User talk:Fitzcarmalan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thank you very much. --Oldsettler (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New year[edit]

Hi Fitzcarmalan Can you help me to translate Typhaine case. I would propose te article to be a good article but I can't make referrals. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me to translate the article ? --Panam2014 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Panam. Have a great one yourself. Sorry about my late reply. I was a bit busy in the last few days, and I still have a lot of work to do here. So I apologize, because I can't do much about this. Not in the next couple of weeks at least. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Moncef Marzouki[edit]

Officially, Marzouki is president, not interim. It is a POV. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Help formulating a RfC[edit]

Hi Fitzcarmalan, I was recommended to inquire for help to formulate a less vague RfC for the dispute on the Yom Kippur War article as my earlier attempt proved fruitless and a deadlock has been reached. Would you be willing to assist me in this matter? Turnopoems (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Turnopoems, and thank you for your message here. Unfortunately, I have given up on the Arab-Israeli topic some time ago (currently on a self-imposed ban from editing there). Too much POV pushing and ownership of articles by certain individuals. I'm also not that familiar with the change you are proposing, so I'm not sure why Ed considers it too "vague". The discussion is too long for me to dive into right now. I'll take a look in a few days, then I'll ping you here.
Kudos, by the way, for going to the administrators' noticeboard a few days ago. That's the right way to go forward with things like that. But in my opinion, the editor in question might be showing more signs of disruptive editing than edit warring (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS#4). Not so sure which venue is more appropriate for reporting such behavior though (maybe WP:ANI?). You can take a look at Template:Noticeboard links for more information. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I can definitely relate and I understand why you've taken such measures as this is painfully time-consuming. I'm clueless as to what is necessary on my behalf to deal with the issue though. As I'm fairly new to Wikipedia I'm unsure if this is the result of negligence by the admins or if dealing with these violations require extraordinary measures from the community. I'm not familiar with how RfCs normally look but from what I gathered I think Ed wants me to present a clear-cut version of the changes I'm trying to push for. - Much appreciated. You'll get the general idea by reading the first few replies, you can just skim through the rest if you're in a pinch (the discussion has gone back and forth quite a bit).
While I realize that Wikipedia isn't designed for anyone to "get their way" I must say that I'm not entirely satisfied with the result of the report, I feel that the other editor was in the wrong, and blatantly so. Some form of punishment should have been in order. Surely this must be a recurring pattern if I'm not the only one to notice it? Thanks for the advice nevertheless, I'm going to keep those links bookmarked in case something flares up again. Turnopoems (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say. From a quick glance, I'd say that the editor was clearly acting disruptively. In my opinion, it appears that EdJohnston was simply trying to make you both disengage, and I can't really blame him per WP:INVOLVED (especially when it's a sensitive topic like this one), but to me this is just watering the problem.
From lurking through the archives and reports related to the recent Gaza war, I would conclude that Nishidani may have some kind of experience in dealing with these things (this is the case referred to in this discussion, if Nishidani is interested). Perhaps s/he has better advice to offer? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. On the technical side of things, I know nothing, my editing being restricted to actual article content. Anytime, and it is rare, I address a board, as at AE twice or RSN it is usually ignored because I simply do not know about, am intensely bored by, these formal procedures. Ykantor could be a good editor, because he actually reads things. Unfortunately, as he declared in a, to me, famous statement long ago, there is only one truth to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that is the Israeli narrative of being endlessly victimized by 'Arabs'. If of course, someone gives me a specific link to a specific textual problem, I'm happy to see what I can do to help out.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight Nishidani, your recollection of her/him accurately reflects my experience. What is most disturbing however is this person's blatant display of ownership of articles pertaining to Israel, disrupting editors that try to present a point of view that deviates from her/his own. I don't know how to present this case to the admins and I don't feel like that would be a successful endeavor which is why I'm focusing on trying to achieve consensus, although that is proving even more meaningless as the other editors are, evidently, completely disinterested in this as long as their preferred version is up (which is now protected until March 2015).
I was recommended by Ed to reformulate my RfC to make it less "vague" [1]. I would very much appreciate help in this regard as it is my first time formulating a RfC. I realize that the discussion is incredibly tedious to read which is why a few pointers on what to include and what to change will suffice.
Also, thank you Fitzcarmalan for your effort. If my new attempt at formulating an RfC proves fruitless I will bide my time and if they still haven't responded I will propose that the article protection be reverted per WP:CONSENSUS to proceed with my edits. Surely if the other editors resurface at that point it will be conclusive evidence that their primary strategy is disruption rather than consensus-building. Turnopoems (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand the frustration. One of our most knowledgeable editors in this area User:Pluto2012 felt driven off by that style. Srill, articles are written over time, and meticulous research is the key. I wsould suggest you keep working away on a page that is comprehensive, and, if you want an RfC (I repeat, I can't help there: I'm a technical numbskull) don't be hasty. I'll keep an eye on things, (no guarantee). The important thing is not to be put off or frustrated, or allow difficulties with others to overwhelm one's passion for the topic(s). Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And I would second Nishidani on this last point. Many valuable contributors here and potentially good ones have been driven off from this project because of the frustration that can result from being deeply involved in those topics. Sometimes it becomes too much to handle, but it is very important not to let such behavior get in your way of editing here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well thanks once again fellas, I'm not entirely sure why this bullying is tolerated but I feel that the best course of action at this point, for my own peace of mind, is to bide my time. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and, although improbable, do my best to build consensus. I still have a few aces up my sleeve that are bound to ruffle some feathers among those who exhibit this behavior if nothing else works. Turnopoems (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)