User talk:Rí Lughaid

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Club de l'Horloge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to French

Murtagh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Irish

Polygamy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gaelic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

MacArthur

When someone searches for "MacArhur" they'll end up at the disambig page, they won't automatically end up at Clan Arthur. That means a hatnote to the disambig page isn't used at the top of Clan Arthur - they aren't going to mistakenly get to that page when searching for something else.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

This account is indefinitely blocked, not forever, just until discussions can occur. The problem is sneaky vandalism. The account has damaged multiple articles by altering the meaning of well-referenced sections. It appears that the account is pushing an anti-Semitic world view. This is not at all an acceptable use of Wikipedia. I suspect that the account may be a sock puppet of a banned user as well. This block is preventative: to stop further damage to articles until the matter is sorted out. Do not unblock until the discussions have concluded. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a discussion at WP:ANI. Please post a statement here, and somebody will copy it there. Please identify any past Wikipedia accounts you have used. Were you ever blocked or banned via another account? Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

None of my edits are vandalism, period, "sneaky" or otherwise I altered the prose text of an article called MRAP (NGO) to tone down the glorification of the subject, which presents its political opinion as if it were fact, using "heroic" language like "the struggle against". I was reverted by User:RolandR who openly claims to be a Marxist and then stalked around by User:Canuckian89. The French Wikipedia article in no way glorifies the subject with such a bias presentation as this one. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I sometimes edit with an IP here and on the French, but I made this account instead. Why am I blocked because a self-proclaimed (RolandR) Marxist didn't like my edit? Is neutrality "anti-semitism"? Rí Lughaid (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I will provide a better explanation later today. Sorry for the delay that is unavoidable due to real life. If you demonstrate an understanding of the problems and agree not to repeat them, I might be able to unblock you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How long will this take? Rí Lughaid (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see the problem with edits like these: [1][2][3][4][5]. These edits and others create an appearance that you are here to spread neo-fascist, racist or antisemitic propaganda. Until you provide an assurance that you won't repeat this sort of editing in the future, this account will remain de-activated. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please specifically cite, with quotations from articles, the offending passages? The words which you have quoted at me are largely emotive politicised epithets, are not all articles on Wikipedia to be neutral by policy? For instance the article MRAP (NGO) takes the position of the French Communist Party and is strongly anti-French in bias, since it states every rhetorical flourish from this organisation as if it were gospel. All topics are supposed to be neutral correct, you do not have to be a socialist to edit Wikipedia? Rí Lughaid (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. This is the wrong place to right great wrongs. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One instance for example, you cited above Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery, this claims in the introduction, without any qualification, that Victorian society was "anti-semitic"? I do not see how it could be a violation of any policy to fix this to a more neutral presentation by adding the word "percieved". This is simply an innocent edit of an article. It deals with the subject of Jews, yes, but is it legitimate for somebody to just open up Wikipedia, claim a whole society as "anti-semitic" or "racist" as if it were a matter of a fact and that is that, nobody can ever touch it or at least nuance such a spectacual claim on a Wikipedia article? Rí Lughaid (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited say that it was an antisemitic society. Per WP:WEASEL we don't hedge with words like "perceived", especially when that's not what the sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then in such a case, would it be leigitimate to instead type in the prose, what her son described as a "casually antisemitic" society, since he is the source of the claim, it is his opinion? It just seems questionable to me, when vast and contentious partisan concepts are just passed off as a matter of fact. I understand that in the case of a major change, adding a new idea, you need a new reference, but mainly above, I was simply toning down/nuance the politically bias rhetoric of the prose itself. Rí Lughaid (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is I cannot distinguish your editing from that of numerous editors who have been banned. What topics are you interested in editing? Maybe we can agree on you keeping away from certain sensitive topics at least until you have more experience. I'd be much more comfortable if you avoided Jewish and nationalistic issues. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand the gate keeping aspect. Am I missing an elephant in the room? Is there an unspoken rule on the English Wikipedia that articles about European society and politics, especially on anything associated with Jews or communism, must be skewered against the Europeans? It seems bizzare, the French and other language Wikipedias doesn't have such a partisan approach. Is it an American specific discourse? My interests are somewhat broad, I mostly tackle nobility and artisocratic genealogy issues, medieval and classical civilisation, but European culture generally. Rí Lughaid (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor here, it is not a good idea to go around re-balancing lots of controversial articles that were the result of careful editing and discussion. Either you are lacking the skills and experience to maintain Wikipedia's content policies, or else you are purposefully trying to use Wikipedia as part of a culture war. Either way, the risk of damage to articles is too great to let you continue with that activity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the articles I edited have no talk discussion on the issues at all. Would it be more agreeable if, when tackling such issues of prose and bias language in the content, I raised the issue on the talk first before editing it... or even message you on it, until I get more experience? Rí Lughaid (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best for you to avoid contentious edits. If you want to expand an article, go ahead and add to it, but I think you should not alter the neutrality (or non-neutrality as you may perceive it) of articles written by more experienced editors without first raising the issue on the talk page, seeing what other people say, and making sure that changes reflect a consensus view. So, I'm unblocking you for now, but please don't just go back to doing the same thing. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should know that Jehochman's position is not the official one, there is no such a policy.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And you are right, many articles have strong Jewish bias, especially those about the history of Israel. Most of them cite the old testament as a reliable source and describe elements of Jewish religion as if they were facts. That would not be acceptable anywhere else.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)