Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 29 November 2008

2008 Arbitration Committee Elections • General Guide • Voting is now closed, and the final results were announced on December 20. v t e Misplaced Pages Signpost Candidate Profiles • Individuals' guides: AGK • Caspian blue (meta) • CT Cooper • east718 • Elonka • Franamax • Giggy • GlassCobra • Lar • Majorly • MBisanz • MZMcBride • PhilKnight • Rschen7754 • Rspeer • SandyGeorgia • Shot info

House of Lusignan

Translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Deleting isn't editing: perhaps you'd be willing to incorporate the substance of the quotation in the text. Deleted material is often lost in the page history, unless a sharp-sighted editor catches it in time. Thank you. --Wetman 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check again. By your revert, you just put bad information and typos back into the article. :/ I've been cleaning up a series of articles that were targeted with POV pushing related to Mongol operations. --Elonka 04:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done so and find that you are in error. Fortunately User:Srnec corrected the very minor typo— without deleting the sourced report of |translated text from the Fordham University website, which you deleted as a "primary source". All is well now. Remember, translated, printed documents, with citations from which secondary source they have been drawn, aren't "primary sources": please don't delete the very material articles are required to cite. Thank you again.--Wetman 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. Pardon me, I didn't mean to snatch up the heading when I cut n pasted it to follow up your assertion.--Wetman 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy of Ibelin

Having spent some time looking at primary and secondary sources (I have not yet found the prize-winning Lignages d'Outremer, but am optimistic), it seems that the youngest and shortest living Guy of Ibelin on the English wikipedia did not have any high title. His father Balian (who predeceased him by 6 years) and uncle Philippe (who outlived him by 10 years) were consecutive seneschals of Cyprus. The French wikipedia is unsourced. There were later Guy of Ibelins who lived longer than this one and held high office, so that might be how this rather tantalizing confusion has arisen. (It is worth noting that without this Guy of Ibelin (1286-1308), we would not have Princess Diana. since he is apparently her 39-greatgrandfather.) Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Two more. Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol, whose brother stabbed the king whom he had crowned; and Guy of Ibelin, seneschal of Cyprus, another good guy ("magnificus vir"). Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ibelin pages had gotten really tangled, thanks for trying to sort things out. Keep up the good work!  :) --Elonka 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AE

If you don't mind terribly, could you move your comment down to "comments after reblock?" Just my attempt to control the visual chaos.--Tznkai (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

joke? I'm not laughing....

This hurts my feelings. What makes you think I'm kidding?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of reasons, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs). Shall we start here? --Elonka 05:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nostalgic ride down the lollercoaster. You and I had some good times, didn't we? But now the party is over, and The Fat Man will demonstrate his candidacy is no laughing matter. It's business time, sugar.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not laughing, either. Misplaced Pages has enough problems without people coming in to be deliberately disruptive. --Elonka 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Durrah sources used

Hi Elonka - you're sort-of looking after Muhammed al-Durrah - could you either remind editors of the importance of using good sources, or act against those defending the use of hate-mongering and WP-distorting sources? It's very difficult to edit properly or discuss sensibly when being harassed by nonsense from people who've been repeatedly told to leave me alone, and other editors so abusive that even their personal smears are transparently false. PR 09:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

image restoring

Hi Elonka, when you get the chace, would you mind restoring a couple of images for me please? They were orphaned and deleted, but i'd like to use them again.Image:Betty.jpg & Image:Bettyturpin.jpg Many thanks GunGagdin 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the deleting admin? --Elonka 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits at Iran Iraq War Page

I have put forward some referenced figures as the casualties of war on the Iranian side, from academic and government sources in Iran–Iraq_War regarding the following facts:

• Iranian government estimate was around 200,00 down to around 188,000 later. (I have included English links to support the statement of "Iranian government estimate is around 200,000". However, I am sure many Persian speakers here can confirm the other links.
• Others have estimated widely.
• Prof. Brown says Iranian estimate is nearer to the real figure. He is not the the only academic source but I have not seen a well established source saying otherwise.

However, Scythian77 is reverting my edits, using not so proper language and tone. I like to reach some consensus with him. However, his attitude, including removing my discussions with him, does not reflect his readiness to any compromise. He accused me of propaganda more than once.

Could you encourage him to have a civil discussion rather than using insulting and egoistical words.

By the way, I appreciate your message regarding my discussion on his talk page. He was going to remove them anyway. It is not the first time he has been involved in edit warefare. He is also in edit war with some folks on Avicenna. If you look at the talk page of Avicenna, his attitude is so obvious.

Regards, Persian Magi (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alta Partners

I'm considering nominating this at WP:AFD. It seems not to be even close to being notable. Bearian (talk)

Easier would be a prod. I can go ahead and do that, unless you'd like to? --Elonka 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

Thank you for the note that I had reverted more than 3 times in the last 24 hours. After looking at the history, I agree that I have done so. However, I do not believe that it represents an edit war, with the changes that I have reverted being those that represented vandalism either intentionally or unintentionally (One of those for example deleted more than three quarters of the article.)

The Majority of the edits to this file are by non-registered users and there has been a significant amount of mutual reversion by non-registered users between those that have a version with Alpha Kappa Rho and without Tau Gamma Phi and those without Alpha Kappa Rho and with Tau Gamma Phi (two fraternities with significant dislike of each other in the Philippines).

Having recently had an AfD end with a no resolution result, I would be happy to take any suggestions that would limit the amount of vandalism and AKP vs TGF edit wars. At one point it had semi-protection, I'd like to see that returned. I'll be happy to post to the talk page a message seeking discussion, but what has been posted there has not gotten much response.Naraht (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, USER:71.190.2.49 just reverted to his last edit. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Roz, Thanx for the revert.Naraht (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it to AN3. I'm counting at least 19 reverts, four since his last block for edit-warring expired. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 72 hours. As for Naraht, I hear what you're saying about reverting vandalism, and I agree that those kinds of reverts are exempt from 3RR. However, some of your reverts do not appear to be vandalism reverts. So my advice is that unless it's really obvious vandalism, try to avoid using the "undo" button. Instead, the better course there is to follow dispute resolution procedures, or steps for dealing with disruptive editors: Bring things up at the talkpage, and explain your concern. If other editors agree with your course of action, then you can proceed "per talkpage consensus". Or, if no one replies in a reasonable amount of time, then you can go ahead and revert later, "per talkpage". At that point the burden is on the other editor in the edit war to actually engage in discussion. If they do so, then do your best to engage in good faith discussion towards finding a compromise (you may be able to find something that both of you can agree with). On the other hand, if the other editor persists in reverting without talking about what they're doing, then they may be blocked. Make sense?  :) --Elonka 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. On a side note, AN3 is not for reporting 3RR and edit-warring violations. Given how simple it is to determine strict 3RR violations, and how complicated it can be to decide if someone is truly edit-warring, perhaps there should be changes made to the report format? --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally in the loop, but there seems to be a movement towards making things more automated. A new page/bot (still very buggy) is generating reports at User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations . --Elonka 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The example that you give as not being vandalism , I *did* count as such. They inserted Scouts Royale Brotherhood, by overwriting CB, which was in the right place alphabetically. While it is true that Scouts Royale Brotherhood probably belongs on the list, it does not belong there by overwriting another one. (Whether it belongs there has to do with whether this list is college only and whether or not you consider the dominant piece of SRB to be the one which is high school only and views itself as flowing into APO or the one that is willing to recruit at the college level (I'm having a rather detailed discussion about SRB elsewhere)).

The biggest problem in discussing things on the talk page is that almost all of the recent editing which has dealt with information rather than wiki-fixing has been by IP address, what isn't is by people who have registered accounts specifically to do their fraternity and who are attempting to delete either AKP or TGF. I'm not really sure there are that many who would actually respond to a posting on the talk page, but I'll try.Naraht (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They deleted CB, you deleted SARABA, and others. From an administrator's view, all the edits are disruptive, but I wouldn't call them vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. It's definitely a content dispute though. What would have been better for you to do would be to move the SARABA info down to the correct place on the list, and then replace CB, rather than just revert and remove their information entirely. You could also add a {{fact}} tag to the SARABA entry, or any other entries that you have concerns about. It's not going to break Misplaced Pages if we have a few extra entries on the list for awhile, to calm the waters and give time to build consensus on how things should be handled. --Elonka 13:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to follow your advice on this. I'm not sure this will help calm the waters, but I'll give it a few weeks before trying to request a semi-protect on editing.Naraht (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman

Elonka, I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is offered. Please stop jabbing at Jehochman. The two of you had a conflict in August, granted, but that's some time ago now. You and he have both been asked by uninvolved users to stop nursing grudges. Jehochman responded positively to this thoughtful comment by User:AGK back in August, and J assures me that he has not addressed or discussed you since then, other than in self-defence. (And here is a recent example where he does defend himself.) I don't think you replied to AGK back in August—I understood you were extremely busy IRL at the time, so it's not that I blame you—but surely you considered AGK's thoughts? Anyway.. please try to take a strictly neutral look at what you posted on Scott MacDonald's talk the other day. Try to see it from outside; to imagine that it's somebody talking about your integrity. Curiously enough, the post was couched as a protest against what you thought rude and inappropriate language used against Jehochman. And yet..

"Scott, you make some good points, but this language was really inappropriate. I am not shy about saying that I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity, but I do not support the language that you used towards him, and I hope you will consider apologizing. I see that you did refactor it, which I'm glad about, but still, don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil? --Elonka 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"

Civility isn't primarily a matter of the words you use, but of what you use them for. Scott had used bad language such as calling Jehochman a "moralistic dick", and other salty phrases, yes. (I for my part have extreme doubts about Scott's self-control when it comes to pressing Save, but he often does self-revert that type of stuff, and in this case he removed the slur against Jehochman after 2 minutes.) Anyway, Scott's post was not nice, even after cleanup, but does it not strike you that your post—although, I'm sure, well-intentioned—actually came out worse? More uncivil, more of a personal attack on Jehochman. "Dick" is simply a non-proper, low-discourse word with a very vague meaning; it's not personal at all. Please look, on the other hand, at the way you use the dignified word "integrity". "I have extreme doubts about Jehochman's integrity". That is a terrible thing to say, in civil words, and in a purportedly neutral voice. Incivility isn't in the naughty words, it's in what you say. Please don't just tote up the bad words, Elonka; look at what they contain. You use words which are polite, taken separately, but they strike at a person's character—they attack an actual person. I think your pedagogical eagerness to emphasize the paradox you saw in Scott's post—"don't you see that there's a bit of a problem in using incivility and personal attacks, to complain about someone being uncivil?"—may have run away with you there. (Also, in the sense that Scott hadn't complained of Jehochman or anybody else being uncivil. That wasn't what Scott was on about.)

Jehochman has been avoiding conflict with you ever since August, unless I've missed something. Please drop this grudge, Elonka. It's not actually necessary to refer to J on the wiki at all (not once you've voted on his ArbCom candidacy, I mean). Is it? Bishonen | talk 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Hi

Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal here. Comments welcome! Best regards PHG (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)