Geni, greetings. FYI a simmering dispute is heating up between Jaakobou and PR. Take care. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Geni, greetings. FYI a simmering dispute is heating up between Jaakobou and PR. Take care. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:Jaakobou refused to play ball with your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HG/workshop/Clarify_Jenin_editing_battle clarify Jenin] page and the damage he causes to lots of different pages continues. He's recently been harrassing me on my TalkPage, but he does that constantly to all sorts of people, including admins. It would not surprise me atall if he's been following all my edits and trying to build a federal case against me. Geni has apparently puzzled over two of the edits I've made - but as far as I can tell they were entirely proper (well, one was a mistake, but I'd already lain down and accepted the kicking I got for it). [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It says that it came from the en Wikipedia. I thought that was sufficient to direct people to the history. If you know a better way, please fix the commons page to look the way you want it to. --SelketTalk05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I just noticed the other day the great work you did on the fromowner process. I had no idea such things were possible, but it got me to thinking. One of the biggest complaints I get is that the image upload process is too complicated. Do you know if any thought has been given to simplifying the whole thing? Special:Upload, rather than having lots of boxes to read and then a single licensing drop down with a kazillion choices, could have three links to choose from: (1) I am uploading a picture that I, personally, created. (2) I am uploading a picture that I found on a website. (3) I am uploading a picture that was made before 1923, is a work of the US government, or otherwise in the public domain. Each of those choices could then offer you something similar to MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner in terms of its simplicity. --BigDT23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what changes they are planning? How about, as an alternative, having the choices up at the top of Special:Upload, then saying, "or scroll down to use the advanced form"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, my hope was that the whole form would be a "trap form" kinda like we have the trap licenses now ... except that the trap form would explain in easy to understand language why what they are doing is counter tto our policies and ask them not to. The image backlog right now is untenable. The backlogs are steadily growing and on top of that, we have a record number of orphaned images again. My hope is that by having separate pages specifically geared towards what the person is trying to upload, we can stem the tide of some of the unusable images. --BigDT14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I fully agree ... I just want to have something to bring there first. ;) Once I put together the prototype (in userspace), I will bring it there and post messages on the WP:IUP and WP:FAIR talk pages. --BigDT19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were several suggestions for using the Wikipedia logo at Talk:Logo, mostly due to the incidental potential for endorsement. Being that the Wikipedia logo, while copyrighted, was being used in the context of a Wikimedia project, I did not think that it was such a big deal. Using the Debian logo has its caveats as well, and I think that using a free-use logo that is unaffiliated with a company or project would be more appropriate. I'll look for some alternatives, but for now I think that something like Image:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg would be more fitting than the Debian logo. ˉˉanetode╦╩20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. One thing though: Because of its natural small size, it looks pixelated now. Can you resize it a bit smaller, as it was in previous edits? Thanks again. Nightscream04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. It was obtained by User:Liaishard, who asserted that she found it at a Corey Clark website, and got permission for its use from its copyright owner. The original was uploaded by her; I just tried to re-upload it in order to remove the underscore from its filename, theorizing that that was what was causing the difficulty in formatting it into the Infobox (a theory that turned out to be false). Perhaps she could give greater insight into its origin, so maybe you should ask her. Nightscream07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doublepluspolicy
If you're doing this in conjunction with devs, Fromowner technically has the force of "policy" on-wiki (though you might want to avoid stepping on too many toes, else you'll have some fun times in later projects ;-) ). Also, if Fromowner were to be coordinated with the foundation, your actions once again would be policy-ish.
Can you provide links, attestations or further data for either? If so, I shall close the MFD.
Make that triple, if you can link to mailing list discussions (tangential or direct). Despite the oldness and signal-to-noise ratio, wikien-l can still form policy. --Kim Bruning13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an Admin?
If not, don't send me anymore admonitions. Thanks.
I see I'm not the only one who has been harangued by this Geni person.
Kwiatkowski image
What is your evidence that the publisher holds exclusive rights to that image? As you can see from this Kwiatkowski article published on LRC today, she has provided this image to LRC as a publicity shot. They've released it on her behalf under the GFDL. If you'd like me to send confirmation on this to the permissions folks (like I did for History of Money and Banking in the United States), I'd be happy to, but I've worked with them before on content released from LRC and Mises.org and I have a standing agreement from LvMI and LRC authorizing me to release content under the GFDL. I'd be happy to email the permissions folks from my mises.org email address to clarify this. :) DickClarkMises00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geni,
Nice looking page, but ran in to an issue, when using images in the MediaWiki space we should have a local copy uploaded and indef protected to prevent vandalism. I can't do this from where I am right now but should be able to in a day or two if it's still outstanding. Thanks, — xaosfluxTalk02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Geni. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ads.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Geni/archive 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
I also only see three reverts. Of course edit-warring can be blockable even absent a technical 3RR violation, but I don't see aggravating factors that would warrant a block in this case. Requesting comment from the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From 3RR: Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. Edit warring is edit warring. Considering you were reverting Jimbo, and didn't bother to find out his reasoning prior to reverting three times, I'd say that could be considered a wee tad disruptive. You could have discussed first, or even better, instead of, edit warring. KillerChihuahua?!?01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to do both at the same time [1][2] but ya I did go to talk first and only continued to revert when people ignored that. The issue that it is jimbo who attempted to introduce flawed policy without discussion should be of no consequence.Geni01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've poked ANI about this. Let's see what they have to say. -Pilotguyhold short
You don't think it might have been a good idea to do that before hand? Aparently that is what people object to in my case. In any case blocks are meant to be preventative and given my general wikipedia philosophy it would be extream unlikely I would go beyond 3 reverts (heh after all I was the main inforcer of that policy back in the day).Geni01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would unblock, which is not to say I endorse the approach you took to editing the article, but I seem to be in the minority camp thus far. Newyorkbrad01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may make a comment from the peanut gallery, my own opinion echoes that of Newyorkbrad's - I think a direct approach or an appeal might have been the better way to go. Also, to SWATjester, he didn't revert Mr. Wales' edits - he simply removed content added by him once previously and did not engage in an edit war with him; this is a wiki, after all, and people are certainly allowed to tweak pages gaillimhConas tá tú?01:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked you, based on a lack of consensus for the block. I would suggest you try and work with Jimbo, though, rather than just trying to exercise veto-by-revert. --Michael Snow02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG
User SFTVLGUY2 did NOT take the photo of Charles Nelson Reilly. I took that photo in November 2000 at Musso & Frank's Grill in Hollywood. I have no problem with releasing it into the public domain since it is a snapshot, but I made a correction on the JPG page correctly attributing the photo to myself. My name is Steve Schalchlin and I am an early Internet diarist, off-Broadway composer and longtime friend of Charles Nelson Reilly.
Image:forthenrymall.jpg
I took the picture in like 2005. later summer. I had borrowed a camera from a friend. I think it was a canon. It was taken in the parking lot along Fort Henry Drive. I will be getting some updated photo's. I have them now, and am working on them. They will be added soon.
Sorry dont know for sure the date, but it was around late summer 2005.
Thank you for messaging me on 29th-May-2007 regarding some links I placed on Wiki. Your message states that the links are may not be appropriate external links for Wiki.
I apologise if this update caused you any problems and would ask for your guidance as I believe that the links are valid and do meet the Wiki external links guidelines
I believe that these links are relevant and informative and meet the guidelines. I would ask that the Wiki editors review them, here are two examples:
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/marham
www.thelocalchannel.co.uk/alderholt
I was adding the links to official Town, Parish and Community Councils to Wiki articles providing information on the Town or Parish. These website are hosted by The Local Channel and provided free of any charge to the Council only after the Council has formally adopted the site and it becomes their Official Council site.
I chose to add these links myself as the administrators for the Council site tend not to be technical. Their sites use a very simple content management system that only requires word skills and not web or HTML skills. I know Wiki is not difficult to use but felt that this would be beyond some of the Council site administrators.
I checked carefully the Wiki link guidelines please see the notes in red that relate to the topic in your guidelines. Please can you let me know where I have infringed any rules as I can not at this time see any problems relating to the links posted.
Many thanks
What should be linked
1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
The links placed were to the official Parish, Town Council or Community council websites.
These sites contain a minimum of 20 pages of relevant information regarding the local community including the Local Council. This is only available from the council site.
Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The site contains Parish Council information that is not available anywhere else.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". These are the official council sites
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. The intention is to provide Wiki readers with a link to the official site and information unavailable anywhere else.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. The sites are free to the council and the reader. The reader has access to all of the Council sites hosted about 2698. Not all have the same level of content and therefore I chose only those with about 20 pages.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. A small amount of advertising that is relevant to the local area
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. No payment is required and anyone can see the entire site without the need to register.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. No restrictions of this nature exist on the site.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. This is not implemented on the site.
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. Does not apply in this case
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. This is a community based site providing local information it is completely different to those mentioned above.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Not applicable this site is an information portal.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Not linking to Wiki
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. These sites are directly related to the article as the site is an official Council site for the place the article is written about.
--DickieUK09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is somewhat similar to mine. —AldeBaer 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
BJAODN
Hi, as you know I closed the BJADODN discussion saying:
the proposal before this encyclopedia is to revive some material specifically chosen for its lack of encyclopedia signficance, and moreover material in conflict with the site license. As a community, we cannot do this without revoking the site license. If you want to do that, Wikipedia:Village pump is thataway, and jolly good luck to you.
You reverted the close, and that's not a problem. However, your reasoning , insofar as it is represented by the edit summary, troubles me. It says:
rv that is not a vaild closeure reason and you are too incolced in the debate to close
Firstly, could you explain why incompatibility with the site license is not a valid reason to discuss a request for undeletion?
Secondly, could you please explain how I am "too involved in the debate"? What debate? Who would you accept as a closer? --Tony Sidaway02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-2006; it was the same e-mail I sent to Raul for confirmation. It also grants usage of the other ones of his offices at Petroglyph. Zeality00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TARDIS.jpg
Flicker clearly shows the image as licsenced under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 not Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.Geni21:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently been edit warring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In fact you have four reverts (in about an hour, I might add), repeatedly removing the sentence "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." [3][4][5][6] You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR. On a policy page in particular, edit warring is unacceptable. Please use the talk page when things get heated, and read dispute resolution if you can't resolve it there. Dmcdevit·t21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
sigh.. Those are for the most part not reverts. They are edits to try and deal with the concerns of those who dissagree with me (obviouse since they refuse to debate this is tricky but I supose I should have had enough practice at that by now). As to dispute resolution well I would argue that this and this count although obviously there are limits to what can be done when the people who hold a different position do not take part
Decline reason:
Not following your reason for requesting to be unblocked Geni. Your reverted 4 times in 24 hours : Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, Revert 4. No one else reverted 4 time - SlimVirgin and Jossi are clearly within the rule so you don't appear to have been singled out unfairly. As a former admin you obviously are aware of the three revert rule. On what basis was the block unfair? WjBscribe23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed revert one create an entire new section. supposed revert 2 creates a new paragraph 3 is a revert but in responce to an entirely flawed argument (WP:V does no mention external links) and was backed up with comment on talk page). Supposed revet 4 isn't a revert that is my intial edit. So we would appear to have one revert total with 2 if you really streach the rule. SlimVirgin reverted twice dirrect 3 if you streach the rule.Geni23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts don't have to be identical - they all contained a common element - in all 4 instances your removed the words "These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." To quote the WP:3RR: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. " In all 4 case your undid the addition of those words making this a pretty clear breach of 3RR to my eyes... WjBscribe23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? At some point someone added that text - you undid their edit (in whole or part) and 3 subsequent restorations of that text... WjBscribe23:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes because classing every remove of a bit of text as a revert falls under the "mind boggeling extream bit of rule lawyering that even Abraham Thornton would be impressed by" category.Geni23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd - I thought your insistance that I name the precise editor who orginally added the text was one of the more extreme examples of rule lawyering I had come across... WjBscribe23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actualy that was an attempt to get you to realise the problem with your positon. For example you would consider this a revert thus pushing SlimVirgin up to 4 reverts in the last 24 hours.Geni00:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - its a rewrite - there doesn't seem to be a section of text she is removing or adding that she has removed or added 3 other times in the last 24 hours. In your case there is a clear progression. At some point someone adds the sentence in question. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. SlimVirgin restores it. You remove it. Jossi restores it. You remove it. Thats a pretty clear progression. I see nothing so clear cut in SlimVirgin's case. You could, and should, have stopped reverting while you discussed the change - it was after all you who wanted to change the page away from the status quo. On a policy page its rather expected that you gain a consensus to make changes (especially where the edit is disputed). WjBscribe00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So mine was a rewrite combiened with modification to bring it inline with practice while adressing concerns. Discussion requires more than one person to be involved. If the people reverting me will not discuss there isn't much I can do. Oh and you want clear removal there you go and remeber it is well established it does not have to be the same material being reverted.Geni00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No, the administrators' noticeboard is not dispute resolution, and the point is for you to discuss instead of reverting, not in addition to it. When it is clear that your edits to a policy page are contested, you should talk it out, not keep making them. It looks like the other editors are taking part in the discussion, so I'm not sure what you mean, but other editors' lack of discussion is never justification for edit warring of any parties in any case. Dmcdevit·t22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't reverting. Ok lets try basic maths. My second comment was at 20:08 after that despite finding time to revert me twice the people who have dissagree with me have still not responded to it (I note you have not blocked them despite their direct reverting. Obvious I have't delt with 3RR in a long time but I recall back in the day there was a requirement to treat both sides equaly). If we look at User:Jossi where is the debate? hmm all we have are arguments by assertions which is about as far from debate as we can get Slimvirgin's comments have much the same issue (combiened with an ad hom) and do not adress my points so no debate there either. As to the disspute resolution what would you have me do? RFC doesn't have a section. The Mediation Cabal is article based and it is a bit early for arbcom (who in any case do not make policy).Geni22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that edit warring is not excused by others' behavior, and is not justified by being "too early for arbcom" or MedCab being "article based". Please readWP:DR for some options, like soliciting third opinions and coming back to the article after cooling down. Dmcdevit·t22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rule lawyering? can do it that way if you want. You can only block me for edit waring if you can show I was severely disrupting the project (that is the section it falls under). I wasn't (the section of policy isn't exactly regularly inforced). I think I have demonstraited I did solicit third opinions. Thidly my comments on others actions was a critism of your actions more than a defence of mine (combiened with a debunking of your claim that they people with different views were debateing).Geni22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't asking for ruleslawyering. And yes, edit warring, which is nothing new for you, is disruptive. I am glad that you solicited third opinions, but you ought to do that not in combination with edit warring. Several rapidfire reverts in an hour is not conducive to the discussion you claim to have wanted. You could have even waited a whole day for comments from third parties. Dmcdevit·t23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people with a different position to me found time to revert me. It is not unreasonable to expect them to have time to comment no? Remeber I was chanageing my edits rather than blunt force reverting. I wasn't aware one was meant to wait before trying new things. Oh disruptive isn't good enough policy requires "severely disrupting the project".Geni23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must inquire as to what motivates image purging. Half the British Parliament, including Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and Northern Ireland Minister Alan Johnson, have had their pictures removed on the grounds that the images came from the BBC. Widescale deletion has also been applied to official pictures of state governors in the US. I ask you, if this continues, how are we to maintain the quality of imagery expected of an encyclopedia? --JesseBHolmes05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant to demonstrait that the policy has not been put together in a bottom up style by the community without ever demonstraiting wide popular support and that it will continue to exist regardless of any consensus against it. It makes no judgements as to wether or not this is a good thing. Something simular was talked about with regards to the EDP thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs)
Given that we would only be looking into a fairly limited set of defences (person is dead public figure and truth) it is not an unreasonable aproach. OR just say "care must be taken to avoid writeing things that could result in a civil judgement being issued against you"
Of course none of the things you list have anything to do with the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section which if it were legaly based would have to be based on right of publicity and certian rights due to minors (strangely neither the word minor nor child appear on that page which for something supposed to be legaly based is a little odd).
In short:
WP:BLP as worded is not simply forced upon us by legal issues. It has never been limted to stuff forced upon us by legal issues. Please stop trying to claim otherwise (and if you need a legal reason look into some of the wording of florida's laws with regards to giving legal advice).Geni18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take my comments to mean that I want to get into a length discussion on the merits of or reasoning behind WP:BLP. My comments are merely limited to the fact that {{policy2}} seemed like a bad idea which was poorly implemented. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you are not going to try and defend your position with regards to BLP being law based than that is simply your unbacked opinion.Geni18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't care. What I do care about is a whole new category of policy being cut from whole cloth, with no discussion other than a pet template applied to one single page, and with no explanation for what the criteria are for this whole new kind of policy. If you want to make a whole new kind of policy, fine. But don't do it like this.
This is also a really, really bad way to do this, on a technical level. It's trivially easy to do this as part of {{policy}} with parser functions, and that's why the old {{policy2}} was deleted. If you can drum up the support to separate the policy like this, we can do it the right way.
Hi Geni! Are u interested in Graphology? You seem to have made some contributin to the Graphology page. Because I am :) Why don't u put a couple of userboxes on your user-page so that people can know more about u. I am an utter newbie so please forgive me if I sound stupid. -- 125.21.164.25117:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC discussions have no weight as many people don't know it exists, don't know how to access it, or don't want to access it. As these changes seem to have no consensus on Wikipedia I'll continue to revert. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the change but no discussion seems to exist on Wikipedia where it has communuty support. I think it is inappropriate to have these gender stereotyping images in the first place apart from the fact they look ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles
Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canals
Yes, my contribution was prompted by the rather poor "History" section which jumps straight from ancient history to the 19th century, but I agree it now rather overlaps "features". But it's important to chronicle the technical developments which led to the explosion of canal building from 1760 onwards and also to emphasise the multi-national nature of this. What the section probably needs is some figures about the increase of canal building. So I'll try and dig those up.
I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
already exists filesize a bit bigger than I would like mind. The reason I haven't already put something like this in place is that I'd rather stick with specific ones and get wikiprojects to manage them.Geni02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically someone has set up a prefix dcc: to an external wiki and many of the subject links actually point to this wiki rather than other Wikipedia pages. I think all of this material should be in Wikipedia itself and am looking for advice on what to do. I have not been able to establish who actually owns this external wiki but they are asking for donations via PayPal so cannot have the same security of tenure as Wikipedia. Given your stated interests its similar to have someone set up a Narrow Boat wiki somewhere and are attempting to hijack all info into this just because they can.
However I do have a slight issue with Someguy0830 who removed many of the links to DCC Manufacturers from said site (akin to removing Narrow Boat Builders) which I disagree with. Again I would welcome your opinion on this. St1got19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template cleanup
It seems that at some point you created various templates in conjunction with a now-defunct policy. Would you have any objection to me deleting these orphaned templates (listed below)? Cheers. --MZMcBride02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, but it's not unusual to purge a whole history for an indef blocked user - it can always be restored later. Is there something you're looking for in the history? WilyD13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring those history versions I'm willing to restore, but to be perfectly frank, you're not going to get very much. There's just too much shit in there. If you want specific information, it'd probably be easier to just ask. You could look around for someone who's more willing to restore history, but I doubt you'll find anyone. I've shown more sympathy for Xavier than anyone else who's looked at it so far. Nonetheless, feel free. Cheers, WilyD14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but after looking over that archive, there's simply too much I can't restore to do anything viable. If you're interested in pieces, I may be able to provide them to you where appropriate. If you really want to contest it, feel free to take it to deletion review. WilyD16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Geni, you seem to know about the GFDL. If you have time, would you mind replying to this query? It's basically whether copying and pasting material from one WP article to another, without attributing the material to the Wikipedia editors who wrote it, is a GFDL violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:High contrastcopyright.png listed for deletion
Since we seem to be the only ones dicussing this specific case I thought I would continue the discussion here. To respond you your last post. Yes, if there is a non-copyvio version in the article it can be easy but not always. Example:
August 2006 Editor A added the copyvio.
Oktober 2006 Editor B greatly expands the article.
November 2006 Editor C tags the article as a copyvio.
,, ,, Editor D creates a temp article which includes the expansion but not the copyvio,
,, ,, Admin E comes along, deletes the history back to the last non-copyvio edit and merges the temp article with that.
It is, therefore I think our current copyvio procedure is not GFDL compliant. I guess step 4 could still be ok if for instance editor B only added new pharagraphs to the article which editor D copied to the temp article. But the result would still be the same. All mention of editor B is gone. Garion96(talk)18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article and the criticism section is much clearer and goes into greater detail. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ages of consent pages
Hi, Your additions are most welcome but you seem to have missed that I did not remove your additions to these pages. I've simply formatted them in the way that all the Ages of consent... pages are. Please see the orange box at the top of the talk pages. --Monotonehell15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello you've done it again. Please understand the formatting requirements of the Ages of consent in... pages as reached by consensus are a little different to the normal practice of using the ref tags and having a references section at the bottom. The reason is that these pages become very large, having the references to the law cited inline makes the page a lot tidier and much easier to read.
See the other more complete pages for examples; Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania or Ages of consent in Europe for example. The further requirement for citations to the actual laws is to satisfy verifiability. There are many pages on the Web that have age of consent information, over the years that we have been assembling the Ages of consent pages we have found that the vast majority of those are inaccurate and out of date. It's for this reason that we have settled on these high standards for citations to the law. --Monotonehell15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citeing primiary sources is kinda ify particularly where law is concerned. Also creates the problem that it completely ignores caselaw which will tend to result in errors in common law based juristictions.Geni15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I outlined above, citing legislation is vastly more accurate that relying on iffy sources. We've found Interpol to be completely wrong many times. Common law hasn't come into it as yet, most legislation is formed to take into account common law precedents or to negate it.--Monotonehell15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey in the indian example. A reading of the law would make you think 16 yes? Unless you knew that under 18 had parental consent issues. Throw in the amount of outdated law floating around the net and you are still going to have problems. Interpol generaly claims to be okey up to spring 2006. In the absense of adding something else removeing the citations is unhelpful. You are free to ask for futher citations but the loss of secondary sources is not good.Geni16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep for an example of similar situations see several of the jurisdictions on Ages of consent in Latin America. Brazil for example, where the general AOC is 14 but there's Espurto and parental approval issues. All I saying is have a read of the other Ages of consent in... pages and understand the formatting that we're using on these pages in order to keep everything consistent and verified. Again, I did not remove any of the references that you included, I formatted them to comply with the consistent system we have. Which, instead of having a singe references section at the bottom of the page, each jurisdiction is dealt with separately. It's done in this way to keep all the references for each jurisdiction together with their section. Otherwise the reference section becomes unwieldy.
There are various tricks availible for compressing the amount of space refences take up includeing the two collum method and the scrollbox method.Geni16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scroll box method is outlawed due to accessibility issues, and for similar reasons having a smaller font is not a good idea.
But this is not the issue. Have a look at Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania for an example of a page properly formatted in this scheme. The references system is reserved for tangential references to news services and similar. While citations to the law are made inline. Also any external documentation that is specific to a particular jurisdiction is placed with in that jurisdiction's section. It's done this way because we are considering the way which the average reader will use the Age of consent set of pages. Most people will only read their specific section of interest. So we try to keep all the pertinent information in each separate section as if each were its own mini-article. --Monotonehell16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you come to that conclusion? The citation needed templates are calling for a citation, not a particular method for dealing with them. If anyone is kind enough to provide a citation anywhere on Wikipedia, but doesn't include it in the "correct" manner, someone else will come along and reformat it. Just as I have done with your contributions. --Monotonehell17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for citations then start trying to inforce non standard citation requirements and convetions. Assume 50 countires per page 5 citations per country that gives you 250 citations. Manageable through normal methods. Much above 5 citations you move the section into a sub article.Geni18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again you miss the point. The inline citation method is not a non-standard method, it is one of the methods available under the Wikipedia Manual of style. The inline format was chosen for the 6 Ages of consent in... pages by consensus after lengthy discussion in order to make it easier for the casual reader to find the information they want (These 6 pages are subpages forked rom Age of consent by the way). Instead of a mess of references at the bottom of the page, we have direct citation to legislation inline, any additional reading relating specifically to a section directly beneath each section (as you would normally find "Further reading" and "See also" at the bottom of an article). And finally any actual references that are not direct citations to legislation in the normal "References" section. It's been like this for nearly two years and works well, it was decided by consensus, and it's not contrary to the MoS at all.
Got a question about something... like a lot of folks, my watchlist is getting on the long side (yes, I am pruning it). What I was hoping I could do was to split it into two different lists: the active pages and the less active ones. I see on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 you withdrew it saying: "User:Guettarda's workaround appears effective.". Can I ask what that workaround was? I'm wondering if it'll do what I have in mind... Tabercil15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not insert the outdated image again without discussion on the talk page. I understand that some think that this helps the article but it does not, IMO. In fact, the image is of "Native Africans" and is an old image from 1914. It is bad practice to insert information that is outdated and not fact. You nor I know for sure that those pictured represent "Negroid". If you think you know that, that is POV. Please see the talk page, and discuss your reasons for the need of the outdated image that may or not be related to "negroids". Thanks. - JeenyTalk05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
River Don Navigation
Why remove the external link to Pennine Waterways?
AFAICS, that site is a pretty comprehensive and authoritative site containing a good deal of further reading on the subject. Mayalld
Regarding your reply at User Talk:Mayalld#River Don Navigation I would disagree that the links have been spammed across many pages. Pennine Waterways has (at present), a far greater depth of coverage of the canals of northern England than Wikipedia does, and I would regard it as sufficiently authoritative to be used as a cite, let alone as an external link. Furthermore, this isn't a case of linking to the home page many times. Each link is deep linked to appropriate page on the site. Perhaps it would have been Better is User:Pennine had discussed adding the links on the project page to gain a consensus for doing so, but equally it would have been better to discuss removing the links, rather than going round reverting every change he makes. If User:Pennine is who I think he is, he would be a valuable addition to the project membership. Mayalld14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, each link is a different link to a good source of information on that subject. Yes, there are many links to the same site, but that is hardly surprising when the site in question covers a wide range of canal related subjects! Having decided to add one link to that site, it would seem eminently reasonable to add other links where the site provides additional information. I concede that he should have discussed it first, but if his actions in adding links without discussion were wrong, is your removal without discussion not also wrong? People sometimes do things the wrong way, and we should move on from where we are, rather than taking the stance that we will rip down anything that has been done, and only put it back once the proper process has been followed. Mayalld15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what was done as being anything that was described in the section on external link spamming on WP:SPAM, because he added DIFFERENT, and relevant, links to articles which added to those articles by providing a link to a more in depth source. Clearly you take a different view. In my opinion, the fact that it was NOT a clear cut case of link spamming means that it should have been discussed first. However, we are where we, and just as I think you were wrong to remove all those links without discussion, I would be wrong to put them back. I suggest that we take the discussion to the project page. Mayalld18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message for which I thank you -- I just don't know how to add the information you suggested to the pix so that it's acceptable -- how to do it? Mig 06:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Mentorship offer kindly received
Hi Geni - all previous offers of "Mentorship" for me have been torpedoed by a blizzard of accusations, complaints and even administrator actions against those who dare to deal with me in a collegiate manner. User:HG is just the latest to have buckled under (in his case) relatively mild pressure of "you're much too buddy buddy with PR" and other such accusations (HG doesn't like them refered to as attacks). Despite the mountain of aggressive accusations against me, there's only a single instance in 10 months and 1500 edits of me doing anything anyone has has bothered to quote and consider offensive, and the community is split on whether it amounts to a "legal threat". A plea of "not guilty" to the charge of "making a legal threat" evinced only an accusation that pleading "Not Guilty" made me an even more recalciturn offender.
Having said all of which, and without knowing anything about you whatsoever, I'd be delighted to have you as my "Mentor". All it requires from you is to examine this evidence page and express your opinion on whether I'm indeed working to improve articles. (Be prepared for even more bitter flack as I attempt to carry out further urgently needed edits detailed at this page).
I'm sorry to be operating as a single purpose account for this topic - extensive (robust) discussion finally proved that my doing this is to WP:policy after all. I've virtually stopped operating my regular account (the one I used to add a whole bunch of other material I was interested in). Doubtless when things calm down I'll return to regular editing and this onerous duty you've volunteered for can be laid aside and buried. PalestineRemembered23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it is possible to make such a judgement based on a single page. You are making an effort to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS but the one sidedness suggests you need to consider Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. One condition of my taking the role of mentorship is that as far as possible past events on Wikipedia are left in the past. Is this acceptable.Geni00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a wiser person than me (but that's not a big hurdle to clear!) I'm sorry my "list of suggested edits" appeared one-sided, but it included just the edits I fear would be most resisted on "non-legitimate" grounds, since I don't think there's much doubt about the evidence I've presented. (I say that - no effort has been made to dispute what I'm claiming, so there could be small details wrong). I provide it as evidence that I don't edit-war. I've attempted to insert some of those edits and been knocked back, in other cases I've not even attempted to make the edits, despite my conviction that the evidence is excellent and the events belong in the article.
Events of the past will indeed be left behind. It will less easy to forget some editing patterns .... repeated efforts have been made to conflate the Washington Times (owned by the Moonies and operated to save the world) with the Washington Post (an RS, the only kind of thing we should be using in articles, at least for "surprising" claims). Sources such as CAMERA are not simply partisan, but widely distrusted, and there was an RfC rejecting them as an RS. And yet, "facts" from these very dubious sources continue to be vigorously shoe-horned into articles, while much better (even "official") RS material is ruthlessly excised.
"Writing for the enemy" is an excellent idea, I've requested it some 4 times to 3 different people over the "Kurdi Bear" interview (see my list again). Nobody's (yet) requested it of me. If I can harp back on previous events for a moment, my requests for this "collaborative assistance" led only to accusations I was trying to operate meat-puppets. If you're to be my mentor, it's important you know that various subtle and not-so-subtle pressures will be applied to you ..... if you think I'm trying to bully you now, be aware that I'm a pussy-cat compared with some of the other players on this field! PalestineRemembered08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: PR mentorship
I don't really know you, and I was against the idea of involuntary mentorship for PR from the beginning, because I don't think he's done anything nearly serious enough to warrant it. This being said, you seem like a fair-minded and capable person and I certainly wouldn't object to your stepping in. Eleland12:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not big on mentorship as a concept. If you can make it useful, great. If it has no effect, my expectations will be met. I have no objection to you being the mentor. Good luck. GRBerry02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. As I have no experience with you, I can't hold any opinion either way, though I would be thrilled if you could ultimately effect a change. I would have been more comfortable with someone like an administrator, who is already confirmed by the community as having the proper skills, but I suppose it is worth another go to get PR in line with WP norms... TewfikTalk19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seemn like a reasonable editor, and I support your effort. Also, Palestine Remembered seems overall like a fairly reasonable person, despite our differences of opinion. --Steve, Sm890021:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Hussam_Abdo#The_YouTube_video
Non english sources are allowed on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for why this has to be the case) however translation issues being what they are I would suggest choseing some random people from Category:User_he-N to provide an opinion on the translation. At the same time it should be made very clear that what the source is so the phraseing should be along the lines of "TV station X reported that whatever".Genisock219:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to make of this ... the WP page you reference is not even a guide-line (I don't think?). Are you telling me it trumps WP core policy verifiability?
I'll take your word that it is possible to get translations of minor languages (7 million speakers of this one worldwide?) - but only if you can point me to a quick and hassle-free way to do it eg - I'd very much like to know what goes on at the articles referenced here (entered with this diff). The articles in question are these: [7], [8] and [9]. The contents are clearly very important, since relevant discussions at this TalkPage are being archived in as little as 4.5 days, barely before they're completed - but the diff I've given you above is from June, over 90 days ago. PalestineRemembered18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disturbing that anyone thinks they can link to a foreign-language video, that has an English translation, and tell us the English version is wrong according to another translation, in a different language, to which we (as I understand it) do not have access! And then boast of what a good editor they are in consequence.
I'm very happy you should be sampling my contributions and picking me up on anything I do that may be over-robust, down-right rude, lacking in logical consistency or laced with terminological inexactitudes. However, in this case (assuming I've picked up all the details correctly) we have an editor who is simply driving a coach and horses through WP:Policy. My protests at this behaviour may be lacking in subtlety - but all other protests are being ignored too. PalestineRemembered20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only bothered with this article because a recent entry to Talk was held up as proof that it's originator was a "good editor". Do you want an AfD on whether an article on this kid has any business in the encyclopedia? PalestineRemembered21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
terrorism-info.org.il not worth getting translated.
We're supposed to be on a voyage of discovery, charting a course to a workable system of "Mentorship" for editors with problematical patterns of behaviour. (This is a process that's never worked before and isn't really expected to work this time). Your challenge is doubly difficult because you've got absolutely no material to work on - nobody has come to you and said "this", "this", "this", and "this" are in breach of WP policy - or even just generally disruptive of the project. Then, just to make things really absurdly difficult, 95% of the people I'm editing with have only "content dispute" type problems with my edits anyway, they spend 0% of their time fending off any issues they have with my "behaviour". Do you wish you'd not offered yourself?
However, to try and kick this thing off again, tell me what you think of this edit, removing both the reference to "Jenin Massacre" (3 times more popular than "Battle of Jenin" according to the hated Google Test) and the personal testimony of the bulldozer driver. These removals look a lot like a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" and nothing else - what do you think? Being a pussy-cat, I refuse to go in there and simply reinsert these two excellent pieces of information. PalestineRemembered21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I've taken your advice and made the edit with the summary "Alternative names are always shown, especially in cases like this, where the Hated Google Test shows the alternative name to be 3 times more popular than the article name we're using." - I trust you approve!
I'm absolutely convinced that the other clip belongs in there, diff the interview with the bulldozer driver - or see the whole interview and tell me what you think. Note - Jaakobou, Kyaa and Tewfik have all confirmed it's genuine, but they seem to have a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT over including it. I think it's highly pertinent to the whole event. How about you? Note that I'm only using a quite small part of it, but there's no question of my distorting it's significance. PalestineRemembered21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - as soon as I posted you the above I discovered I'm being accused of "edit-warring" over use of the word "massacre" - but you weren't to know how very sensitive people can be! PalestineRemembered22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who gush-shalom.org are so I can't really comment. Idealy the name should be the two english names (don't try and cover geographical area without a cite so drop first world and middle east claim) and the arabic and hebrew names.Geni22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why we need non-English in articles in en-WP. In fact, that's one of the practises that is excluding editors/being abused to exclude editors (and hence damaging articles). Our previous discussions didn't exactly fill me with confidence that translations were easy to come by (certainly not into minority languages, it's bad enough getting them out!). PalestineRemembered22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is generaly useful to know what those involved in conflicts call the thing. Anyway that is a long term aim not something we need worry about in the short term.Geni22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an already heated environment I've made two edits you might consider inflammatory or worse ..... please check [10] and [[11]. If you think I should strike them out (or part of them out) then I'm perfectly prepared to do so. The first of these edits is actually me disagreeing with someone who considered becoming my "Mentor". (Although this is 7 or so days after I backed out from accepting him as such). You might think that the dignity of the process requires me to be ultra-careful in this context.
(What do you think of my new sig - do you think it will help reduce some of the really serious harrassment I've had in the past?). PRtalk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. You'll see I'm again being harrassed on my TalkPage on the basis that contacting you is a sign of a guilty conscience. I'm not the first or major victim by any means, much worse has happened elsewhere. I may have offered you some examples, I'll not risk doing so again. Question - would it be inflammatory of me to revert it with the summary "Remove nonsense"? That's almost as strong as I've ever dared to say in the past. PRtalk(New Sig for PalestineRemembered) 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something else - is there any objection to my disagreeing with the community and posting my support to an editor who has suffered sanctions for (I think) being angry and making a nuisance of himself over policy? PRtalk07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Jenin
It is important to describe as exactly as posible what the sources say and who is saying it thus I would suggest something along the following lines
On 29 March Israel began Operation Defensive Shield. In giving his reasons for the action Ariel Sharon listed 3 suicide bombings.[12] A briefing released by the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed the scale of attacks by the palatines combined with the lack of cooperation on the part of Yasser Arafat made the operation necessary.[13]Geni01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you drew together the two sources and accurately reported what they said. It is depressing that so much time has been wasted by involved editors who have failed to grasp some of the most basic policies of the project. On a similar topic, can you suggest how I could overcome blind and ungrammatical reverts like this one, apparently suggesting it's one of the least serious problems in the article? PRtalk11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News - the consensus reached (and underlined by yourself above) that "three suicide bombings" was Israel's reasoning for attacking Jenin has again been removed. And the "also known as" Jenin Massacre has been removed, despited it apparently being 3 times more popular (even in the English-speaking world) than "Battle of Jenin". The latter gets 13,400 hits by the Hated Google Test, and the former 30,900, over 3 times as many. PRtalk06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News - The section you created at the Battle of Jenin TalkPage has today been interfered with and turned into a near invisible sub-section. This action was part of a sequence, in which this and this archiving took place, with some comments less than 2 weeks old being summararily disappeared. This AN/I was raised on this exact subject less than 2 weeks ago, it is clear that some editors (involved and uninvolved) take serious objection to it. I'm informing you of this in case you think that normal rules apply. PRtalk08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADSITES
I would suggest staying well away from this. Even I'm not crazy enough to get seriously involved. As for Deir Yassin massacre disscuss on talk page.Geni19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. For example here. Google search suggest the guy was anti-zionist so you had better have some very good refs to back the claim that he was pro.Geni23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple mistake, I confused Glubb with Wingate (famous for the Chindit Campaign against the Japanese - he'd earlier 1939 been sacked from Palestine by the British for siding with the Zionists in direct opposition to British policy).
This mistake of mine (possibly the first I've made in a year and several thousand edits?) was reverted and I have coweringly apologised to the person who spotted it. Shame, because the rest of my edit is good (more detail if you want it) - but I'm much too frightened to try and improve the article now I've slipped up once.
Presently, you will start to wonder why someone already so intimidated needs watching, and why such a trivial allegation (so easily and quickly sorted and closed over 36 hours ago) was ever passed to you. If you were to examine my record in depth, you'd see I've persistently suffered really nasty and aggressive accusations over references (refs in particular, though many other things too). And yet, I'm exceptionally good and careful about references, and have been so right from my first days in the project. In an attempt to justify these allegations, all my contributions have been (and are) exhaustively and aggressively scrutinised and challenged - see my highly credible rebuttal of that particular set of 3.
That set of 3 are only the 2nd documented charge of abusing references that's ever been made against me, coming after 10 months of my participation. (The first documented charge was utterly false, as proved in great detail, though I was virtually blocked for 6 weeks over it, and forced to send a photograph of myself with the book in question to a neutral party). The editor in this second case can only find three "questionable" uses of references by me - and to do that, he's had to go right back to the beginning of my participation (that's where the first two edits come from). Even back when I was a newby, my edits were good, containing highly credible, "unsurprising" and relevant information. The references I used in those two early cases should be perfectly adequate to purpose (and likely RS to policy even for much more "surprising" claims). The third reference *is* RS, since it's a link to a satellite photograph (from a research source we should probably be using a lot, but mysteriously upsets some editors, perhaps because of the ethnicity of those who run it).
These persistent claims that "PR cheats over references" are not only untrue, they're often from people who really do insert unsuitable references. This one (Glubb/Wingate) probably comes from people who have successfully edit-warred the reference "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" into the article Battle of Jenin. That very article from CAMERA contains such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'", so it's completely unsuitable to be used in the encyclopedia anyway (and would be utterly unacceptable due to separate accusations that it practises serious distortion, amounting to lies). The same people who successfully edit-warred over that nasty link then try and make out that my three good sources (one was a big group of US service men, one a big group of Israeli service-men and one a link to a photograph) have no place in the enyclopedia? How do they have the brass neck to do this? May I use a Hebrew word for their boldness, or will that lead immediately to even nastier accusations?
I'm very pleased to have you as my "Mentor" - after all, one day I might make a really serious mistake (eg use the word "chutzpah", thereby causing immense offense) and have to grovel to you to be allowed to stay on board. But you'll not find a lot of meat in the reports you're being peppered with at the moment. PRtalk09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reference? Everyone the slightest bit interested knows that Kiryat Gat was built in the "Faluja pocket" and al-Faluja was "emptied" not "abandoned", exactly as I've said. I have the reference I used (Morris), though there is no particular reason I should have, this story is well known and easily found on the web. The article had been stable until there was a puzzling attempt to exclude the details of this atrocity (these details particularily valuable, because they're the most detailed international eye-witness accounts of the Nakba that we have). See this, it's clear that nobody doubts my claim it happened as described. And nobody seriously doubts that Kiryat Gat is the same place as Faluja/Iraq al-Manshiyya, (though Kiryat Gat was actually built on the less famous second of these villages and the satellite picture shows that some of the ruins of Faluja have not yet been covered by Kiryat Gat). There is very aggressive partisanship going on in this article, as in so many others - but the aggression does not come from me - as both these examples prove! PRtalk09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou refused to play ball with your clarify Jenin page and the damage he causes to lots of different pages continues. He's recently been harrassing me on my TalkPage, but he does that constantly to all sorts of people, including admins. It would not surprise me atall if he's been following all my edits and trying to build a federal case against me. Geni has apparently puzzled over two of the edits I've made - but as far as I can tell they were entirely proper (well, one was a mistake, but I'd already lain down and accepted the kicking I got for it). PRtalk22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is under discussion and pending consensus. It is completely inappropriate to revert until a consensus is reached. If you continue edit warring, I will make a report to WP:AIV. Ward300102:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus prior to the current discussion (and before the page was protected, and then unprotected) for the image to be available only if clicked "Show." That is the latest consensus until the current discussion. This is typical for you: You think you make the rules, and everyone else must follow. I repeat: Do not start an edit war. Ward300102:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed the page closely for many months, and I know it's status prior to the current debate. The following warning has little meaning now because your edit warring resulted in a page protection, but I'll leave the warning anyway because you deserve it:
Geni, let them have their hidden image. You are a strong debater, I'd love to have you in my corner in a fight, but I don't think this is worth it. First time I went to the page I clicked the link to the image. It was no inconvenience, I then read about the test, and went to that site that shows them all. There is no problem here worth fighting about. There are more important issues that need your attention. MarkAnthonyBoyle23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two images you uploaded
Hey Geni. I came across two image you uploaded while looking through Category:Public domain images: Image:PDGeorge Harrison.jpg and Image:PDRingoStarr.jpg. The source image has been deleted at Commons (see deletion log) as the image was, unfortunately, not in the public domain.
.svg)
-2007-05-15T02:30:00.000Z-Image:Ads.jpg){kind=link}
