| Revision as of 11:44, 10 September 2012 editGeorge Spurlin (talk | contribs)500 edits →Your message +← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:50, 10 September 2012 edit undoE4024 (talk | contribs)7,905 edits →My message + TPSNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| :My logic is simple, category does not fit the article. Assassination does not equal to terrorism. This whole thing started after ]'s pardon. Azerbaijani and Turkish users remembered the evil Armenians and started applying the terrorist label to every article they could find. I'm just trying to keep things neutral. ] (]) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | :My logic is simple, category does not fit the article. Assassination does not equal to terrorism. This whole thing started after ]'s pardon. Azerbaijani and Turkish users remembered the evil Armenians and started applying the terrorist label to every article they could find. I'm just trying to keep things neutral. ] (]) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Mr Spurlin, when we speak of Armenians I only remember our very good Armenian neighbours in Istanbul that used to bring me painted eggs in Easter, when I was a child. This is more related to ASALA terrorists and that is another thing... --] (]) 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:50, 10 September 2012
|
AE close
Message added 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AN3
I reported what I considered a violation of 1rr at AN3 since I thought it a clear cut offense. Since the report is still open and continuing to grow, perhaps AE is a better venue for this? Ankh.Morpork 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, AE takes forever. Just wait a few hours. It is usually best if a variety of admins have a chance to look at these cases. In my opinion the report has an obvious conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
On this subject, this AE complaint was filed over a week ago and still has not been dealt with. Could you perhaps comment or close? Ankh.Morpork 21:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
I replied on my talk page as well, but in case you didn't see it - thanks for closing the Debresser case; if I'm unable to be online please do not hesitate to take whatever action seems necessary. I much appreciate your courtesy notification but was unable to respond until today. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Your proposed sanction didn't get enacted, but the thing is in the AE archives now. If the same problem recurs again, the past issues will be back on the table. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was not happy about that proposed sanction anyway, as I think was clear from my comments. It appeared that the editor did not understand 1RR at all, and I think now he does, so hopefully he won't show before us again. KillerChihuahua 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Second opinion
Since KC mentioned the discussion at his talk page at AE, what's your take on the question posed there: is the comment I am complaining about a personal attack or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you asking about "I believe that no one can honestly doubt VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways." I personally have limited toleration for rehashing of EEML, but I can imagine some situations where it is fair to mention it. His use of 'doubting' seems backwards. He means to say, 'I doubt that VM, Piotrus and others have changed their ways.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I believe we are all agreed on the intended meaning. What Piotrus is asking is if this rises to the level of a sanctionable PA. I opine that it is insufficient for sanctions, by itself. KillerChihuahua 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's the phrase I am asking about, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see this as a personal attack and I wouldn't recommend imposing discretionary sanctions just for this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very well. In light of expressed doubt by two admins whether the comment I considered to be a personal attack really was such, and following my personal preference for WP:FORGIVE, I agree to withdraw my AE request. I hope M.K will see this as a gesture of good will, and I am sure that AE admins have more pressing concerns anyway. (I am not familiar with the procedure for withdrawing AE request, I hope this comment will allow you to take any steps necessary for that end). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see this as a personal attack and I wouldn't recommend imposing discretionary sanctions just for this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's the phrase I am asking about, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I believe we are all agreed on the intended meaning. What Piotrus is asking is if this rises to the level of a sanctionable PA. I opine that it is insufficient for sanctions, by itself. KillerChihuahua 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hold Your Head Up
When I think of Hold Your Head Up, I think of the song, not the album. I can imagine that is what the general public thinks as well. ~EDDY ~ 22:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Commented at Talk:Hold Your Head Up (song). EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Requesting an advise
Hello. As one of the administrators of that AE case against me, please advise me what should I do regarding following images. Those “images” describes basically all my contribution as “nationalists”, while I and others clearly showed that they aren’t . I regard circulation of such images across Wikiepdia as further damaging my flawless name with reputation and serves only for a further instigation of a battleground. M.K. (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text in old AE cases is simply archived, not deleted. Since there will be no links to those images from anywhere but the AE archives (and now, from my talk page) they will not come to the attention of very many people. I would recommend that you let this go. The images themselves do not mention your name. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Bulgaria protection
As soon as your protection expired, the same bunch of different IPs has returned. Would it be possible to reinstate protection? CMD (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Future Perfect for his opinion. Let's see if he replies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- User:Canterbury Tail has fully protected it, asking for renewed discussion. Fut Perf was involved in previous discussion and reverting, so I don't think they would want to touch the area with admin tools. I doubt discussion will solve anything, given the behavioural problems surrounding this (I say this of course as an involved user). CMD (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- FP may not be able to impose protection himself, but he is familiar with how ARBMAC discretionary sanctions have been used in the past. He can still give an opinion if he wants to do so. Regarding Canterbury Tail's action, I liked his comment at Talk:Bulgaria#Protected that the established editors should join in a discussion even if the other side won't reciprocate. If the dispute is still running after many months, opening an RFC would be useful if only for the record. Your mention of 'behavioural problems' suggests that you think admins will need to intervene. If the issue is ultimately going to ANI or AE, having a completed RFC would strengthen your case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to take it AE, and even less to ANI. If I did, I don't think I'd need more than what I posted on the RfM page/talkpage, the fact that Ximhua came back after not editing for a bit and made that edit about once per day having apparently given up on the dispute resolution process they embarked on, and the repeated canvassing. Ximhua actually attempted to start an RfC, but didn't do it properly so it never happened. The new SPA has actually restarted discussion with a very long post, so protection works, it seems. If I may ask, how does an RfC strengthen anything more than a previous talkpage discussion and a previous DRN discussion has? I'll start one if need be, after a bit of renewed talkpage discussion. CMD (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you are asking for review, it helps if a quick glance at the talk page will make the point for you. At present all I can tell from a quick glance at Talk:Bulgaria is that there is a dispute. The talk page has a FAQ. Do you think you could get consensus to have a question about the founding date added to the FAQ? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you'd see much more than a dispute from a quick glance at an RfC either. I had a response for the latest talkpage comment on the Bulgaria talkpage, but Canterbury Tail removed the comment I was responding to due to civility concerns. I think consensus could be achieved to add to the FAQ in the same way the consensus for the original edit arose, that is that it will be there (as I and others think it was, although we are involved), but it will be opposed by the same SPAs trying to insert the truth, and who consider the removal of this truth vandalism. I simply can't see a way at the moment to separate the content from the behaviour. CMD (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you are asking for review, it helps if a quick glance at the talk page will make the point for you. At present all I can tell from a quick glance at Talk:Bulgaria is that there is a dispute. The talk page has a FAQ. Do you think you could get consensus to have a question about the founding date added to the FAQ? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to take it AE, and even less to ANI. If I did, I don't think I'd need more than what I posted on the RfM page/talkpage, the fact that Ximhua came back after not editing for a bit and made that edit about once per day having apparently given up on the dispute resolution process they embarked on, and the repeated canvassing. Ximhua actually attempted to start an RfC, but didn't do it properly so it never happened. The new SPA has actually restarted discussion with a very long post, so protection works, it seems. If I may ask, how does an RfC strengthen anything more than a previous talkpage discussion and a previous DRN discussion has? I'll start one if need be, after a bit of renewed talkpage discussion. CMD (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- FP may not be able to impose protection himself, but he is familiar with how ARBMAC discretionary sanctions have been used in the past. He can still give an opinion if he wants to do so. Regarding Canterbury Tail's action, I liked his comment at Talk:Bulgaria#Protected that the established editors should join in a discussion even if the other side won't reciprocate. If the dispute is still running after many months, opening an RFC would be useful if only for the record. Your mention of 'behavioural problems' suggests that you think admins will need to intervene. If the issue is ultimately going to ANI or AE, having a completed RFC would strengthen your case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- User:Canterbury Tail has fully protected it, asking for renewed discussion. Fut Perf was involved in previous discussion and reverting, so I don't think they would want to touch the area with admin tools. I doubt discussion will solve anything, given the behavioural problems surrounding this (I say this of course as an involved user). CMD (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Block evasion
If you have a minute, and are willing to help, would you please mentor/guide Mollskman with regard to the dangers of WP:EVADE? You'll find his comments at the bottom of the Zero Dark Thirty talk page, using this IP. It seems the more he and I discuss it, the deeper he digs the hole, hence someone else might have more luck at helping him out of it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- 48 hours to 74.97.18.207 (talk · contribs) for evading the block of Mollskman (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the quick resolution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have extended Mollskman's block to match that of the IP. It would be somewhat ludicrous to allow the main account to edit whilst the sock is still blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the quick resolution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Guidance
I recently nominated two articles for DYK, both IP related. Both were initially passed as satisfactory, one by an uninvolved editor. Despite this, user Maculosae tegmine lyncis has now disapproved both nominations in quick succession. Here, he refers to unidentified POV problems and that "article written in pidgin". In my other nomination, ratified by a neutral editor, he states that "many unreferenced paragraphs", despite every section in the article being well sourced. I consider his comments without any merit and deliberately disruptive. I ask that you inspect these nominations and advise me on how to proceed with this blatant agenda-driven harassment. Ankh.Morpork 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- DYK has its own review process that helps ensure neutrality. Not clear that I can add much to the discussion going on there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
About discretionary sanctions
I'm a little rusty on one detail: do we only warn editors of discretionary sanctions when their behaviour has already been deemed problematic, or can we also issue a "by the way..." type of notice about discretionary sanctions? I ask because of the Esc2003 AE request; basically, trying to understand if it's appropriate to leave him a note about the sanctions without saying whether (s)he's editing against policy now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I personally would be uncertain about leaving a logged warning if the editor was being completely correct and seemed willing to negotiate. Nobody has yet added any info in the Esc2003 complaint that would normally merit a warning, though I haven't checked out every diff. If there is truly nothing wrong, leaving a generic notice is possible without making an entry in the case log. Formal warnings are sometimes challenged so it is best if you can give a reason. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (TPS) I don't believe good cause is needed to place a user "on notice" of discretionary sanctions (although they must have edited pages within the topic area in question). However, DS warnings are usually used to educate the user, rather than to fulfil an arbitrary prerequisite. Therefore, if a user is not obviously disruptive, we usually wait until misconduct or problematic editing before issuing them with a notice.
The format of the actual notice can vary. Although the template that exists for these notices is the best resort, any typed notice that fulfils the requirements (§4) can be logged as a "notice" on the case decision page. HTH. AGK 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'll just leave it alone in this case, then. I do have some concerns the user is not communicating especially well, but that's not necessarily sufficient to leave a warning, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was clarified by ARBCOM member that anyone can give warning an as far as I understand the bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receive one .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- The wording of {{uw-sanctions}} says "..if you continue to misconduct yourself..". Unless some bad conduct has already occurred, I don't see what 'continue to misconduct yourself' could be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see you point further clarification probably needed from ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- The section #4 from WP:AC/DS that AGK linked to above says, "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways.." Notice the word 'misconduct.' Did Arbcom say anything recently that implies that bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receiving a warning? EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone can argue if WP:AE will be brought against them that the warning they received is invalid?For example this warning just used one of templates.Does it valid warning?(I think yes).--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- What problem do you see with the ARBPIA warning to Spesh531? It is better if the person giving the warning identifies the problem, but except for that it looks OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone can argue if WP:AE will be brought against them that the warning they received is invalid?For example this warning just used one of templates.Does it valid warning?(I think yes).--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- The section #4 from WP:AC/DS that AGK linked to above says, "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways.." Notice the word 'misconduct.' Did Arbcom say anything recently that implies that bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receiving a warning? EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see you point further clarification probably needed from ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- The wording of {{uw-sanctions}} says "..if you continue to misconduct yourself..". Unless some bad conduct has already occurred, I don't see what 'continue to misconduct yourself' could be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was clarified by ARBCOM member that anyone can give warning an as far as I understand the bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receive one .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'll just leave it alone in this case, then. I do have some concerns the user is not communicating especially well, but that's not necessarily sufficient to leave a warning, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (TPS) I don't believe good cause is needed to place a user "on notice" of discretionary sanctions (although they must have edited pages within the topic area in question). However, DS warnings are usually used to educate the user, rather than to fulfil an arbitrary prerequisite. Therefore, if a user is not obviously disruptive, we usually wait until misconduct or problematic editing before issuing them with a notice.
Thanks Ed
Thanks for that note, Ed, but I don't think it would change things. It was by wiki email (Indirectheng <KillAllEuropeans@hmamail.com>) and I only read it accidentally because while I usually just eliminate this stuff on sight as spam, I clicked the wrong section and it came into view, and I copied it before binning. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Indirectheng (talk · contribs) has already been blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spentloose324. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, User:JarlaxleArtemis. Well done, and thanks to the boys in the back room, who nail where it comes from. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you/please help
| Issues about the editing at Anne Block are now moot since the article was deleted and two editors were blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Thank you. This is in reference to the message you left on my talk page. I apologize if the formatting is off. I am not the same person as the user you specified, but we live together. I was attempting to provide a neutral re-write of the article as specified by the editor who deleted the first article. The process is somewhat frustrating because we have both gone through the effort of locating over 25 secondary and primary sources and have attempted inline citations for every point. The most relied upon sources in the article come from the secondary sources with the best reputations. For instance, a Seattle Times investigative report about the subject is referenced multiple times because the Times is the leading daily in the region and because the Times investigative reporters have won multiple Pulitzers in the last decade for their work. The Times article summarizes many of the primary sources in a 1200 word front page story that went out to over 1.5 million readers. The Times sourcing is supported by citations from virtually every other media outlet in the Seattle area. I would love to work with the subject or the community to achieve a fair, neutral, balanced article but instead of a collaborative project, the subject simply whitewashed the material and then wikipedia deleted it. We have attempted to follow the wikipedia guidlines, while the subject whitewashed the previous versions, removing all sourcing and writing in the first person. this is a matter of regional import, and the subject has introduced herself into the limelight. I believe the individual meets and exceeds all of the notability requirements. The subject has been covered by all major media outlets and has actively participated in the political process, thrusting herself into the public view via multiple recall attempts of elected officials, each of which requires some 40,000 signatures to obtain. The subjects of Block's lawsuits and recalls have wikipedia pages, as do the municipalities and individuals she has waged battles against. . What can I do to either complete the neutral re-write or request the original article to be reposted? Thank you Deception passer (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Deception passer. Notice the suggestion of User:JohnCD at Misplaced Pages:REFUND#Anne K. Block. He proposes that you review our policies and then consider if you want to open a WP:Deletion review. I would not be optimistic about your chances there. Though you attempted to follow Misplaced Pages policies, the result of your work was below the standard we expect. It would be safer for you to start out on Misplaced Pages by working in a less controversial area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
Gates of Vienna
Hello there. IP editor blanking Gates of Vienna. Possibly the same user who has done it several times in a row now entering as IP. Could you have a look there please? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I put on a week of semiprotection, which should at least cover the period of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Now will you rangeblock?
218.103.166.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- 218.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is now anon-blocked two weeks per the pattern of MOS-related disruption of music articles. See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#MoS vandal IPs for the past behavior. Here are the latest range contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, a smaller rangeblock will work: 218.103.160.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Here are the contribs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
(WhiteWriter has responded at User talk:WhiteWriter#Mentioned you as a possible resource. -EdJ). —WhiteWriter 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I asked User:WhiteWriter for help. I am ready to cooperate. Thanks, all best. --Sokac121 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to WhiteWriter and Sokac121 for your responses. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
MAS
Matthew Anthony Smith (talk · contribs) is continuing to edit war , this time over whether a link to his personal website should be included in an article. Given the prior history of edit warring, this should in my opinion be sanctioned with a block, but I'm too involved to do so myself. Would you be willing to look into this? Cheers, —Ruud 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have left notes for MAS and User:Swarm to see if they want to respond here. Let's wait for comments before anyone makes a decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how 1 revert from me counts as edit warring, I didn't revert them back after he reverted the second time, I know hes an admin or a higher then average editor level w/e that may be.. so I just left it alone, but I did put in the edit box perfectly a legible reason why for those 2 specific articles should have those links Matthew Smith (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can avoid sanctions if you will agree to wait for consensus from others that your links belong in those articles. You believe in the importance of your own website; this is not a surprise. Convincing *others* of its importance is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how 1 revert from me counts as edit warring, I didn't revert them back after he reverted the second time, I know hes an admin or a higher then average editor level w/e that may be.. so I just left it alone, but I did put in the edit box perfectly a legible reason why for those 2 specific articles should have those links Matthew Smith (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Zad68 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Violation of topic ban
User Talknic has been indef blocked from I-P articles broadly construed in July 2012 (he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well).
He was also recently blocked for 72 hours for violating this topic ban. He was also warned after violating his topic ban again.
He has now violated his topic ban again by making this edit on the article, the talk page, and a bit later on the talk page again.
I think that this persistent dismissal of the topic ban represents a mindset and failure to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and stay within the topic ban. The editor himself doesn't seem to be interested in editing other articles outside of the topic ban on Misplaced Pages either. Can you have a look into this and perform any necessary action? Thanks. --Activism1234 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Appears to me that that he is right on the edge of I/P conflict issues, but he may not have gone over. If you think action should be taken, ask User:The Blade of the Northern Lights or open a thread at WP:AE. I don't like that he is testing the edges of his ban. It is certainly within their discretion for the admins to make his ban even more definite if he has difficulty perceiving the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll talk to Blade, forgot for a moment! Thanks. --Activism1234 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have already received clarification of the extent of the TBan from The Blade of the Northern Lights in respect to the article . It would seem I am within my rights sans any mention of I/P issues. Activism1234 was involved in that discussion. ... talknic 07:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you will be able to explain your addition of a POV tag to the article while avoiding all mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Other editors have successfully worked on completely-non-conflict-related improvements to articles about Israeli cities (for example) during the term of their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The POV tag is in relation to yet another obvious breach of NPOV, being the lack of Israeli representations towards Ahmadjinedad/Iran. It could include the Iranian nuclear issue, Iranian civil rights, the Jewish population in Iran etc etc, without mention of Palestine. My TBan meanwhile has been confirmed as specific to the I/P issue only 03:15, 14 August 2012 The Blade of the Northern Lights. The last NPOV issue I pointed out took over 16 months to resolve despite No More Mr Nice Guy's tendentious attempts to maintain the breach over numerous discussions - - - - - - - ... talknic (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- False. Blade blocked you for 72 hours for making an edit on the exact same article as you just edited. You should've known better. Mahmoud Ahmdainejad and Israel is directly related to I/P - and certainly falls under broadly construed. --Activism1234 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Activism - False yourself. The 72 hr block was specifically because the particular UNSC resolution dealt with the I/P issue 13:31, 13 August 2012. We have dealt with this issue before ... talknic (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- False. Blade blocked you for 72 hours for making an edit on the exact same article as you just edited. You should've known better. Mahmoud Ahmdainejad and Israel is directly related to I/P - and certainly falls under broadly construed. --Activism1234 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The POV tag is in relation to yet another obvious breach of NPOV, being the lack of Israeli representations towards Ahmadjinedad/Iran. It could include the Iranian nuclear issue, Iranian civil rights, the Jewish population in Iran etc etc, without mention of Palestine. My TBan meanwhile has been confirmed as specific to the I/P issue only 03:15, 14 August 2012 The Blade of the Northern Lights. The last NPOV issue I pointed out took over 16 months to resolve despite No More Mr Nice Guy's tendentious attempts to maintain the breach over numerous discussions - - - - - - - ... talknic (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you will be able to explain your addition of a POV tag to the article while avoiding all mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Other editors have successfully worked on completely-non-conflict-related improvements to articles about Israeli cities (for example) during the term of their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have already received clarification of the extent of the TBan from The Blade of the Northern Lights in respect to the article . It would seem I am within my rights sans any mention of I/P issues. Activism1234 was involved in that discussion. ... talknic 07:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll talk to Blade, forgot for a moment! Thanks. --Activism1234 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Your message +
Thanks for your kind message on 3rr. I replied to it on my TP. On the other hand, I would like to request your kind help -also- against the disruptive editions of user:George Spurlin who has begun a campaign of removing the relavant categories from the articles considering the assassination, of a series of Turkish diplomats, by Armenian terrorist organisations; like in this case and other similars which are recognised as terrorism by everybody (except Mr Spurlin, maybe). All the best and thank you again. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- My logic is simple, category does not fit the article. Assassination does not equal to terrorism. This whole thing started after Ramil Safarov's pardon. Azerbaijani and Turkish users remembered the evil Armenians and started applying the terrorist label to every article they could find. I'm just trying to keep things neutral. George Spurlin (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mr Spurlin, when we speak of Armenians I only remember our very good Armenian neighbours in Istanbul that used to bring me painted eggs in Easter, when I was a child. This is more related to ASALA terrorists and that is another thing... --E4024 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)