges. He seems to think that it is a game of taking other users out, users that are contributing well to Misplaced Pages adding NPOV versions, while he is constantly pushing POV. Anyone that he is adding NPOV versions, in articles that he is trying to push POV, seems to be for him a target for blocking. You can check this on the history, as well as his non-reliability on what he is saying.Ron1978 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I'm definitely a threat to other editors. --] (]) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of monarchs of Korea== | |||
| I'm cydevil38. Please take a look at ], where an IP sockpuppet is waging an edit war.(Same sockpuppet from ]). Please take note of ]. ] (]) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Caste articles at AE== | |||
| Hi, Ed. I'm sorry to bug you, but I think Lowercase SigmaBot may eat the at ] again in a day or two. Do you see any substantive objections? ] | ] 10:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :(Added: Oh, no, I see ] posted there about something else some hours ago, thus delaying the bot. But still, it's been dragging on a bit. ] | ] 10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC).) | |||
| == User:Firefox == | |||
| I would greatly appreciate your insight on the matter. ] (]) 02:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Does it appear to you that Firefox 1ani is doing the same edit as the IP you just blocked for edit warring? I have noticed that both the IP and Firefox 1ani have done the same edits over numerous articles and articles including Illyrians. IF the IP and Firefox 1ani are indeed one and the same person shouldn't the ArbMAC warning you posted on the IP's talk page, be applied to both? Is not Firefox's latest edit simply a continuation of the IP's edit war? --] (]) 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:The policy that applies is surely ]. I would be more concerned about the value of the citation to the article on ], since we are not the Latin Misplaced Pages. Someone reading aloud a letter in Latin to our English-speaking readers won't improve the understanding of the subject by most people. ] (]) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
::Thank you so much for your input! ] (]) 03:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hi there, I am joining this as the person who posted the video. In general, the utility of original language content is that the person can (with subtitling) get a sense of the content in the original form. They get to know the sound of what someone wrote, the cadence of their style, which is lost in translation. That has utility, I would argue, especially when the person is someone known for their style. IDK if WP has specific guidance on this, but ] suggests that original language content should appear with English translations. Whether this specific case warrants keeping is another matter and not why I wanted to comment. | |||
| ::What I do need clarity on is whether ] has relevance here, as the video is simply a reading, and the readings are from sourced, clearly indicated and verifiable material. To me, the guidance at ] is out of scope. ] ] 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've posted this ] as I do need clarity on this. ] ] 18:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Linda Amos Skirton page move (2013) == | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Ed. I just came across the ] article as I was cleaning up Olympic swimmers of Great Britain, and manually moving Persondata information, including name variants, to Wikidata. All of the Olympic and competitive swimming references list her by her maiden name, Linda Amos, and that was the original article title. There are about ten times as many Google hits for Linda Amos as Linda Skirton, which strongly suggests that the WP:COMMONNAME is Amos. You moved the page pursuant to a requested move, but I can't find anything in the WP:RM page history to explain why it was moved. Do you remember, or can you find some history? I almost moved it back myself before I went digging through the edit history and found you . . . . ] (]) 12:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The original request at ] was . If you don't find this convincing, you can use ] to get it moved back. Thanks, ] (]) 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nah, no need. I'm confident enough of the situation to move it myself. The IP was either unaware of or misunderstands ]. Most female Olympic athletes are/were notable under their maiden names, not their married names. I try to include both name forms in the lead when we know the later married names, but that can get challenging if they have been married more than once or twice. A good example is ], who was a three-time Olympic gold medalist and multiple world record-holder under her maiden name, and her maiden name should be the article title per COMMONNAME. That said, she now uses her married name professionally, and has even received Australian post-nominals under her married name, so the first statement of her name in the lead is her married name, followed by a ''née'' statement of her full maiden name. I can't tell if there are even any independent, reliable sources for Amos-Skirton's married name. Thanks for the follow-up, Ed. ] (]) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:10, 19 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Is this an adequate source?
Greetings EdJohnston,
Recently I was engaged in a discussion with an editor over their use of Youtube videos as media sources within the Machiavelli article, see here. While there is no current dispute and we were able to discuss this amicably, I am still quite unsure about whether or not this is correct seeing Misplaced Pages's stance on self published sources and on Youtube as a source.
I would greatly appreciate your insight on the matter. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The policy that applies is surely WP:RSPYT. I would be more concerned about the value of the citation to the article on Niccolo Machiavelli, since we are not the Latin Misplaced Pages. Someone reading aloud a letter in Latin to our English-speaking readers won't improve the understanding of the subject by most people. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your input! Plasticwonder (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am joining this as the person who posted the video. In general, the utility of original language content is that the person can (with subtitling) get a sense of the content in the original form. They get to know the sound of what someone wrote, the cadence of their style, which is lost in translation. That has utility, I would argue, especially when the person is someone known for their style. IDK if WP has specific guidance on this, but MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE suggests that original language content should appear with English translations. Whether this specific case warrants keeping is another matter and not why I wanted to comment.
- What I do need clarity on is whether WP:RSPYT has relevance here, as the video is simply a reading, and the readings are from sourced, clearly indicated and verifiable material. To me, the guidance at WP:RSPYT is out of scope. Jim Killock (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've posted this to the Village pump as I do need clarity on this. Jim Killock (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)