Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:15, 7 July 2008

Template:Title override

Most recent activity: מסמך נקדי, Papa II, Kulwant Roy.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

RSS Article

You have just reverted my edits on RSS. I had removed the POV and un referenced claims to make the article more balanced. Can you specify your reasons on the discussion page. Let us work together to make this article more informative and less POV.Sindhian (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hekmatyar and attacks on women's faces

There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for this Dear Relata refero, can you tell us more about the references to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and attacks on women, i.e. where you found them? Is it from a subscription database, or available to the general public? sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

Are you still GA reviewing this article? This article has been placed on hold for almost a month. miranda 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC help request

Hi Relata, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Relata refero, this kind of commentary is not helpful. If you believe that the Muhammad al-Durrah article is in poor shape, then please edit it into better shape, or make constructive suggestions on the talkpage. But just complaining about "conspiracy theorists" is not going to help improve the article. Also, this comment was personally targeted at another editor, and again has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. Please try to adopt a more constructive and civil tone at the talkpage. I am not saying stay away, but I am saying that I think you can be much more effective, if you actually make specific suggestions, such as "This needs to be removed" or "This isn't a reliable source" or "I think this section needs to be expanded". Or even better, just go ahead and edit the article. As long as you stick to the Conditions for editing, you are welcome to make direct changes. --Elonka 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is directly helpful: it excludes the possibility that an artificial consensus can be claimed, of the sort that was claimed earlier.

I have already made it clear that your unilaterally imposed conditions for editing are absolutely inappropriate for this particular venue and this sort of problem, and they have led to a deterioration in quality. If you at the point where you are putting the phrase "conspiracy theories" in scare quotes and objecting to the use of the term, may I say that perhaps you too need to take a step back? It is clear your intervention has been unhelpful.

If you think this is either uncivil or unrelated to the editing of the article, you have an absurdly broad definition of the former and narrow definition of the latter.

Thank you for your permission to edit the article. I would rather stay away till mechanisms are in place that reduce rather than promote fringe-iness, thanks, as I believe I have already made amply clear. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to simply avoid the article for a certain period of time, that is totally your call. However, if you resume with uncivil commentary that is not directly focused towards constructive changes to the article, be aware that you could risk being placed under further restrictions, including a possible ban from the talkpage. For now, I again encourage and invite you to participate, both at the talkpage, and/or by editing the article. The choice is really yours: (1) Open participation in a civil and constructive manner; (2) Stay away; or (3) Be formally notified of ArbCom sanctions, with possible further restrictions being placed on your participation. --Elonka 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, the choice is yours, and you've made quite the wrong one. Given the attitude you display above, and the somewhat strange reading of my participation, I think you should be left to "mediate" between SPAs. Once again: your participation and your inappropriately designed "editing restrictions" are directly responsible for the article getting worse. I suggest you back away. Keeping uninvolved editors from trimming nationalist fringe-cruft from articles is exactly the opposite of what the ArbCom sanctions you are threatening to misapply are supposed to do. Ask Moreschi for tips. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the next time you wish to wander over to accuse me of incivility, please frame it with reference to Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging in incivility so I am certain what you mean, and you are certain that you are getting it right. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I could be reading this thread completely wrong, but it looks like you are threatening Relata (and in a threatening tone) with sanctions over incivility when the posts you're referencing don't evidence any incivility. What am I missing? This doesn't appear to be the best way to promote neutrality in article writing. (Relata, I really stopped by to ask if you can add an update at RCC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is uncivil. I would also point out that standard practice on Misplaced Pages is to comment on the content, not on the contributors. This particular article, Muhammad al-Durrah, within the topic area of the Palestinian-Israeli disputes, has been severely disrupted over the last several months, and multiple requests were made for an uninvolved administrator to help de-escalate the situation. I have taken on that task, and as part of it, I placed Conditions for editing on the talkpage. Over the last week, the dispute has calmed way down, and most of the editors on that page are having no trouble complying with the editing restrictions. Any editors that do not comply, or act in any way which I feel is trying to "stir things up" rather than "calm things down", may be asked to leave the page. If Relata wishes to abide by the editing restrictions and participate in a civil and constructive manner, then Relata is welcome to continue participating. If not, then Relata is going to be asked to leave. --Elonka 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see in that diff only comment on content, so you must be reading something I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Elonka, I don't believe you're listening to what I say, which is a bad sign. Please note I "left the page" the moment I realised that your restrictions were inappropriately designed, which I explained at length at the time, giving reasons arising from my considerable experience with fringe and conspiracy theories on Misplaced Pages. If the page has quietened down, that's because most of the people concerned about the fringe aspects have, in fact, left as I have. I'm not sure congratulations are really in order. Again, attempting to topic-ban the uninvolved editors and treating the SPAs with tenderness is not what ArbCom had in mind when administrators were given this power. And saying the article is worse is not, and I hope never will be, considered uncivil.

I believe this discussion is closed. Any future posts to Talk:Durrah while these counter-productive restrictions are in force will be, as before, only to register objections to the state of the article if required, in order that the previous claim of artificial consensus is not repeated. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration - my topic ban was in response to my removal of this extremely obvious BLP violation, a highly POV statement which is sourced to a pirate copy of an undated video clip uploaded and subtitled by an unknown person on a video sharing website. As you know WP:BLP mandates that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The same policy mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" - and by extension the same would apply to a 0RR imposed by another administrator. So as you can see, I've been quite literally topic-banned for upholding WP:BLP. This is not a very satisfactory situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, your page ban (not a topic ban) had nothing to do with BLP, it had to do with edit-warring. You were repeatedly reverting other editors. I told you to stop, you didn't, so you were page-banned for a week. Please stop misrepresenting things, it is not an encouraging sign. --Elonka 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, it was a page ban; but may I offer a correction of my own? The ban was for thirty days, not a week (you're thinking of the talk page, not the article). Also, please see your own talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral formulations at RSS article

Hi. I've witnessed quite a lot at wikipedia, but i think the following passage at the RSS article would qualify for the Misplaced Pages NPOV Awards; "RSS objects to the fact that Communist parties like CPI(M) and other minority political fronts are controlled by other countries and are therefore inherently subversive and treacherous." :) --Soman (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

who am I

Hello, dear sock, you've been found out once again: this time, Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) is acting the part of Sherlock. dab (𒁳) 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Award this account a barnstar too while your at it. Trips (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, dear puppetmaster, how come I didn't get a barnstar? I'm hurt.

Nambiar, try not to make an ass of yourself, please. Its patently obvious that dab and I have different specialisations. And Rudra and I have spent ages disagreeing over this and that. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't use all three accounts to force an edit or point of view. Trips (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Dissent from Darwin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WLU (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One more revert to Dissent and you'll be reported for a three revert violation and I'm sure you are aware that that is a blockable offense. Several contributors have reverted your changes, and you are the only editor who is in danger of breaking the 3RR, suggesting that there is no consensus for your changes. Please discuss on the talk page. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Templating the regulars is an absolutely brilliant idea! Thanks for your constructive contribution to the conversation. Have a nice day! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't like you left him a lot of choice, since you refuse to explain your edits. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? Or perhaps he didn't care to wait? As you didn't, either? Its the pile-on aspect of ID articles that really concerns me. The constant edit conflicts are murder on my elderly Firefox.--Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)How does the article violate WP:LEAD? Where was it "extensively criticised"? Please make your case on the talk page - your cryptic edit summaries are not helpful. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The "It" is the petition. I think there are ample sources indicating it was extensively criticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comments at the talkpage, please, where I am sure I will contribute extensively if it actually looks like I'm making a difference. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quicker than manual typing; one would expect regulars to not need 3RR warnings, hence my assumption that you were not familiar, hence the impersonal warning. WLU (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulty reasoning on several grounds. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As you like. I've given you something more personal instead. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, thanks. A vast improvement, and don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata. My problem with the article now is that there are few notable critiques and those there are are ludicrously overused. Barbara Forrest is clearly a notable critic, but a brief para making one point (Forrest and Branch "Wedging Creationism") is referred to five times in the article. Brian Alters is also fine, but all we have from him is a brief comment at second hand in a newsletter to 99.9% of scientists believing in evolution. He didn't do a survey and mean 99.9% rather than 99.8%. He meant "all, as near as dammit". Stephen Jay Gould must be turning in his grave if he can see that some WP editors are confusing this sort of rant with a defence of science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M)

hi. have a look at the CPI(M) article. Hkelkar seems to have a new fan, who is readding the Hkelkar edits of jan 08. --Soman (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Relata, there's a request now for statements on the talk page - see Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. Given your previous useful comments on this issue, I'm sure a statement from you would be both useful and appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

Hi, you participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. Most of the editors that participated in the recent polls were invited to participate in the most recent, but as far as I can see you were not. Your opinion should still be heard. The editor who opened the new poll said this to the other participants. "This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk)". Regards Wotapalaver (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. The poll closed 36 hours ago. The result was move to Great Famine (Ireland). I posted friendly notice to everybody who took part in this poll (you didn't) on June 18, but Wotapalaver apparently "didn't have time" to pass it on until just now. Confused? I sure am! Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

• What do you think of the recent changes by User:Sindhian there? Seems to be a lot of politically motivated deletion. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also it will be good if you watchlist the article Durga Vahini‎. I am afraid of this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sindhian has vandalized the page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)