Misplaced Pages

Home   Talk   Contributions   Archives

Director is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Director! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

RfC started on WikiProject Yugoslavia

Since you have taken part in substantial discussion on this matter, I am informing you that an RfC has been opened on WP Yugoslavia

RE:Renaming

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Istrian Exodus

Just to inform that I have reported you for edit warring. You can find details on the notification on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You cannot revert sourced edits without a reason. Please note a discussion has been proposed on the talk page but you diserted it.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the article for now. Please discuss your complaints on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is Silvio1973's lack of English skills. I have conversed with the user at immense length, and I'm afraid that (by my own personal estimate) he simply does not possess the understanding of English required for the sort of complicated discussion such a controversial issue engenders. Neither can he often fully understand the very sources he attempts to cite in support of his position (and usually interprets them in-line with a strong pro-Italian bias). Either that, or this is one hell of a case of deliberate WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I'm somewhat less convinced of that possibility.

To be sure, the user can read and post intelligible posts when he really makes the effort, but usually, as the discussion goes on, the exchange, unsatisfactory to begin with, deteriorates further and further in terms of understanding (presumably as the user gets tired of writing and reading English).

There are other concerns as well. The user is consistently dishonest in his sourcing, and has been caught misquoting references on about half-dozen times (perhaps due to the combination of POV agenda and a lack of ability to read professional-level English). He doesn't understand WP:OR and/or refuses to abide by it, etc.

I hope you can appreciate my position. I'm sort of caught between "a rock and a hard place", as it were. On the one hand I can not just stand by and let the user go through with low-quality, biased edits, often fraudulently sourced - yet on the other I'd rather have my nails ripped out than try to discuss with him yet again (if you'll pardon the mental image). As I said, I've already written volumes of text to make no real progress, and nobody else really seems to care in spite of several DR attempts. -- Director (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, you may be once again in the mood to see me beat my head against a brick wall, but I'm afraid I'm less inclined to do so. -- Director (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please see here Regards IJA (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Republic of Kosovo". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Istrians

Hi Direktor. Concerning this edit, I can't help but fear that preferential criteria is being introduced on what to many is unfavourable. Ethnicity by its very description is the label by which an individual identifies himself. Conservative Serbs feel the same way about Montenegrins; conservative Serbs and Croats both have reservations over Bosniaks and to whom they belong; Bulgarians and Serbs question Macedonian ethnicity, everybody likes to denounce Yugoslavs, the list goes on for ever but there is no "Day 1" policy. If a person wishes to call himself Istrian, it makes precious little difference whether his dad is Serb and his mother Croat because the only thing that makes them Serb and Croat in the first place is their decision to dclare themselves as such, it doesn't mean they have bloodlines going back to some imaginary progenitor. That's why I believe ethnicities should be given equal treatment. Zavtek (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was me who added the "('Istrians')" bit in the first place, and perhaps I was in error when I did. The census (if I recall) only says "regionally declared", and we should stick to that. To refer to the "regionally declared" people as "Istrians" is unsourced and constitutes OR. -- Director (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha. I know about the "regionally declared" status of Croatian citizens. Surprisingly, I myself am in that category!!!!!!! But I am not implying any form of WP:OR. I guess it's a hard one then - no smooth easy way of imparting the actual status. I'll leave it in your hands. BTW, I support your position on the Republic of Kosovo article, so I am not someone out to oppose editors on every conflict. Zavtek (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

Hi,
you say "This page is under 1RR restriction. Please do not edit war, do not introduce changes without discussion" whilst making a second revert. Would you like to fix this yourself with a self-revert, or shall this be fixed by the Extreme Chutzpah division of Arbcom? bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, extreme what now? :) Reverted myself; I actually thought it was 1RR per day. -- Director (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)