This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sock case
Hi, thanks for dealing with the Cukiger sock case so quickly. Could you do me a favour and keep the checkuser info saved somewhere? Something tells me we will be dealing with this guy for longer than the checkuser logs are kept. Fut.Perf.☼20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear has been relentlessly stalking me on these pages and vandalzing or removing most of my edits, without explanation, without reason and without any discussion. A good example is his repeated removal of a paragraph I have added in "Armenia–Turkey relations". The paragraph itself links to numerous rebellions detailed in Wikipedia articles, and obviously belongs in an article with that title. None of the facts are disputed. Supposedly a well researched academic book titled "Armenian Rebellion at Van" does not qualify as reference under a heading "Armenian Rebellions" and not in an article named "Armenia–Turkey relations"! Due to my inexperience in fending these attacks intially, and the coordinated nature of these pro-Armenian pov edits, I have been put in a disadvantage already. I am aware of his obsession with these topics, willing to accomodate him and others who are determined to turn these pages into blatant Armenian ethnic propaganda and alternate reality tools, but there has to be a limit somewhere. I would like these attacks, this stalking and this destructive editing to come to an end. Can you help me?--Murat (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 1,[1] -continued attempt to edit POV after discussion[2], and after shown a primary source which corroborates the article[3].
Fact 2, Removal of referenced material[4], after posting a contentious statement unsupported by factual evidence.
Fact 3, Continued removal of heavily referenced statement[5], without using talk page.
Fact 4, More edits to remove heavily referenced statement[6], while categorically denying that references exist!
Fact 5, Upon a cursory check of said individual's contributions[7], it is clear this person has an obsession to manipulate the POV of selected articles by removing referenced material that is unpalatable to this person's puerile mentality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murat is not in a strong position here. Almost all his edits are contentious ones, inserting marginal opinions as if they were accepted mainstream facts. Also, he repeatedly tries to insert the same material again and again, even though that material has been discussed and rejected in talk pages. That is why those repeat edits tend to be reverted without a detailed explanation. And when he makes useful additions (which I admit he does sometimes), those additions are often buried within more POV material, making it difficult to salvage the good stuff from the unacceptable. If Kansas Bear has been watching the articles he has been trying to edit, or watching his editing history, it is because there is a legitimate reason to do it. However, it would be better if Kansas Bear were to give a proper edit summary when reverting or removing material. Meowy20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor has removed the POV tag I had attached to three articles (Turkey-Armenian Relations, Bitlis, Justin McCarthy) where there is serious dispute about the objectivity as can be clearly seen in the discussion pages. I have since also added seperate sections for this purpose, though it seems redundant. The tags were not to be removed until a conflict was resolved. That is the Wikipedia rule if I am not mistaken, and it is stated so clearly on the tag. If that is the case, please have these tags re-inserted, as I do not want to be found violating any revert rules imposed on me. I also hope a warning may be issued, as this exmaplifies the cyber stalking I had complained about earlier which still goes unabated as you can see from the edit history of Kansas Bear. --Murat (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murat has been spamming POV tags. He added them to at least three articles without adding the required talk page subsection giving his reasoning for the insertion of the tag. He has just reinserted the same tags to the same articles after they were removed by me for the above non-compliance, and he has spammed the talk pages of those articles with identical "Disputed Objectivity" subsections containing identical text - text that is clearly off-topic (for example, Justin McCarthy is not a "Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history" [8] ). Would it be correct to class these edits as vandalism and get them removed? Meowy20:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
I see that you deleted my quote from the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation since the paper in which they were quoted is regarded by you as "right wing". I'm not sure what the medium has to do with the message, but you appear to be in charge of a lot of topics. Can you tell me if you prefer a source that is "left wing"? The CCFF was quoted in many papers and on TV, so I could recapture the quote from another source if you like. Or have you condemned the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation because they made the mistake of being quoted in a right-leaning journal?
It might be useful to tell us, too, if you are a medical researcher with special knowledge of CF like the staff of the Foundation, or do you simply consider yourself to be "in charge" of this topic, thereby positioning yourself as a gate-keeper entitled to label properly sourced contributions as "vandalism"? Bushcutter (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nishkid64
What's up! It has been a long time seeing you. I just thought of something Wikipedia-worthy. If you have the chance to go to Barack Obama's inauguration (which is the day after Martin Luther King's Birthday), could you please take some camera pics and upload them to Wikipedia?! Also, don't let checkuser burn you out. :-) Take care. miranda22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, today at 5:44 you blocked User:Rolgn with the comment "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Koov)". Does this mean that User:Rolgn is also blocked from editing? I am asking because I was having some very unpleasant confrontations with User:Rolgn these last few days and I am kind of hoping that your block will put an end to this. Look forward to your reply. --Zlerman (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to writing baseball articles I guess, here's my new project, just started but should finish in a couple of weeks, you could help as well. Secretaccount17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me a message:
"Where exactly did I even comment on the political alignment of the CCFF? Furthermore, I never labeled your edit as vandalism. I reverted your edit because I believe science articles should only contain facts and figures corroborated by multiple groups of scientists." I believe your name is attached to the following dialogue:
Page Vandalism by "Bushcutter"The edit history shows that the section added by "Bushcutter" who makes political edits to pages added a reference about skin color which is inaccurate. This has been removed. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed. It's a bunch of nonsense. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Your wish to have only "multiple groups of scientists" contributing to scientific articles is doomed to failure. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It's not even academic. So please be respectful of other peoples' respectful contributions. A little less high-minded and self-righteous prancing about, if you please. When we see you deleting information from the qualified scientists of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation because you find the information irritating, we are entitled to see that your personal beliefs are tending to get out of control. Please stop it. Bushcutter (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism accusation
Nishkid64, you replied to me,"I made no comment implying that your edits were vandalism at all. Furthermore, I am not saying that science articles need to be edited by scientists. I'm saying that science articles should include material that should be referenced by multiple groups of scientists. I would like to see if other CF researchers agree with the CCFF's findings, before deciding to include it in the cystic fibrosis article."
Niskid64, with all due respect, you don't have the right to assume control of an article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If someone submits a properly sourced contribution on topic, you're expected to leave it alone. Here is the relevant WP position on contributions:
"When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted"
Nowhere does it say that someone such as yourself may assume control of an article. Your response if you don't like my documented and properly sourced contribution is to discuss it reasonably on the Talk page. You allied yourself with an unsigned provocateur who referred to my contribition as "vandalism" since it was you who actually deleted my contribution. Therefore you are out of order, and you ought to mend your ways to avoid having this escalate through the time-consuming Dispute Resolution process. An apology would also be in order in order to get past this so we can move onto other things. Bushcutter (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AA
Hey Nish, I saw your vote for Jayvdb and wanted to ask what "AA issues" are. I was planning to support, but as you're one of the editors I most respect, I wanted to be familiar with the substance of your concern. --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, I have clearly stated that I will recuse from any AA arbitration at Questions from PhilKnight. My involvement in any arbitration would not be helpful.
I know I have been getting increasingly "involved" in that, culminating with my involvement in the Ehud case. One side of that dispute showed overwhelming displeasure so I have tried to stay away from it since then. If it would help, I'd be happy to review all my admin actions and provide a list of tool use since that case.
Thanks for the note. As I see it, all the Arbs inevitably have some entanglements, but it looks like Jayvdb has been as upfront about it as any of them, pledging to recuse. As a thought to Jayvdb, I would say to remember that Arbitrators wield both formal Arbitrator power, secondary powers such as oversight and checkuser, and the informal (but perhaps as important) power of being on that inner circle, having the ear of the fellow arbs and the community, even when you're not on the formal podium. Sometimes recusing from a case is sufficient and sometimes further steps are needed. As an aside, Nish. I was surprised not to see your name on the candidate list. You'd be good at it. In the future perhaps? --JayHenry (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you have handled the case is a very legitimate concern which goes beyond AA. You have not tried to stay away from it, you continued with your very questionable actions. A recent example is this report by Grandmaster against Vacio, regarding Sisak. Three days later you suspiciously created the page about Sisak (eponym). The arbitration enforcement page had become a soapbox because of the report, in which Grandmaster attempted to have a much lesser experienced user restricted by inviting him to revert war. Given the ‘eponym’ use, you knew what the result would be, a confrontation between both users when the eponym was at the center of the conflict (the timing and the exact subject choosing was very suspicious), which you could not have ignored and would have gotten Vacio restricted. This sort of actions which result is to perpetuate conflicts which resulted with unnecessary restrictions unwelcomed. There are legitimate concerns to oppose you. We have seen you deal with cases and witnessed how you handle things. Your beautiful speech has no value when actions speak a lot louder than words.
It does not stop there, the AA case without doubt shows a potential from your side to support your friends (not only those involved in AA). And this underground communications, including trying to have another user restricted from English Wikipedia by asking a checkusers to run a Wikipedia-wide checkusers, to then have your friend use that to have the person with whom he is disagreeing with restricted. Evidence of proxing for others this way, and systematically taking one side is the last thing which is needed. You can for all we know provide sensitive arbitration mailing list materials to your friends since we are at it. Or better, once you have checkusers access run those requests of your friends yourself.
Like another who said it, it's just politics. Recuse does not satisfy me, we've had three arbitration cases, and very questionable at that, but John's statements, opinions and analysis by far were worse than what the most inept arbitrator could have come with. VartanM (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created Sisak_(eponym) because it "Sisak" was mentioned over on Rlevse's user page around that time in regards to some dispute, and Sisak was obviously not the topic you were all talking about. The way it was mentioned it seemed like it was a pretty vital piece of information for Rlevse to understand, so I wrote the article. John Vandenberg(chat)09:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a year ago now, so my memory may be imperfect but this is what I remember... Jayvdb requested a crosswiki check at Meta, and presented quite a bit of corroborating material to justify running it. In my considered judgement, as well as that of several other CUs, there was reason to run the check. I worked jointly with Jayvdb, checkuers from fr:wp and other wikis, and we carried out an extensive crosswiki check. It was a complex investigation and it was in some ways inconclusive and in other ways it found things that were concerning about some of the users that were found. I don't think there was anything wrong in any way about asking for this check, the justification presented was compelling. I don't think there was anything wrong in any way about how the check was performed, as multiple checkusers were involved and we checked each others work and findings. So I'm not really clear what the issue regarding this check is, as this was a shining example of how crosswiki checks ought to work. I would suggest that VartanM may not be presenting a completely unbiased view of this matter, for whatever reason. Further, these allegations made about Jayvdb seem completely unwarranted. DarkFalls has it just right. ++Lar: t/c15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that these comments towards John does not stems from your dislike of Grandmaster, or on John's past administrative actions which you seem to have taken a particular dislike in. You are hardly an uninvolved party in this debate, and these accusations are unfounded. Material such as "You can for all we know provide sensitive arbitration mailing list materials to your friends since we are at it. Or better, once you have checkusers access run those requests of your friends yourself" hold no weight whatsoever. Let me note the fact that every checkuser action is logged and monitored by everyone with checkuser access... As for John's "supposed" use as a proxy for others, I would like to see some evidence of this. To put it bluntly, we do not wish to see your hypothesis... rather we'll like the evidence. —Darktalk10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the requested meta cu[9] and here is the user creation log for Grandmaster on meta[10]. What are the chances that a user who was trying to get his opponent banned registered at the site an hour after a cu was filled against his opponent? I think John is the one who should answer that question. VartanM (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this isnt conclusive, this does show that you will leap to accusations without checking your facts. Your own links above are wrong; a few minutes of browsing the history would have shown you that the Grandmaster account was created a day after the initial checkuser request.
OK a day, but is it really of your interest when you know that several other cases can be provided, like here when you voted 14 minutes after him. I wonder what kind of account problem he had then :-) - Fedayee (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like JayHenry read this one well; the "further steps" he mentioned are definitely important, and my clear statement about recusal is evidently not clear enough. I should have made it clear that I would not use the checkuser or oversight tools in those circumstances either; I have updated my answer to that question in order to clarify this.
As an example that JayHenry might remember, the Academic Journals project was trying to set up its own delsorting list. I have also been quite active on the delsorting project, and could quite easily have pushed it through, but because I am one of the principle members of the AJ project, it still doesnt have its own delsorting list. (relevant discussion here). --John Vandenberg(chat)10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some simple questions John. Were you, or were you not assisted by Grandmaster in the Andranikpasha case? Was Andranikpasha vandalizing or personally attacking any users in en.wiki at the time you started the hunt? Did he behave any differently than any other AA involved user? Just for the record, Andranikpasha started aggressively and was indef blocked by Moreschi as a SPA, then unblocked by El_C and placed under my supervision and since then he authored 100+ new articles. VartanM (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VartanM, I have repeatedly been asked to disclose unnecessary details about Grandmasters involvement, and each time I have done so every time.[11][12] I have absolutely nothing to hide so I am now writing up an even more details account of my AA involvement. Please bear with me as I also have to seek permission from the relevant people to quote them. John Vandenberg(chat)07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, Vartan is perhaps biased, but Jayvdb's involvement in the AA issues is of serious concern. No administrators involved in Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts have ever taken sides to the extent that John has. Let's not confuse the fact that simply because these two arbitration cases have not had much coverage, that there is no evidence of misconduct. He was almost always absent when Azerbaijani sockpuppets were edit warring or being disruptive, yet strangely present when Armenian sockpuppets were being a nuisance. He only reacted slightly whenever users on the pro-Azeri side started to become disruptive.
Much worse, however, he has gone as far to suggest bad-faith conspiracy to influence sanctions against users who have, rightly so, felt that the ArbCom has never adequately taken the matter seriously. True changes are needed in the system, not just great promises which are contradicted by actions. Khoikhoi04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi, nobody in good standing has yet suggested that the CU request that I filed was not warranted or appropriate; in fact, other admins agreed that the concerns raised in my CU request warranted the user being put under editing restrictions. I didnt make that call; I put together the case for others to make the decisions. Are you saying the meta CU request was improper? John Vandenberg(chat)07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nish, please take the time to review my meta CU request that has brought down this sudden hailstorm on me and go on record as to whether you think it was well founded or not. John Vandenberg(chat)07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm not ignoring this thread. My schedule has been hectic this last week or two because of final exams and other testing. I'll see if I can find the time to properly evaluate the situation and formulate a detailed response within the next few days. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of people citing your oppose I think you need to do so ASAP. Being nonresponsive to emails is not really a good approach either. I hope you will seriously reconsider your opposition, which I find not well founded at all. I'll be happy to go into more detail if you like. ++Lar: t/c16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in here, but I can completely understand how such a schedule would be daunting. Maybe, under the circumstances, saying something similar on the page in question might be a good idea? John Carter (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64: It pains me to say this because I like you and have ever since we first interacted, and was happy to see your progress on the wiki over the years. However, you made an early oppose, and you have not substantively addressed the rebuttals to your oppose. It is irresponsible, in my view, to leave matters thus for several days, and even smacks of a bit of well poisoning. If you knew you did not have the time maybe you should have come in and opposed later, if you felt you must. Not answering rebuttals smacks of poisoning the well. You're a CU, at your own request. It is reasonable to expect better than 5 day turnaround on matters of import to the wiki, or at least, it is reasonable to expect some care in how one interacts when real life is known to be likely to intrude. Perhaps you might consider stepping away from time sensitive responsibilities if you will not be able to discharge them in a timely manner... life IS more important than this project to be sure, but don't take on commitments you can't keep. ++Lar: t/c21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion, Lar. I didn't see that coming from you of all people. For the record, I'd like to say that this is turning into voter badgering. Regardless of my "position" (which I don't think played a big role in the AC election, since it appears many of the opposers were going along AA lines) on Wikipedia, I have no obligation to respond to any parts of this thread. I don't appreciate people telling me I shouldn't have participated so early in the election if I had a busy real life schedule to worry about or trying to get me to change my vote by e-mail (which essentially amounts to the same thing ChrisO and others have accused the Armenians of doing). Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You expanded on your oppose to accuse me of "Lack of impartiality on AA issues" without any justification or evidence, and you have not been willing to provide any for a week despite having been active as a Checkuser and Editor in the meantime. Other people are voting based on your words which means that, if this is disproven, you have misled a lot of voters (and golly gosh, I am asking the community to judge me on this, because I have nothing to hide). Every day you dally, you are misleading people. This is not honourable. John Vandenberg(chat)00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What reason do I have to mislead this community? Get your head out of the clouds, John. Since a bunch of you are wetting your pants because your attempts at canvassing supports are futile to the oppose canvassing going on, I'll provide my rationale: As a participant in the A-A dispute for the last two years, I've observed Jayvdb's behavior, and I'm definitely not pleased by the way he entered a longstanding historical dispute between Armenians and Azeris. I don't know how I can show it to people outside of a dispute, so I'll put it this way: if Jayvdb was a brand new account and we saw his filing of the Andranikpasha case, the AfD vote or the sudden interest in editing AA articles, I would have suspected meatpuppetry or even sockpuppetry. Both sides of A-A frequently seek the involvement of sympathetic uninvolved admins to do their bidding (I speak from first-hand experience). If Jayvdb was oblivious to the fact that Grandmaster was toying with him as his own pawn, then I don't consider him a suitable candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I know you will obviously disagree with my assessment of this situation, but bear in mind, I am not part of the bureaucratic hivemind, and I will stand by my oppose because I genuinely don't think you are suitable for the Arbitration Committee at this time. Expect no reply to any rebuttal comments for the next few days. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Whoa there, cowboy. Maybe you should dial back a bit of the bad faith, Nishkid. There's no call for the level of animosity I feel radiating off your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
Nishki64 & the CF vandal
Nishkid64, you're intent on papering over your clumsy approach to collaborative editing when you pretend that you had nothing to do with unethically removing my submission. I'm not sure how you can justify your lack of ethics, but it's clear that you joined an unsigned provocative rant by saying "It's a bunch of nonsense". You are complicit by joining the anonymous vandal. Thus, when you say,"I always commented on the content" the evidence shows you confirming and endorsing the anonymous vandalism.
Further, when you say "I'd like to move this process ahead by discussing the CCFF's findings", you are being disingenuous since you are simultaneously also endorsing the vandalism. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this matter. However, in order to stop this matter from escalating needlessly, I'm going to restore the vandalised content and trust that you will constructively engage the debate about any disputed points. If you are ignorant of the issues, please do some homework before jumping into unsavoury alliances with anonymous Wiki vandals (who are prone to hurling insults & PC rubbish). You'll find no lasting benefit from joining with ignorant hooligans because the world will soon decide that you're also one of them. Bushcutter (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64 threatens user with blocking.
Please don't make threats. It's not an accepted method of winning an argument. If you've been working in partnership with an anonymous vandal, you ought to apologize so we can move forward. I also urge you to stop associating with vandalism. The best way to proceed with constructive editing is to quickly and publicly separate yourself from the anonymous vandal that you endorsed on the Cystic Fibrosis talk page. As you can see, working with vandals creates a difficult environment for collaboration. Bushcutter (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishki64, you said on my Talk Page: ". . .instigating a potential edit war by reintroducing the contentious material? You still have not linked me to the scientific article in which the CCFF reported their findings. All I see is a comment made by the CCFF CEO with regards to the new research, but nothing more about the research . . ."
I don't know what "new research" you're talking about. The item I placed on the page refers to CCFF's observation that CF afflicts racial groups. If you feel that CCFF is talking nonsense, then please provide your reasons for disbelieving them. Already in the article is the claim that CF afflicts Ashkenazi Jews, so the issue has already been introduced. My edit adds the CCFF conclusion that CF also affects "caucasians". Other than the mention that CCFF "supports research into cystic fibrosis", where is "new research" mentioned? What "new research" are you talking about? Bushcutter (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New research?
Nishki64, you said on my Talk Page: ". . .instigating a potential edit war by reintroducing the contentious material? You still have not linked me to the scientific article in which the CCFF reported their findings. All I see is a comment made by the CCFF CEO with regards to the new research, but nothing more about the research . . ."
I don't know what "new research" you're talking about. The item I placed on the page refers to CCFF's observation that CF afflicts racial groups. If you feel that CCFF is talking nonsense, then please provide your reasons for disbelieving them. Already in the article is the claim that CF afflicts Ashkenazi Jews, so the issue has already been introduced. My edit adds the CCFF conclusion that CF also affects "caucasians". Other than the mention that CCFF "supports research into cystic fibrosis", where is "new research" mentioned? What "new research" are you talking about? Bushcutter (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't resort to getting some non-sensical barnstar, but I want to thank you personally for your work over the past few months - with many of your displays of judgement being similar to mine. You exercise your tools carefully and you are a great asset to the community at large. Kind regards, Caulde16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishkid64. I've watched/admired a lot of your work, and your contributions to the politics side of Wikipedia for a couple of years now (you comments at my RFA pretty much read clear and were not unexpected). I'm interested in how someone with such exceptional motivation towards the article namespace (per your sig and various commentary at the recent arbcom election to name just two examples) wishes to clerk at ARBCOM. Seems an odd juxtaposition to me. Pedro : Chat 21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the most dedicated article writers (like yourself) are probably the very best people to clerk at arbcom as you are "drama free" and can be fully neutral. Good luck with it! Pedro : Chat 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow
Hi, did the conditions of your unblocking this disruptive sock-master (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles) include him posting a rant about me on his user page (User:The Legendary Shadow!)? I am sure that is just a tad Scientology-related, isn't it. He mentions "Anyway, this account has been unblocked on the provision that I stay out of Scientology-related articles (unless I am adding something that is backed up by proper sourcing) and don't cause any trouble on them, and I am quite happy with that." It ain't like he backs up any of his claims including accusing me of being some sort of operative. Please have him remove the rant and please have him stay out of my affairs. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - any thoughts on this? I won't vigorously contest it, but the author is known for his political slant, and the piece it's drawn from is heavy on editorializing ("Like a string of Central African dictators before him, he has been tugging too hard on the French leash, imagining he is the independent ruler of an independent country."). Plus, it messes up the referencing, making it seem like a big chunk came from Hari, when it's from Titley in fact. - BiruitorulTalk06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure he's right about what he claims. It's just that as a journalist, he's far from being a specialist on African history, so quoting him as an authority is a little out of place. (If he'd included a footnote, that would have been another story.) Personally, I'm OK with excising and waiting until a reliable source turns up: even without the phrase from Hari, it's pretty clear the French wanted to cover this up as soon as possible. - BiruitorulTalk06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from "Siad Barre was a hands on leader" to "Despite all its contributions to Somali society..." does have neutrality problems. Of course he did do certain things for Somalia (which was undoubtedly a lot worse off in the decade following his loss of power than while he ruled, and maybe even today), but that material can be presented in a more balanced fashion. - BiruitorulTalk02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you worked this Nisarkand case, can you check out this claim and close the case: "Yes, User:KoonWoz is a sock of User:Khampalak, not NisarKand. I know them both very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.17.99 (talk • contribs)", tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional pyrokinetics
This was deleted in 2006, and then redeleted in 2008 citing that the first time (2006) it was deleted as per a discussion. The records do not provide a link to this discussion though. Could you please provide a link to it? I am trying to figure out what happened here, and why only physical abilities are represented. Tyciol (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At what point will this edit warrior will be contained? The above complaint is launched AFTER he has removed a whole section I had edited in (without removing any material) for no good reason and explanation or discussion. The intention is to provoke a blcok and freeze in the pov version I imagine. It has worked nicely for him in the past with some naive admins. This cyber stalker has been reverting ALL my edits on this general topic for months. No discussion, no attempt at modification or compromise, with zero good faith. In this article alone he has REVERSED my contributions, all reasonable and referenced, SEVEN times, sometimes within minutes, and not a single one has survived. Is this the behaviour Wikipedia encourages? What exactly will it take?--Murat (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, in the spirit of harmonious editing, I'd like both sides to engage in discussion, rather than straight out reverting each other. Second, I can understand your frustrations, Murat, but as an outside observer, I can clearly see why other users have issues with your edits. Your edits reek of anti-Armenian POV and a laundry list of words unsuitable for the encyclopedia (also see WP:WEASEL). If you want to balance the text, I suggest you go for a compromise, rather than pushing an explicit extremist POV. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed here:[14] and here[15]. Murat has attempted to use the same BOOK TITLES as references on other articles. So, as usual, we get the lie that NONE of this has been discussed, while he uses WP:WTA and removes referenced material[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22], with "no discussion, no attempt at modification or compromise, with zero good faith" AFTER being shown references to primary sources[23],[24]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see one example of this pov, or extreme-pov editing I have done. One example where I have fabricated or distorted facts. It should be easy since supposedly that is all I do. Others who have complained you mention are part of the same Armenian-pov gang that have turned these pages into ethnic hate propaganda tools. Same people have been reverting most of my edits incidentally. If you check the discussion pages you will see that all my attempts at moderation and compromise have been futile. Wholesale removal all edits, usually within minutes, does not leave much room for discussion and obviously there is little good faith.
Is there any argument that there were Armenian Rebellions in Ottoman Turkey? Answer is a yes or no. A book titled "Armenian Rebellion", is a proper reference in an article named "Armenian Rebellion" for example... page number requests are obviously bogus, furthermore it is NOT a requirement, to be provided when appropriate and available, and I am surprised you did not point this out to this experienced editor.--Murat (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishkid. This matter pertains to an article which I have in PR right now, and the article's title and content. I am leaving this message for two more admins to get an overall opinion. I had created an article about a year back (Aug 2007) called Mysore kingdom literature which went as a subarticle to the main FA Kingdom of Mysore which also I authored. Shortly thereafter, another user changed the name to Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore (oct 13th 2007). This title stayed for quite a while. Around Nov 7th 2008, I started to expand the article with the intent of making it a FA. Being fully aware that all the writings described in the article were written in Kannada language, I moved the article to a more appropriate Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore on Nov 13th 2008. However, after significant expansion thereafter, I had covered (for context/better roundedness) some writers and poets who had lived outside the Mysore territory, but never-the-less left an indelible impact on literature within the kingdom also. To give the article an apt name, because it now covered literature in Kannada language over an area larger than just the Kingdom of Mysore, user:Michael Devore (a frequent and helpful copy editor of my articles) and I though up the name Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE. The period 1900-2000 is normally covered under Modern Kannada literature. Since I was solely resposiblle for writing the article, I did not think it necessary to start a discussion about the name change. About this time (Dec 5th 2008), User:Fowler &fowler had started a FAR on the original FA, Kingdom of Mysore, in which this literature related article I have described was a sub-article. Fowler first insisted that the name Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore must stay as is since the main article was in FAR and that some of his concerns were linked to the sub-article on literature. I pointed out to him that a FAR can't include topics outside the main FAR'ed article itself. But now he claims that the article should include literature from the period 1900-1947 (the last part of the kingdoms existance). But he does not understand that adding details of literature from the period 1900-1947 to the article breaks the "mature" modern period of Kannada literature into two pieces, 1900-1947 and 1947- 2008, which quite logically should stay as one article, and does currently (Modern Kannada literature. He has stared a thread on Talk:Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore and Mattisse and Docku have supported him. I have not bothered to reply on that thread to prevent verbose discussions that lead nowhere. So, I would like to know what your advice on the matter is. Over the last 1 year and 4 months (Aug2007- to date) I have done 99% of the edits and brought in 100% of the content. Everyone has an opinion on how to write an article and what to name an article, but I feel as the main contributor, I should be allowed to proceed with the title and content I last gave it, Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE and let any discussions regarding title happen in the FAC with concensus. Also, the sub-article has nothing to do with the main FAR'ed article where Fowler seems to have concerns. Please advice.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
PS:The period 1900-1950 would usually include numerous writers, far too numerous to include in the above summary style article under discusion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
I just wanted to say, that the use of a country infobox on this article is incorrect, since it is about the political philosophy and the political movement. It would be like putting a USA country box on the article Conservatism. The Italian Social Republic is where the state infobox belongs and is; in any case Italian fascism ruled the longest in the Kingdom of Italy which is not represented by the ISR state infobox. Turned About Turn (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nishkid. If you are still in D.C., could you please get a couple of pictures of Delta Towers. I need to use these in the Delta Sigma Theta article. Delta Towers is located a this address:
Delta Towers Apartments
1400 Fla Ave NE
Washington, DC 20001
In return, I can make you a banner or copyedit an article. It's not urgent...it's "whenever you have time to do so." TYVM. miranda07:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight Lauderdale
Nishkid, I appreciate you wanting to keep the peace on that article, however, there is no OR in that article. Every claim is supported by a verifiable source (none of them are me, or were written by me).
The "High school kid" source is from a website (http://my.hsj.org/) which is not part of the high school system, in fact, it's a website maintianed and copywrited by the American Society of Newspaper editors, and therefore, it's notable. I realize the title and the website name make it look otherwise, but it's notable and therefore not OR.
THanks
— Kosh Jumpgate21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid, I saw your response. First, would I use, as a source, an article written by a teenager ?
I can't give a blanket yes or no answer to that. That she was a teenager at the time doesn't make this an invalid source. As a matter of fact, as I've (long time ago, of course) worked on a high school newspaper (not at that school :) )I have to tell you, for that piece to have been published , because it claims to be an interview with Dwight Lauderdale ( a well-known news anchor in Broward and Dade county) she would have had to have been able to prove it to her editor, then to the paper's sponsor for it to have even been published. ON top of that, it's now a part of a collection hosted by an orginaztion of editors (who by their own nature check for facts) :) ), I'd say it's definetly verifiable. Add to that that I'm merely quoting this and not analyzing nor synthesising, just repeating them, it's not ruled out either by WP:R, WP:PRimary, etc.... which by the way, rule out using interviews as a means of analyzing an event not quoting or otherwise reporting what was said or what was claimed by the interviewer or interviewee.
By the way, her interview was far better than any of the other interviews I had about him! (I know that doesn't matter, and it's my own opinion! :) )
— Kosh Jumpgate22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid, nope, it's not analysis. That's a direct quote from the article. (Yes, the same one you mentioned earlier). Look, I know you mean well, but PLEASE check the sources first before you say that again. The only questionable item that I placed in there when I wrote the article was the trivia section .... which got removed. There is NO OR, SYNTH, ....etc.... in that article. If a claim has been made, it's supported by the source or sources shown at the end of the sentance. (By the way, I can include that exact phrase from this article when it appears! :) )
Nishkid, I got your message. First, the link in it goes to WP:SOAP, which doesn't seem to support your position. I took a moment to look at NOR, Reliable, OR, V, none of those seem to support your claim either. I"m not going to clutter your page by posting policy, but specifically, WP:NOR states:
"Using sources
Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited"
The information in question meets this criteria.
WP:OR states:
"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
Indeed, what I'm presenting is not my opinion, nor is it clear that it's the reporter's opinion either.
With regard to the report being a teen-ager and this interview being published in a high school newpaper, WP:RS states:
"Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. ".
The material in question meets Wikipedia's guidelines in that:
1.) It's not my opinion or research
2.) It's from a reliable source.
3.) It's pertient to the story
4.) Is quoted word for word < br/>
5.) Is not synth, OR, Libel, Slander, Attack.
I know I can come across as a know-it-all, I freely admitt to still be learning the ropes here, however, I'm pretty familiar with what can and cannot be in an article. To be sure, there are no blogs, forums, unreferenced claims, analysis, personal opinions (for or against). Every claim made can be referenced to at least once source, the article as a a whole gives a good understanding of Dwight Lauderdale and is well-rounded (doesn't just focus on his job as a newscaster). I think it's a bit dry in it's present state from my first submission, but consensus was it was better in that form!
Thanks
— Kosh Jumpgate00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Niskid64,
I read your reply. It looks like you're stating that the quote in question is an interpretation or analysis and could fall under OR unless other sources can back that up. Do I understand you correctly ?
— Kosh Jumpgate12:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nishkid64/Archive 52 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nishkid64/Archive 52's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nishkid64/Archive 52!
Heh, I was the one taking the last report at WP:OP. Even though a google scan may give some pointers to it being an open proxy does not mean it's an open proxy all the time. I think that this open proxy have moved on & is no longer an open proxy as a port scan isn't so interesting on this IP. However it's been blacklisted [25] and it's listed on project honey pot. IMO it's a clear cut this was an open proxy, but isn't anymore. I just did a port scan again & port 80, 8080 are both filtered. It may be some private network as PPTP is enabled, but it's not an open proxy. I hope this helped a bit! Best regards, --Kanonkas (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year 2009!!!
Happy New Year Nishkid64/Archive 52!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!
