|
Welcome to my Talk Page
I am retired, so if you're looking to contact me, please use the box over there --->
|
Contact info
|
|
So long and thanks for all the fish
Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shell babelfish 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
Hi, is their anyway I can view this deleted image: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:C18Digihadcomparisen.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks. User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately no, the software will only allow admins to see deleted images. Shell babelfish 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request that this not be handled by mediation, the material has been moved to Talk:Jewish lobby for discussion. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Perhaps given the number of warnings and blocks you have for edit warring or being disruptive over trying to force changes to an article, this would be a good time to take a step back and consider that the community is trying to tell you that its not acceptable to behave this way while editing Wikipedia."
Ok, then what else am I to do? On the article Banu Qurayza, I went through discussion - a lot of discussion. No use. I went through mediation (you were the mediator). It was closed. On a particular issue, I called an RfC and went to WP:RSN, and I got consensus on both locations. But the user refuses to respect it.
If discussion doesn't work, mediation doesn't work, RfC doesn't work, the tell me what am I to do when a user removes 15% of the article that is sourced to 11 different scholars, all reliable?Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then you need to say that. What you said was "this user is following me around" which doesn't communicate the fact that you believe he is violating consensus established by neutral parties in more than one place. I haven't reviewed all the discussion in the links you provided yet, but if you believe there is a consensus and a single user is reverting, opening a user WP:RFC is probably your next step - or, since this has already gone through mediation attempts, you may want to take the issues to arbitration where the committee can look at everyone involved in the situation and decide if some restrictions on their behavior would help resolve these problems.
- Give me a bit to look further into the links you provided, and let me know if you have any other evidence of what is going on so I can look over that too and I'll see if there's any more specific help I can give you. Shell babelfish 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've looked into the issues a bit further. I would say that I don't see a clear consensus is anything you provided - you have several people for, several against and two editors who agree that the sources are reliable. Please understand that it is possible to have reliable sources and still not state things in a way that is acceptable to everyone. You need to work out a compromise with other editors, or at least find a wording that more editors deem acceptable. In reviewing the discussion, I blocked Str1977 for 24 hours for gross incivility. I'll see if there is anything more I can do to help informally resolve the dispute that's still active on the article. Shell babelfish 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shell, there is consensus for atleast one of my edit. Itaqallah, Aminz, and Nick Graves agree with its addition. Str1977 doesn't. Briangotts doesn't agree on a different issue (relating to the Deuteronomy). He was mislead in believing that the RfC was about the Deuteronomy issue([1]). From the mediation Jedi Master Mk also agreed with the inclusion. And yes, you correctly noted that two comments at WP:RSN considered the sources reliable. Other than Str1977 there is no user that opposed its inclusion.Bless sins (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I have been drawn to this page, let me state that BS's statement above is false:
- "Briangotts doesn't agree on a different issue (relating to the Deuteronomy). He was mislead in believing that the RfC was about the Deuteronomy issue ... Other than Str1977 there is no user that opposed its inclusion.
- It is true that I informed Brian about the RfC and that, in my message, i confounded two issues I had in mind, the Deuteronomy issue and the BQ chose issue. I later realised my mistake and corrected it. BS's claim that Brian was misled into disagreeing is bogus as per Brian's comment here. BS has read this comment too but he choses to ignore it so that he can cast me as the lone opponent. Another editor, Jayjg, has also expressed his disagreement on my talk page but he has chosen not to get involved.
- I hope, Shell, that despite all our quarrels you will see how this behaviour also contributes to the volatile situation on the BQ talk page.
- Str1977 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Bless Sins is not always correct in his statements, which is why I originally responded on the Admin noticeboard and asked him to stop edit warring. And, as you've pointed out on the talk page, I did make it clear that I don't believe he has a clear consensus on that or really any of the other issues -- some more discussion is needed to work out a compromise. Shell babelfish 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Only on the article talk page he still pretends to have consensus. Str1977 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell Kinney, the main section of the article on Frederick Crews is currently titled, 'Publications, work, research and criticism.' Would it be OK for me to change this to something shorter and more concise, say, 'life' or 'work', or is there a reason why that would be illegitimate and get me banned? Also, I'd like to add the date of publication for The Pooh Perplex to the bibliography; is that OK or not OK? Skoojal (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You made it abundantly clear via your now deleted user page that the only reason you edited the article benignly was to build up until you could intentionally put in biased and defamatory text. As such, you are not welcome to edit the Crews article ever again, even to make spelling corrections. The only reason you were given a second chance and not banned from Wikipedia for this behavior was because you appear to be able to contribute productively elsewhere. If it turns out that you are planning on acting the same way on other articles, its very likely that you will be banned all together. Wikipedia does try to take being an encyclopedia rather seriously, so its just not going to be an appropriate place to vent your feelings. Shell babelfish 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, whatever you say. This new stance of yours does seem to contradict what you said in the past, which was that I should ask before making changes, implying that I wasn't banned from making changes of any kind. Unclarity on this point does not exactly help matters. If I may say so, what I wrote on my user page about minor changes wasn't intended to suggest that they were only a way of building up to inserting controversial stuff; they're always worth making in their own right. Skoojal (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Skoojal asked me to comment on this, and I did so on my talk page.DGG (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be more clear, I had asked Skoojal to be very careful with his edits before having seen his user page (please see the deleted revisions). He chronicled his work on the article over time and stated that he intentionally built up a Wikipedia account and made careful but escalating edits to the article with the explicit intention of being able to add defamatory material. Given that information, I see no reason that he needs to edit the article, even to make non-controversial edits. Shell babelfish 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though its been said on the talk page, I wanted to make sure that you understood that continuing to attack other editors and behave in an incivil manner will lead to additional blocks. I know that you feel very strongly about the subject, but there must be a way to discuss your concerns without being rude. If you are so sincerely frustrated working on the article that you don't feel you can discuss it without making personal comments about other editors, then I would suggest that you might want to consider Arbitration, the last step in the dispute resolution process. Shell babelfish 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also feel very strongly about what I feel is these harassing comments on your part. Since my unblock I have not engaged in personal attacks . I now tempers are flaring at that article (but not only mine) and I feel wrongly singled out by you. Str1977 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. I will do the best I can. However, I want to note that all these are not personal attacks. Maybe not helping the discussion but also not attacks. If they were, BS accusations against me for "censorship" "deleting x % of the article", "removing x scholars" would be too as they do not address actual content issues but my editing behaviour.
- And I must say that it is frustrating if my questions are never answered. Devotus ignores my questions completely and BS responds but leaves out many substantial things contained in my postings. You should also tell him off for this behaviour which contributes a lot to the volatile situation. Str1977 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Realizing that accusations of "censorship" were impolite, I've stopped using them.Bless sins (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how Str1977 feels. Arguing with Bless sins is indeed pointless; his responses are usually non sequitur, but he keeps reverting, and reverting, and reverting until he gets his way or is outreverted by an overwhelming majority of editors. This experience is the main reason why I stopped editing the article where their dispute is occurring. Beit Or 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, it sounds like it may have been appropriate to try opening a request for comment on this behavior. Shell babelfish 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics_Guaranty_LLC&curid=3922553&diff=218330681&oldid=215557580 Lates vandalism. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the only thing this IP has done for months is insert this POV junk, I've blocked it for an extended period of time. Shell babelfish 12:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or does the Qurayza talk page have an orange notice that says
On date this article was reduced to a simplified, "bare bones" version so that it may be completely rewritten to ensure it meets the policies of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Standard Wikipedia policies will apply to its rewriting—which will eventually be open to all editors—and will be strictly enforced. The article has been placed under a level of semi-protection temporarily during the rebuilding of this article.
Any insertion of material directly from pre-protection revisions of the article will be removed, as will any material added to the article that is not properly sourced. The associated talk page(s) were also cleared on the same date.
Administrators may not override this policy without approval from someone from the Office. No editor may remove this notice.
What does this mean? I haven't seen anything of its like on wikipedia before. Is there a policy in relation to this?Bless sins (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed it. When you reset your indents, you used a template {{reset}} that put that orange notice in. Hope that helps. Shell babelfish 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh... thanks. I though it was regarding the article itself.Bless sins (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?
Thanks for your efforts, Shell. I am hopeful this time. Str1977 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I was to naive in my hope. Can you also comment on both versions? Str1977 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Shell, now it seems the tables have turned completely: I have posted a version that included all major views on the chosing of Sad as arbitrator and now it is BS that wants to remove scholars and harmonise the accounts. Could you weigh in please? Str1977 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, am I the only one forbidden from edit-warring? Isn't Str1977 just as guilty as me? Secondly, I was removing the links to [answering-islam.org]. Maybe you should take a look at that website for yourself and see the type of content is posts. Some would even consider it as hate material towards Islam. 03:24, 13 June 2008 Bless sins (talk)
- As far as I can tell, Str1977 stopped edit warring when I asked him to and has since been trying to work out a compromise. Secondly, yes, I know what that link is, however, as it has been said numerous times on the talk page, we are not using it as a source, just as a convenience link to see another source online. Unless you have a compelling reason not to link to the source, edit warring to try to take it out isn't appropriate. Try discussing. Shell babelfish 03:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I disagree. In the past couple of days, Str1977 reverted me here, here, here, and here. Infact, every revert of mine is followed by a revert of Str1977. As the article currently stands, it is Str1977's version, all my changes have been compromised.Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an even more recent example: I made several edits trying to work with Str1977's version, and not re-inserting my version. Str1977 responded by reverting every single one of my edits,[2], a blanket revert in other words. And not only that, Shell, Str1977 re-introduced some minor errors (with regards to grammar and punctuation).
- Shell you said "[reversion] should only be used in cases of vandalism or other things that need to be removed immediately like BLP violations." Were my edits that Str1977 reverted vandalism or BLP?
- I think it should be clear now, that I'm not the only person edit-warring.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I will talk with him about it, but that still does not make what you're doing right. Please stop edit warring, period. Shell babelfish 07:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Shell, for the advice. I did not revert BS lightly but when he is simply removing longstanding links (Muir was there before and now suddenly the link is removed - the link is not to a-i in general but to one chapter in Muir's book), or when he is, as in his last edit, presenting an opinion (one of three main views) as fact and pushing his preferred opinion into the first spot (instead of Watt, the highly respected scholar and author of the Banu Kurayza article in the renowned EoI).
- If my version contains grammar mistake, please correct them or tell me about it. It certainly is not riddled with such. Str1977 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "RfC arbitrator" section is quite large, and is continuously growing. I have twice tried to make breaks in the section for easy navigation. On both occasions, I've been reverted [3][4] without explanation. The second time I created a break, I asked Str1977 to not revert me, but he neither responded to my request, nor abided by it. This isn't the first time Str1977 has reverted me on the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have mentioned this and his article revert today on the talk page. I have also notified Str1977 of the applicable arbitration case which can lead to restrictions if the disruption continues. Shell babelfish 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, doesn't that arbitration case only apply to Israel/Palestine articles? If so, I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance of "Banu Qurayza" to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Can you explain?Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll take a moment to look at the case here, it was decided that the area of conflict should apply broadly to "the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict" which I believe Banu Qurayza and the Battle of the Trench would both fall in to. Shell babelfish 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with BS on this. Just because this about a group of Jews in conflict with Muslims doesn't make it a Palestine-Israel article.
- Furthermore, I don't think how this whole posting helps in any way. Is this supposed to be a veiled threat.
- I consider my revert of BS completely justified, even necessary. After all he conciously included something as fact that is not even an undisputed opinion. While I know where he got the idea that Watt says this (which still doesn't make it undisputed), I have no clue where he got the idea that "we" had agreed about this. Nonetheless, he claimed so in his edit summary.
- In reaction, you posted this notice on my and his talk page. I must say that I consider this sort of suggesting equivalence uncalled for and unhelpful (as comfortable as it might be for you).
- Str1977 (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I wonder how it is possibly that I and BS can be retroactively be inserted into an ArbCom case neither of us had any part in. Where can I raise my concerns about the apropriateness of the action? Str1977 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I agree with BS on this." I never objected to being added. But I was quite surprised by it. In anyway, the notice says that I (and Str1977) may be blocked for making disruptive edits. We should not be making disruptive edits anyways, regardless of whether we are warned.Bless sins (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BS, it was I that voiced agreement with you. That is: with what you wrote above. That doesn't mean that you do or must agree with me.
- I do indeed object to being added to such a blacklist.
- Disruptive edits we ought not to make. But we do not need a blacklist for this. And the problem is of course edits that are not disruptive are apparently seen as such. Str1977 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't wish to pursue this any further. But if there's any information or changes, Shell, I'd like it if you could notify me.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to dispute your inclusion (and btw, the case specifically allows editors to be added to restrictions as needed, even those not part of the case) you may want to bring it up on the WP:AE noticeboard. However, if, as you say, disruptive editing is not a problem, then there should be little room for concern. Shell babelfish 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you explain this? Beit Or 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I ddin't read the section above. Maybe you should actually read what Arab-Israeli conflict is all about? Beit Or 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make things clear, do you think 1066 Granada massacre is also covered by the same arbitration? If so, why? And if not, why not? Beit Or 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you aren't one of the parties that was warned, can I ask what your interest is in this case? I believe that the arbitration left a great deal of latitude for what types of articles fell under its jurisdiction and its an attempt, in general, to relieve tensions at some of these more controversial articles. The working group that was formed out of the same arbitration has produced a number of good ideas at resolving disputes in this area and these types of restrictions are becoming more generally accepted when there are continued problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks surrounding a dispute. As for the article you specifically asked about, I am unfamiliar with its topic and therefore would not be able to give a thoughtful answer on its status. Shell babelfish 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
