|
I'm confused about the source citation and why it violates wiki policy. The source is a Doctor who is respected and skilled in the art. Is it because the location of where the report is published that is the problem? I am aware it is also published elsewhere but cannot find it at present but believe it to be on a public news site. I just did'nt get what the complaining editor (Zhanzhao) was on about by saying that the reliable source needs to be on some news outlet site. As far as I was aware, this was not wikipedia policy. Can you assist with my understanding on this subject. Appreciate your input. I'm a noob by the way.Theinsidefacts (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there, the policy your document violates is this one. Your document seems to be a self-published source and the fact that its author may be a doctor or other reliable author cannot be independently verified. He or she may be what you say - the problem is that unless this can be verified by an impartial external agency such as a news organisation or academic journal, the document cannot be relied on. So as it stands the document cannot be used. If it is published and described by a reliable, independent third party then it may be acceptable - but it would be wise for you to check this on the talk page of the article first. Please do read the page on reliable sources fully and carefully; it will answer all your questions about why your source is not acceptable as it stands. And do ask here for more help, by all means. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...this,[1] I don't recall being totally banned from the article talk page. I don't intend to edit it anytime soon, if ever, but I think the Margarine guy has overstepped a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's entirely reasonable. You weren't banned, so you have the right to edit there if you wish. However you were behaving poorly and DrFleischmann (or anyone) has the right to re-raise the matter at AN/I should things flare up again. However as they are not going to that won't be an issue, will it? By the way, I had to Google "Fleischmann" and "margarine" to work out why it's cute to call him Yeast and Margarine. People outside the USA won't get it, although it is immediately obvious you're being disrespectful and needly. It would be good if you just called people by their chosen editing names. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 06:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, you learned something new. That can't be a bad thing. In response to his "I reserve the right...", I must counter that I reserve the right to say "Told ya so" if and when the US and Russia work out a deal to send this "hero" back home to face justice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you find your trouts don't get respected,[2] try something stronger like my stockfish-rack whacking template or the Shakespeare insultspout in case of personal attacks. HTH, darwinbish BITE ☠ 10:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks a million, your Bishfulness! Whether or not these will have a better effect is neither here nor there - they made me smile! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL at "bishfulness". A bit like bashfulness, I suppose! Bishonen | talk 13:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I am simply not sure what to do as they are not stooping the harassment - I woke up to multiple taunting emails. How do I go about finding out the ones that are harassing me. Moxy (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is definitely not OK. If you would like, please forward the emails to me at kim@dent-brown.co.uk and I'll investigate. If you don't want to do this please keep in touch (via email if you don't want people to be able to follow your complaints via Wikipedia) and I will try to think of any other ways I might help. Most of all. please don't respond in kind and best of all don't respond at all. If you are being bullied it gives your persecutors more pleasure, the more you are seen to be affected by their actions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok let me think about this - I have blocked the 2 emails for now. I am concerned that any action will lead to more trouble coming my way for these editors. I think I may want my edit history of my talk page hidden from public view (I mean the times I gave out my email). The people must have spent hours looking through my talk page history to find it. I plan not to come across these editors again I hope. -- Moxy (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have enabled emails (via your preferences link at the very top of your screen)other editors can email you even if your address has not been published explicitly as I just did mine. You can see an 'email this user' link at the left of your screen which enables you to email others, just as they can email you. You can turn the email availability off if you wish. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this thread from Moxy because I was actually stopping by to thank you for closing the ANI thread. If Moxy has any email that he even remotely suspects is from me, he has my full permission and waving of copyright to publish it in full on Wikipedia. I can safely say this because I have never emailed him in any form or in any way. Giano 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I actually dont believe it is Giano - as both email refer to him in the third person. They are simply threatening me to stay away for infoboexs and the WP:projects related to them - this is again not related to Giano per-say as our latest dispute is over images not a box - I dont edit infoboxes so it is even more puzzling.-- Moxy (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you have cast aspersions Moxy, so just pretend that you think they are from me and publish them here anyway - or forward them in full to the Arbcom who will be instantly able to identify the sender. That way you won't be troubled again. Giano 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed this. I can make the same offer as Giano: "If Moxy has any email that he even remotely suspects is from me, he has my full permission and waving of copyright to publish it in full on Wikipedia. I can safely say this because I have never emailed him in any form or in any way." --Folantin (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have raised the matter here [3]. In my experience, bullies and liars, like Vampires, hate exposure to sunlight and will avoid it at any cost. Giano 20:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up, Giano. I have just asked Moxy to forward those e-mails to me or to ArbCom. Hopefully, we'll be able to determine who sent them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. I look forward to reading the results of your investigations. Giano 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Kim, you closed this discussion (it's actually still on the WP:HAPPYPLACE main page, hasn't even been archived yet) with a WP:MEDICINE topic ban for user Drgao. I wanted to draw your attention to this discussion that editor has initiated since then and ask whether it's a problem? Based on your explanation of the topic ban to Drgao here it would seem like it is. Thanks... Zad68 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Zad, I agree it was a pretty clear violation but I'm giving Drgao the benefit of the doubt in assuming it was done through ignorance. I've blocked for the time being, pending Drgao indicating that s/he understands what a topic ban actually means. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate it, that seems like the right action. I've seen other topic bans and this seems to be a pretty normal part of the cycle.
Zad68 12:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presented a proposal around the time you closed the Soham case. I self-reverted it as it was redundant. Would you please look at it esp. point number one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- YK, sorry we edit clashed and thank you for your attempts to keep Soham on the straight and narrow - they were very helpful and I hope s/he will pay attention to you. I have no view on whether or not Soham is pro- or anti- the subject of that article, but I don't agree with you that he was editing usefully, and nor did the great majority of other editors who posted an opinion. You don't have to be biased to be disruptive. I hope Soham will find other areas to edit in, and do so more constructively. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your considered reply. Wikipedia is a perpetual learning experience, esp. the "You don't have to be biased to be disruptive..." part. I just hope Soham doesn't score any more own goals by getting all worked up about this very narrow ban. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the vote was 10-3. 10 in favor of some kind of ban or block and 3 against any kind of ban or block. Given this, and given that i am convinced at least some of the voters who voted against me were neutral, i have decided to accept the one year ban. However, i would like to appeal the ban after 6 months. I would like to know whether i would be able to get your endorsement after 6 months in the appeal in the event that you believe i have become more proficient in interacting with other editors. Soham321 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I also seek one clarification. If an editor is taken to ANI in future because of edit warring or something else on the Digvijaya Singh page and a support/oppose topic ban is sought for the user in ANI, do i have the right to vote on this? Soham321 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) One more clarification needed: there is edit warring going on in the page i am not supposed to edit and one of the editors is on 3RR. Can i report edit warring or vandalism of this page anywhere if it happens? Soham321 (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Soham, looking at your three points:
- If you have edited productively and without incident in other areas for 6 months you'd have a good case for appealing the ban and having it lifted early. If there has been no further problem then yes in principle I'd be happy to support an early lifting of the ban.
- I'd be very careful in commenting on AN/I in respect of this page. I certainly wouldn't take anything there yourself. As to commenting, if you strictly restrict yourself to one contribution and don't get dragged into a debate that might be OK. But to be honest, in most cases the consensus is pretty clear and one !vote more or less either side is hardly ever decisive.
- If there is edit warring there, then clearly at least two people are active on the page. Rely on one of them to spot that the other is at 3RR - you don't need to police the page yourself. In fact I'd advise taking it off your watchlist so you are not tempted to get involved. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| I go away for 36 hours and come back to find this mess. I don't delete things from my talk page but I'm hatting this with a request to the two protagonists to leave talk pages for a while and go fight some vandals, add some references or expand a stub. This is an encyclopedia, not a Facebook spat or a webmail duel. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Hi Kim,
- 1.Could you please tell me whether i am within my rights to write what i did on my user talk page in pursuance of my freedom of speech and expression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Note_to_self
It is about 'Unblockable' editors on wikipedia and is written by an Admin from the perspective of an Admin. I wish to write a similar article (perhaps 'The Unblockables Part 2') about such editors from the perspective of ordinary editors. I had made my edits on the article itself not knowing i need permission from the user to edit any article in user space, and so my edits got reverted. But i am planning to write an expanded version of my edits as an article in my user space. Please take a look at the diffs and let me know whether you think it will be appropriate for me to put it in my user space. If it needs some modifications, please give me feedback on that as well. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables&diff=567956593&oldid=567952554 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables&diff=567916079&oldid=567912848.
- Kim will be able to address this I am sure, but I feel that it should be mentioned that as editors, we have no rights here (other than the right to stop editing) and no freedom of speech. I recommend that you not write anything similar to Beeblbrox's "The Untouchables", since it will likely be seen as retaliation and might just escalate the situation.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark, just so that we are clear you had mentioned that you will henceforth not be assuming good faith on my part in the ANI discussion. So your advice to me is meaningless as far as i am concerned. Beeblbrox wrote the article based on her user experiences and i see no reason why i cannot write a similar article based on mine. Soham321 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe what I said was, that I could no longer AGF after your behavior at the discussion. Now, if you read what I wrote above, it is only a recommendation. One you are certainly able to ignore. The advice may be meaningless to you, but that is further example of your unwillingness to collaborate and your ability to hold a grudge. I have a distinct feeling we shall be seeing you back at AN/I far sooner than 6 months and should that be the case, it will certainly not help you if you can be seen as retaliating for personal reasons. I am not here to grave dance Soham321. I actually was trying to explain how such an article would be perceived by the general community.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your views as i am to mine that you continue to bait and goad me (into saying something i will later regret) demonstrating yet again your incompetence when it comes to Dispute Resolution activities. Soham321 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you really do not care how much anyone attempts to help you. You will continue this at all cost. So be it. Be aware this is not what Wikipedia calls "Good faith" editing so...--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim, if you look on my talk page you will see that Soham themselves brought that AN/I discussion to my attention.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And i explained why i did so in the DRN discussion. Soham321 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the An/I discussion you mean. The DR/N was a different venue that took place before the AN/I discussion that you directed me to. And I think you may be defending yourself on that point for no reason. I am only explaining that you, yourself asked me to that discussion.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the ANI discussion, where you kept baiting me and goading me (to say something foolish) on this point; and also on my usage of the word 'punishment' as a kind of synonym for the 'temporary block' that you wanted to be placed on me. Soham321 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia these discussion are decided on the strength of the argument. I am a very vocal editor and I made my argument and believe it was done within policy and guidelines for consensus discussions. Your claim of baiting is rather obtuse.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Dispute Resolution Volunteer, my claim of baiting is spot on. You were clearly baiting when you kept quibbling with me in ANI about the word 'punishment' which i had used as a kind of synonym for the term 'temporary block'. Soham321 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Second use of same Ad hominem attack as below.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is nothing of the sort as i have explained below. Soham321 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know exactly what you are doing. I think I have taken up enough space here on Kim's Talk page trying to help guide you away from actions that will not end well, but I am quite sure you are traveling in a direction of no return. Good luck and happy editing.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 03:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same to you, and Good Luck in your Dispute Resolution activities. Soham321 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Is beginning to look like a hit list. Clearly this editor has no clue what they are doing and adding a list of editors to their page in this manner is very disturbing and concerning. It is not neutral in the slightest and I strongly object to this editor using their talk page in this manner.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One last thing, it appears Sitush made a very civil attempt to address this list to no avail as the Soham just deleted it immediately, which seems to indicate a lack of civility and some intention to prolong this situation.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tut tut. This is how Sitush's post began: Soham, I have tried to stay off your talk page but this is like watching a car crash. Soham321 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an Egyptian King and what are you tying to say there? It is indeed beginning to look like a car crash and you should expect rubber neckers.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep going. Don't let me stop you. Soham321 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not actually. This is a formal complaint to the Admin that adjudicated you topic ban.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to your bringing up the Egyptian king into the discussion. Was that also a part of the formal complaint? Soham321 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When the indent is below and to the right, it means it is a response to the last post.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what i wanted to tell you, Mr Dispute Resolution Volunteer. Soham321 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only refer to me by my user name. Such remarks are personal attacks per WP:WIAPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views".--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not seem to apply in your case. Calling someone an Admin or a DRN volunteer clearly does not constitute a personal attack. The rule you cite goes on to say " speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense" which clearly does not apply in your case. However, if Kim tells me that i should not call an Admin as Mr Admin or a DRN volunteer as Mr DRN Volunteer than i shall refrain. Soham321 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not "Mr. Dispute Resolution Volunteer". That was an Ad hominem attack.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 02:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand the meaning of the term. It would have been an ad hominem attack if i would have called you an 'Incompetent Dispute Resolution Volunteer' or 'Pathetic Dispute Resolution Volunteer'. Calling you 'Dispute Resolution Volunteer' is harmless. There is no personal attack or personal criticism in the term i used. It is like calling Kim an Admin. Soham321 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
It looks like I missed a lot of conflict on your page, Kim, but I just wanted to say that I saw your comment to Soham321 on his Talk Page titled "Topic ban" and I thought you handled passing along that message in a graceful and kind way. You ask for apologies for being "blunt" but I thought your language was direct, effective and caring. I haven't always had the most pleasant encounters with Admins so I like to applaud those who are no only competent but generous and thoughtful. It is truly laudatory! Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Liz, I see no point in rubbing salt in the wound when enacting a ban or block - much better to try and get the editor onside than antagonise them further. Glad you appreciated it! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot thank you enough for closing the Wolfe Tone Societies thread on the ANI noticeboard. The peace of mind I now have is wonderful. I was sick to my stomach when Psychonaut refused to accept the consensus and started lobbying again to get me banned. I even left a message for Cailil asking him to intervene. If I could send you a case of Scotch I would. Thank you, thank you, thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome SoS - I'm glad you feel better. BUT (yes there is a but...) please learn from this experience. You must change your way of working in relation to images and text which might be copyright. You are assuming that if you know or believe the copyright status to be OK, then you can upload an image with little or no proof. If you carry on in that way you will give your opponents the evidence that you have not, in fact, learned anything and next time the consensus for a topic ban will be much easier for them to get. My closure was not based on the fact that I thought you had done nothing wrong, copyright wise. On the contrary, you have been careless and ignored sound advice because you didn't like it. I closed the thread to give you a chance to prove that you now understand what you were doing wrong, and will not repeat the mistakes. Please take the opportunity! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
