You have just reverted my edits on RSS. I had removed the POV and un referenced claims to make the article more balanced. Can you specify your reasons on the discussion page. Let us work together to make this article more informative and less POV.Sindhian (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hekmatyar and attacks on women's faces
There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for this Dear Relata refero, can you tell us more about the references to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and attacks on women, i.e. where you found them? Is it from a subscription database, or available to the general public? sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you still GA reviewing this article? This article has been placed on hold for almost a month. miranda 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
- The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
- Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially
stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero, this kind of commentary is not helpful. If you believe that the Muhammad al-Durrah article is in poor shape, then please edit it into better shape, or make constructive suggestions on the talkpage. But just complaining about "conspiracy theorists" is not going to help improve the article. Also, this comment was personally targeted at another editor, and again has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. Please try to adopt a more constructive and civil tone at the talkpage. I am not saying stay away, but I am saying that I think you can be much more effective, if you actually make specific suggestions, such as "This needs to be removed" or "This isn't a reliable source" or "I think this section needs to be expanded". Or even better, just go ahead and edit the article. As long as you stick to the Conditions for editing, you are welcome to make direct changes. --Elonka 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is directly helpful: it excludes the possibility that an artificial consensus can be claimed, of the sort that was claimed earlier.
- I have already made it clear that your unilaterally imposed conditions for editing are absolutely inappropriate for this particular venue and this sort of problem, and they have led to a deterioration in quality. If you at the point where you are putting the phrase "conspiracy theories" in scare quotes and objecting to the use of the term, may I say that perhaps you too need to take a step back? It is clear your intervention has been unhelpful.
- If you think this is either uncivil or unrelated to the editing of the article, you have an absurdly broad definition of the former and narrow definition of the latter.
- Thank you for your permission to edit the article. I would rather stay away till mechanisms are in place that reduce rather than promote fringe-iness, thanks, as I believe I have already made amply clear. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you would like to simply avoid the article for a certain period of time, that is totally your call. However, if you resume with uncivil commentary that is not directly focused towards constructive changes to the article, be aware that you could risk being placed under further restrictions, including a possible ban from the talkpage. For now, I again encourage and invite you to participate, both at the talkpage, and/or by editing the article. The choice is really yours: (1) Open participation in a civil and constructive manner; (2) Stay away; or (3) Be formally notified of ArbCom sanctions, with possible further restrictions being placed on your participation. --Elonka 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, Elonka, the choice is yours, and you've made quite the wrong one. Given the attitude you display above, and the somewhat strange reading of my participation, I think you should be left to "mediate" between SPAs. Once again: your participation and your inappropriately designed "editing restrictions" are directly responsible for the article getting worse. I suggest you back away. Keeping uninvolved editors from trimming nationalist fringe-cruft from articles is exactly the opposite of what the ArbCom sanctions you are threatening to misapply are supposed to do. Ask Moreschi for tips. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and the next time you wish to wander over to accuse me of incivility, please frame it with reference to Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility so I am certain what you mean, and you are certain that you are getting it right. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, I could be reading this thread completely wrong, but it looks like you are threatening Relata (and in a threatening tone) with sanctions over incivility when the posts you're referencing don't evidence any incivility. What am I missing? This doesn't appear to be the best way to promote neutrality in article writing. (Relata, I really stopped by to ask if you can add an update at RCC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- This edit is uncivil. I would also point out that standard practice on Wikipedia is to comment on the content, not on the contributors. This particular article, Muhammad al-Durrah, within the topic area of the Palestinian-Israeli disputes, has been severely disrupted over the last several months, and multiple requests were made for an uninvolved administrator to help de-escalate the situation. I have taken on that task, and as part of it, I placed Conditions for editing on the talkpage. Over the last week, the dispute has calmed way down, and most of the editors on that page are having no trouble complying with the editing restrictions. Any editors that do not comply, or act in any way which I feel is trying to "stir things up" rather than "calm things down", may be asked to leave the page. If Relata wishes to abide by the editing restrictions and participate in a civil and constructive manner, then Relata is welcome to continue participating. If not, then Relata is going to be asked to leave. --Elonka 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see in that diff only comment on content, so you must be reading something I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Elonka, I don't believe you're listening to what I say, which is a bad sign. Please note I "left the page" the moment I realised that your restrictions were inappropriately designed, which I explained at length at the time, giving reasons arising from my considerable experience with fringe and conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. If the page has quietened down, that's because most of the people concerned about the fringe aspects have, in fact, left as I have. I'm not sure congratulations are really in order. Again, attempting to topic-ban the uninvolved editors and treating the SPAs with tenderness is not what ArbCom had in mind when administrators were given this power. And saying the article is worse is not, and I hope never will be, considered uncivil.
- I believe this discussion is closed. Any future posts to Talk:Durrah while these counter-productive restrictions are in force will be, as before, only to register objections to the state of the article if required, in order that the previous claim of artificial consensus is not repeated. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration - my topic ban was in response to my removal of this extremely obvious BLP violation, a highly POV statement which is sourced to a pirate copy of an undated video clip uploaded and subtitled by an unknown person on a video sharing website. As you know WP:BLP mandates that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The same policy mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" - and by extension the same would apply to a 0RR imposed by another administrator. So as you can see, I've been quite literally topic-banned for upholding WP:BLP. This is not a very satisfactory situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- ChrisO, your page ban (not a topic ban) had nothing to do with BLP, it had to do with edit-warring. You were repeatedly reverting other editors. I told you to stop, you didn't, so you were page-banned for a week. Please stop misrepresenting things, it is not an encouraging sign. --Elonka 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, it was a page ban; but may I offer a correction of my own? The ban was for thirty days, not a week (you're thinking of the talk page, not the article). Also, please see your own talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral formulations at RSS article
Hi. I've witnessed quite a lot at wikipedia, but i think the following passage at the RSS article would qualify for the Wikipedia NPOV Awards; "RSS objects to the fact that Communist parties like CPI(M) and other minority political fronts are controlled by other countries and are therefore inherently subversive and treacherous." :) --Soman (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
who am I
Hello, dear sock, you've been found out once again: this time, Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) is acting the part of Sherlock. dab (𒁳) 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Award this account a barnstar too while your at it. Trips (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, dear puppetmaster, how come I didn't get a barnstar? I'm hurt.
- Nambiar, try not to make an ass of yourself, please. Its patently obvious that dab and I have different specialisations. And Rudra and I have spent ages disagreeing over this and that. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't use all three accounts to force an edit or point of view. Trips (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
3RR on Dissent from Darwin
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WLU (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
One more revert to Dissent and you'll be reported for a three revert violation and I'm sure you are aware that that is a blockable offense. Several contributors have reverted your changes, and you are the only editor who is in danger of breaking the 3RR, suggesting that there is no consensus for your changes. Please discuss on the talk page. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Templating the regulars is an absolutely brilliant idea! Thanks for your constructive contribution to the conversation. Have a nice day! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't like you left him a lot of choice, since you refuse to explain your edits. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Or perhaps he didn't care to wait? As you didn't, either? Its the pile-on aspect of ID articles that really concerns me. The constant edit conflicts are murder on my elderly Firefox.--Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)How does the article violate WP:LEAD? Where was it "extensively criticised"? Please make your case on the talk page - your cryptic edit summaries are not helpful. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "It" is the petition. I think there are ample sources indicating it was extensively criticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments at the talkpage, please, where I am sure I will contribute extensively if it actually looks like I'm making a difference. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's quicker than manual typing; one would expect regulars to not need 3RR warnings, hence my assumption that you were not familiar, hence the impersonal warning. WLU (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Faulty reasoning on several grounds. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- As you like. I've given you something more personal instead. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oooo, thanks. A vast improvement, and don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Relata. My problem with the article now is that there are few notable critiques and those there are are ludicrously overused. Barbara Forrest is clearly a notable critic, but a brief para making one point (Forrest and Branch "Wedging Creationism") is referred to five times in the article. Brian Alters is also fine, but all we have from him is a brief comment at second hand in a newsletter to 99.9% of scientists believing in evolution. He didn't do a survey and mean 99.9% rather than 99.8%. He meant "all, as near as dammit". Stephen Jay Gould must be turning in his grave if he can see that some WP editors are confusing this sort of rant with a defence of science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
hi. have a look at the CPI(M) article. Hkelkar seems to have a new fan, who is readding the Hkelkar edits of jan 08. --Soman (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Relata, there's a request now for statements on the talk page - see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. Given your previous useful comments on this issue, I'm sure a statement from you would be both useful and appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. Most of the editors that participated in the recent polls were invited to participate in the most recent, but as far as I can see you were not. Your opinion should still be heard. The editor who opened the new poll said this to the other participants. "This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk)". Regards Wotapalaver (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- PS. The poll closed 36 hours ago. The result was move to Great Famine (Ireland). I posted friendly notice to everybody who took part in this poll (you didn't) on June 18, but Wotapalaver apparently "didn't have time" to pass it on until just now. Confused? I sure am! Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not to pursue this but you make your own conclusions
Thanks for your compliments. I expressed my opinion on the matter elsewhere and I won't waste time to rewrite it here. The wildest thing here is that I did not even back Kuban over whose revert war Folantin got his block but he was pissed of so much that he switched the direction and unleashed an attack on me of the intensity I have not seen for a long time and it rages still.  
The record of my only past interaction with Folantin can be found here. Please read this thread and the thread that follows and make up your own mind.
I am not inclined to pursue anything with Folantin at this point since he seems too off-rails now to pursue any reasonable discussion. I still do not know what is Moreschi's problem after this since he chose not to respond, back himself up or apologize. They threaten an ArbCom. I wish them luck in that. Thank you again and sorry for your being pulled into this. I usually ignore such obvious nonsense but Folantin's campaign was so massive that he managed to somewhat pierce my thick skin.If you'd rather not comment, feel free to do so. --Irpen 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, this is rather sad. As I said, I've seen all of you trying at various points, and in difficult places, to enforce our core policies judiciously and carefully, so this blow-up is particularly pointless. Well, Moreschi has a temper, and I'm sure he regrets whatever he said now, regardless. If an ArbCom case is filed, I'm sure he'll try and present everything fairly. I will keep an eye on it as well, don't worry. (And one that focuses only on editors rather than the entire attitude surrounding the articles will, in my opinion, fall into the same trap that has plagued so many ineffective ArbComs on the subject.) It will be a bit of a pain, but I'm sure that Moreschi will revisit his assumptions once he's actually looked into the issue. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, Moreschi's assumptions and opinions interest me very little. Firstly, after his cowardly talking nonsense behind my back at the secret forum and refusal to either apologize on stand up to it like a man, I have very little regard to this person (you may disagree with my feeling very firmly about that but it is very difficult to judge this from outside not being the one insulted so deeply.) Additionally, since he does not edit anywhere near I edit (I never met him in article's space, not sure what he does) and he is not that active in crucial wiki-political matters to concern me either, I frankly do not care much. If he wants to make peace for his own reasons or because he feels awkward for what he said, the ball is in his court.
As for Folantin, this is a different story. I had exactly one interaction with him previously, and it was in the History of Russia FAR. I think it was a reasonable discussion. After that I noticed him at Moreschi's talk (that I watch listed probably because of Moreschi's run for ArbCom) making outright insulting remarks about Miyokan. What bothered me was that he did not just accuse Miyokan in POV-pushing. I have no doubt that Miyokan is a stronly pro-Russian editor with biases that are clear from his edits. What I found unacceptable was that Folantin baselessly accused Miyokan in xenophobia. You may have noticed a lot of recent bru-ha-ha about editors accusing other editors in racism over a White Pride thing. Personally, I share the view that White Pride stuff is racist and should be kept off wikipedia. But if you followed the discussions, you saw how strongly this community feels about casting the accusations of hate views, even if such accusations are justified. Nationalist or not, Miyokan never made any edits that would allow to accuse him of being a xenophobe. And when I saw this conversation behind his back when Folantin throws this stuff on him and Moreschi not reprimanding him, I said right there that this is not an appropriate conversation.
Now, there is this new incident which was initially simply about edit-warring.Folantin edit warred with Kuban kazak and the admin who handled the conflict chose to block them both over 3RR. I said it on record that there were better ways to handle this than blocks since both editors discussed at the talk rather than rabidly reverting each other. So, protection and warning to editors to take it to talk would have been the best action. But, as I also said, both tripped a 3RR wire and blocking of them both was clearly within policy. I also said that even ublocking Folantin but not unblocking Kuban was within the discretion of the admin who made these choices. Anyway, here is what I said. Compare it to Folantin's response as well as the rest of the thread, as well as his undeterred campaign continued to the multitude of other pages. I really don't understand these calls that say that we "both" should do this and not do that. I was neither involved nor supported his opponent. --Irpen 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- How the sorry saga began. It all goes back to the History of Russia FA Review when I made the following two observations, which I think are quite obvious and unobjectionable ones regarding a general article on Russian history (and somewhat humorous in the case of Ivan the Terrible's "reforming the morals of the clergy"). However, they aroused the wrath of an Ivan the Terrible fan called Ben-Velvel. Much toing and froing ensued editing the article until I had enough of his Ivan fanboy and anti-Polish obsessions and his penchant for using 19th century sources in Russian  as references. As you can see, Irpen then defended him and the use of said sources and it's all been downhill between us from there. --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's just ridiculous, Folantin. But I welcome anyone to actually click at your links and see for themselves. --Irpen 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I welcome that too from any impartial observer. --Folantin (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- "What I found unacceptable was that Folantin baselessly accused Miyokan in xenophobia". This was after Miyokan had accused me of being a Georgian for raising some objections to his Russia FA . --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- So, he called you a Georgian. I think invoking ethnic aspersions of any kind is bad taste even when not using ethnic slurs. He was wrong in both your not being a Georgian and (even if you were) invoking the subject of ethnicities in the first place. But where is xenophobia in that? He called you a Georgian. You called me a Russian. You went even further as to unleashed an attack on a whole bunch of Russian editors. Should I have called you a xenophobe, Folantin? You really make yourself look ridiculous in this whole matter and even more so in your self-righteous rage. --Irpen 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, after reading all of this, and the discussions lying behind them, and looking around at the history, I admit to groaning a bit more. I'm not posting this at WP:DRAMA (though I might link it), but I'd say its worthwhile to just put it down anyway.
Here's the problem:
To the content first, since unfortunately I prefer discussions about dead tyrants to living editors: That there was a bit of UNDUEing is almost certainly correct- Ivan IV is AFAIK closely associated in most texts with the oprichnina (didn't he sulk somewhere till he received "requests" to form it?). The "clergy's morals" bit, well, I see Folantin's point. However, it is a matter of record that Ivan did in fact curtail the judicial powers of monasteries, as well as their material possessions - which were much grumbled-about at the time. There are parallels with the attitude of that other bloodthirsty "reformer", (and Ivan's near-contemporary) Henry VIII. When one thinks about how impossible it would be to summarise H8's attitude to the church in one sentence, one sees the source of the problem. Of course, the additional complication is that official Soviet/Russian history - and mainstream small-m marxist historians in the rest of the world - would see a lot of his policies as zakonomernyi in the case of the former, and as driven by underlying economo-historical forces in the case of the latter, where another set of historians would strongly disagree.
About Soloviev etc., I think I agree with Folantin that he should be avoided as far as possible. I would imagine that Irpen agrees as well, actually: I see his argument as more nuanced than merely saying that 19th C historians are acceptable, but that in some cases we can quote them cautiously, as we would primary sources per WP:PSTS. I'd also say I. is right in that overstating Mikoyan's POV-pushing as xenophobia is dangerous; if someone complained about it to me, Folantin, I'd have been pissed as hell too, but I'd have avoided the argument if poss., and tried to imagine the complainant was doing it to defuse the situation. (Perhaps better done off-wiki, but I don't hold with that in general.) Conversely, there are a bunch of people from various EE countries that'd love to be nasty all over "other countries'" WP articles, but that in itself doesn't mean they're xenophobes; national supremacism is milder than that.
Chechnya is tougher. I would probably have gone with being very surprised that it was not mentioned. However, it is certainly true that people writing from within a culture tend to have different perspectives on the level of due weight about these things, because of the greater variety of information to which they are exposed. In this case I would ask for some form of careful studying of other brief sketches of post-Soviet Russian history: what weightage do they provide? (I'd suggest to anyone interested that they look at the manner in which User:Fowler&fowler handles these problems.) Alternatively, the method I usually use is to ask for references that actually themselves discuss the weight of issue X. The very centrality or marginality of Chechnya in discourse about Russia will have been discussed in RSes.
About FAs, I am afraid I have come around to Folantin's views that on larger subjects they are written by "enthusiasts" and inevitably have problems. FAs on more "targeted" subjects, such as most of Cla68's, are not subject to this problem. (Nor is crushing by elephant, which remains my favourite.)
About the latest case, I really do think that Folantin over-reacted. F, if you read Irpen's original contribution to the discussion when you're cooler, you'll hopefully see what I mean. (You would probably have not reacted the way you did if you knew Irpen's history with the blocking admin at the beginning either, which I'd judge was the real reason he commented.) OTOH, Irpen, this is a classic case where perhaps you needn't have commented, as, whatever you said, Folantin wouldn't have been able to assume good faith given s/he already believes that you tend to provide material comfort to POV-pushers - something I know would offend you, as it is behaviour that you and I have discussed in the past, and that we have agreed that lies at the root of flareups in ethnic hotspots on WP.
I'm not going to claim that its all personalities and you two (and CM) are unlikely to disagree about actual content about several things. (I think I can put my finger on why, incidentally - and its nothing to do with ethnicities - but that's a story for another day. I personally would split the difference on those issues, if it helps.) What is needed is for both of you to either assume good faith, or to accept someone else's judgment that you're both pretty decent editors who should just be studiously careful around each other. Assuming the worst of faith about each of you for a moment (not that I think any of what I am about to say is based on correct premises, but it might help): Irpen, there are many people more powerful and several times more likely to badmouth you randomly than Folantin or CM; Folantin, there are many worse enablers of POV-pushers than Irpen.
Finally, CM, if you're reading this: open an ArbCom if you wish, but one focused on "pro-Russian" editors alone would be ridiculous. I have been dragged into EE issues perhaps five times from various noticeboards (aside from the one article where, insh'allah, I will outlast the wild-eyed POV-pushers if I have to live to be a hundred and log on from my deathbed) and if my personal, uninvolved opinion is worth anything, its not a problem limited to one lot. (The central created narratives of the 21st century are those of historical victimhood, after all.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- It took me a long time for me to finally lose my rag with Irpen but I could find no other reason for his support for those two particular editors (BV and Miyokan). Sorry. As I said: "Actually the more I think about this, the more I'm riled at you, Irpen. I used to have respect for you as an editor but now I see exactly why ArbCom pulled you up for violation of AGF. I attempt to maintain a modicum of neutrality and I get attacked in xenophobic terms by two Russian nationalist editors who are hardly the jewels in Wikipedia's crown. You naturally jump to the defence of your compatriots (or fellow Russophones). This is another problem with the nationalist gang warfare round here: even the half-decent editors will stick up for the rotten apples if they're on the right side". I think that's a fair observation of Wikipedia reality. He also materialised on Moreschi's talk page out of nowhere to defend Miyokan (after the latter had accused me of being a "Georgian" - read the rest of the link for the implications), which was rather odd. This is why I wondered why he had turned up at ANI yesterday.--Folantin (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to be sticking my nose everywhere lately.
- It seems to me like a question of sensibilities and sensitivities. I think Folantin has clarified by now that he's not saying that birds of a feather sticking together is a mob. He's not blaming Irpen for recognizing the E. European rivalries and looking out for the Russian editors who are getting clobbered. That's good, because everyone needs a defender, even the worst of us, and everyone needs a friend, even the least pleasant of us.
- In a sourcing fight (surprise), Folantin was irrationally attacked. Irpen didn't work to ameliorate that situation, and it looked like he was turning a blind eye, that he was excusing a thug. Then, though, Folantin said that a Russophile was xenophobic, and Irpen took that as a grave insult. Both of these "insults" are questions of culture and psychology, I think. Because there are Russians who are xenophobes (neo-Stalinists and neo-Nazis), Irpen thought that was the worst, and because Folantin was being scholarly and dispassionate, he thought being accused of being some petty nationalist mouthpiece was an attack on intellect, impartiality, and good sense.
- Both have a right to feel offended.
- The thing is, you guys are on the same side and taking shots at one another. It would be impossible for Folantin to know all the good Irpen has done in trying to dull the knives of the Russophiliac gang, nor to have noted all the places he has called them out for their pettiness. It would be impossible for Irpen to have known all the insults Folantin has endured for taking a stance, and a legitimate one, on a clear point, nor how really aggravating it is, nor how easy it is to see all those who do not speak in one's defense as speaking in one's attack.
- I can't say "walk away, both, please." Instead, I would rather recommend that the two of you correspond more. I feel that both of you are in agreement in objectives, both want NPOV articles, both despise these little fights. I would suggest that both of you ignore this bit (get the rag back) and just plain talk to each other about other things more.
- That's it for my avuncular sermon. Geogre (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly prepared to bury the hatchet with Irpen. I can't promise never to disagree with him again intellectually, but I am quite happy to take this off the personal level. Let's wipe the slate clean as far as mutual accusations of bad faith go. One of the keys to solving the problems which have led us here today is to remove the "bad apple" editors more efficiently. I note that user "Log in Log out", who was insistently calling for my head, has now been banned as a sock puppet of the notorious User:M.V.E.i.. So some good has come of this. I also note that Irpen removed said user's anti-Ukrainian rant as "trolling" . All credit it to him for that. And I've just remembered one occasion when Irpen and I (and Moreschi) were in perfect agreement  ;). --Folantin. (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I've withdrawn my remarks about you (I'm addressing Irpen here, of course) on ANI and my talk page. If you find any that I've missed please tell me and I will remove them. --Folantin (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You have my gratitude, Folantin. I'm sure that Irpen feels the same way about the future. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The same admin who blocked me for 3RR has just done the same to Dbachmann  (48 hours!). --Folantin (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK. He's unblocked. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- He's been the subject of so many bad blocks by now, I fear he's used to it... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. As I've said elsewhere we can probably "cut the admin a bit of slack because apparently s/he's the only one who regularly bothers with 3RR. It's another system failure. Where are most of the other admins hiding?" --Folantin (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- BTW I'm a "he" in case you were wondering. Nom de plume from the title character of this book. My life isn't so glum though! Although on Wiki, I sometimes agree with his observation "he realised... the sterility of all enthusiasm and all effort". --Folantin (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I had a terrible lunch today, so I understand how Jean F. feels.... The interesting thing about wiki is that something where you are edited mercilessly is in some senses meant to be a futile effort. That's what I tell myself regularly, at any rate, when some carefully parsed sentence is hacked in two, or a perfectly proportioned article suddenly sprouts an enormous "Recent Controversies" section. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)That's quite right. At some times of the day in particular, AN3 is even more deserted than normal. A few months ago, I made a systematic study of it and found that an enormous fraction of reports were dealt with by a small number of overworked admins. I even thanked one, and s/he was worryingly grateful - it seems a literally thankless task. And on the other hand, there's evidence at a (I think still current) ArbCom case that there are those with the sysop bit who use AN3 only to rapidly respond to complaints filed by ideological allies. Not cricket. I guess the answer to "where are the other admins hiding" is that they're waiting to be called in by their friends.... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata refero,
You gave me some advise (which didn't really apply at the time) back here , specifically you said "Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference." I replied pointing out that an extremly small number of the links to the site I run were put there by me, in fact most were put there by well known wikipedia editors and were entirely noncontrovertial for over 2 years.
Anyway, it's now been suggested that I go and discuss and then reinstate the links to my site that were mass deleted in a bit of vandalism by one user. This is going to take me significant time (based on the discussion, including points you raised, they should never have been deleted), but more significantly... this will mean I now AM the one adding the links. Exactly what you recommended against. What do you think about this? Is this OK? Do they really need to be addressed edit by edit? Time has lapsed while I tried to deal with this, so revert or roll back isn't an option. The discussion I've been having with another admin about it is here: 
Just really after your thoughts before doing anything as you made a lot of sense before.
Oboler (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I very much appreciate them. Second of all, I'm wondering if you might be able to expand, in the interests of my own edification, on your "one or two minor quibbles". If you'd rather never discuss anything related to the Allegations of Apartheid article again, of course, that is also very understandable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I tried
 Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition to explain to me why I will be blocked, please explain why you have consistently removed anything I have edited into the Nehru page. Nehu was not a classical liberal, and his poor economic policy was not properly accounted to due to the lack of comparability and metrics. As a relatively good English student, I also fail to see the bad grammar. Where is this edit explanation I am prompted for each time you revert me. Trips (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please also explain on what grounds were my edits to history of Hinduism worthy of being reverted. Trips (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- This edit inserted material into a living bio that was not supported by a reliable source. Continuing to do so risks being blocked under the WP:BLP policy. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
/facepalm. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PRtalk 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Relato refero. I just happened to see some of your edits to article:Zakir Naik (after having unknowingly deleted/edited some of them myself). Some of the points raised (like the usage of honorifics, Arabic etc. for example) seem viable to me, and I feel they do need some consideration. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Relata, are you sure about the Hindu chauvinist label? The BJP, which is a prominent part of the Sangh Parivar, has governed India (the world's most populous democracy and all that) several times, most recently from 1998 to 2004 or thereabouts; and while the BJP is certainly nationalist, and perhaps accurately described as "Hindu fundamentalist", I am not entirely comfortable with the "chauvinist" label from an NPOV point of view. For example, I very much doubt that this would be the average characterisation of the Sangh Parivar within the Indian media, which is of some relevance here, given that WP:EN is also the Indian WP. Any thoughts? Jayen466 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:
Cheers, Jayen466 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Hindu nationalist" is also OK; I think that we can go with the various parallel descriptions in the lead: "It has been variously described by academics as Hindu nationalist, Hindu fundamentalist and Hindu chauvinist", for example. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a go along those lines, see what you think. Cheers, Jayen466 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to you. Yes, it could use some rewriting, but all the content I think is needed is there, maybe too much. Maybe some balance from somebody who knows a bit about econ is needed. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, reading the talk-page on NSS, I see that you back in February suggested that the article had too few reliable academic sources, and too much dependence on financial journalism. To me that seems to be a correct observation. You also wrote that you were going to rewrite the article "shortly",..but it doesn´t look as if you got around to that? The article is in a rather poor state, would you like to make a second attempt? I hope the urge of certain admins to block anybody who touches it is gone, and that we can "lure" some more regular editors from the Business and Economics sections to the page. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero, nothing has been pointed out on FRINGE that is actionable or a violation of NPOV policy. Discussion has taken place. The majority of editors (7 at last count) stated this was not an issue with FRINGE. Consensus was achieved that this is not FRINGE. His argument was to remove the entire economics section, which would clearly violate NPOV on the other side. I only left the tag due to my NPOV objections to the suggestions. At this time, there is no specific NPOV policy issue and no action to take. If you have an issue, please state the specific issue that is in violation of NPOV policy and we can work through it (which doesn't need the tag mind you... it states it as a last resort on the page). The article has been heavily reviewed by many experienced editors (several from outside the country). I find that the issues brought up are mainly due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy or a lack of understanding of the research. Although I don't see the topic or the area as fringe, let me state that FRINGE (see Parity of sources) nor WP:V require peer-review material (although much of this was published at the universities for peer-review). Morphh (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I should also note that I took several actions in regard to the discussed points (focusing on the main areas of contention). However, there is only so much that can be done while maintaining policy. Morphh (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am seriously thinking about trimming the controversies section in the aforementioned article. I invite you join the discussion.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I need some serious help at the Ramakrishna article. Two editors have decided that the scholarship of the last 40 years should be rejected in favor of one hundred year-old sources that the Ramakrishna religious organization finds more amenable. Please see my contributions. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Relata refero, It has been over a week since you had replied on the Mangalore FAC. It may be possible you may have lost track of your replies on FAc's. That's why, I thought I should inform you. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This is simply outrageous. Your repeated, unilateral removing of the neutrality tag while rejecting any attempt at discussion or consensus is unacceptable. Moderation on this article has already been opened; I strongly suggest you participate. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are already excellent points made by an IP on the talkpage, which you have not replied to. Further, you have not replied to repeated requests to explain why adding things that you think are relevant to the conspiracy theory is an activity not ruled by our core policies on original research. Till you do that, the material will continue to be removed. I see no reason for mediation at this time. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Bajrang Dal is not on any reputable list of terrorist groups. In your DNA link the only time terror came up was in the phrase "Islamic terror". In your other source, the word "terrorism" is not mentioned. Your edit colors the Bajrang Dal with a hue that doesn't fit them. Militant, regressive, kook, fundamentalist are all reliably documented descriptions of the BD, but terrorist is not. Oh and thank you for the help on categories, I will get that sorted out soon.Pectoretalk 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, OK, but do you think surreptitious bomb-making really needs a giant sign saying "here be terrorists"? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- If its not defined by reputable commentators as terrorism, theres really nothing to say is there? Its a bit suspicious if sources like "People's Democracy", "Indian Muslims" and "milli Gazette" are the only "news sources" calling it terrorism. Also the reliable sources were careful in labelling it "RSS sympathizer" and that the involvement of the Bajrang Dal was not definite. Certainly, if they continue on this path of kookery, we will soon have that section on wikipedia.Pectoretalk 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You were correct http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/niall-ferguson-home-truths-about-famine-war-and-genocide-482314.html He did say this. I did not find the article when I searched the first time. I had thought that Niall Ferguson was too sophisticated to use alliterative insults to people.
I think that you made a good edit to the article. I edited only the Hari section as it was the only one that I knew much about.
Regards. Epa101 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
hi my name is BountyHunter and I am the mediator which has taken on a case concerning you I wondered if you could explain to me what is going on regarding the article Eurabia and I will try and sort it out without having to take this to the formal stage of mediation. Many thanks BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the info. Which editor is this and I will ask them to read this and then if I can get them to agree then I can close the case and make sure that is is sorted. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Reading through the comments that have been made on the case page the user who first started the case is saying that you have removed the tags and that you are in violation to the policy can you explain to me why you did this rather than me having to read through the wholde of the Eurabia talkpage. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right ok then. Thanks for the input I await what he/she has to say to that and will keep you posted on what is going on. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Weblogs as sources
Hello RR, I noticed that you have been involved in Eurabia. My comments have nothing to do with your edits, but just some general questions, if I may ask - are weblogs considered a RS under any circumstances(I would say ”no“, based on Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F. Also do you think that even if blogs are OK, stuffs like gatesofvienna.blogspot.com and Jihadwatch.org etc.(which are abundantly used in that article as RS) may be considered RS as they could easily fall under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources? Thanks Zencv Lets discuss 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment regarding the ongoing Piotrus ArbCom and that you were considering to offer your thoughts on the issues on which you have knowledge. Just in case you missed, I think you need to be aware of this thread at the evidence page that alleges our coordinated malice at Holodomor denial. You can find my response to this here.
A note to whoever follows my edits and reads this, I did not alert Relata refero about this ArbCom on or off-wiki and I have no idea who did. But I would thoroughly support the request from ["several sides" that RR shares his thoughts on these matters. --Irpen 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was not alerted to this ArbCom by Irpen. (I have in fact never been alerted by Irpen to any specific problems in the EE articles, though I have received several requests to edit further in the area that I have declined for obvious reasons.) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here . Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 23:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Koko1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Konkona Sen Sharma.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Konkona Sen Sharma.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- File:Mahasvetadevi.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mahasvetadevi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Khushwantsingh.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Khushwantsingh.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted, properly, in my opinion. I think the policies are WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:UNDUE. Please discuss on the discussion page if needed. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do read those policies before quoting them. Ron Paul, really, can we get any more US-centric? Sheesh. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- You asked for notability, you got it. Your edits are now becoming disruptive. If you still disagree with the statements on the talk page it would be best if you opened an RFC. Edit warring with no justification is not the answer. NJGW (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't get justification, I got a link saying Ann Coulter is an economic expert. You have got to be joking. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You didn't ask for justification, I did. You asked for notability. If you'd like to justify your opinion, we're all ears. NJGW (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reminder: Ann Coulter's not an economic expert. If you were listening even slightly, you would have covered your face in shame and removed that crap from the article yourself. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
adelson no longer a billionaire?
on http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035641.html, which is from today, sheldon adelson is still called a billionaire. "Global financial storms threaten empire of Jewish billionaire, philanthropist Adelson." it also says "LVS lost more than 80% of its market value in October alone, reducing Adelson's personal fortune from LVS to a billion dollars or less, again - on paper. (Which means, he hasn't locked in his loss by selling his shares at their present low market value.)" - i don't think any of this is good enough for us to state that he's no longer a billionaire, unless a source comes out and flat out makes that claim. "a billion or less on paper" really doesn't warrant removing "billionaire" in my opinion. this could change, of course, if a source makes the direct claim that he's not a billionaire. i'd have no problem then. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure
Wow, you missed all the fun.
- WP:AN#User:David Gerard's block of User:Giano
- WP:RFAR#David Gerard
- Plus associated user talk pages (you'll figure out which ones).
Enjoy. Don't forget the popcorn. --barneca (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
V. P. Singh
Thanks for your work on V. P. Singh, and your encouragement for my own work. I have a wiki ID, which has been dormant since some time. Italo. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder
A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F
I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" list WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
- Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
- Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
- Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
- Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
- Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
- Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
- Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
- Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
- Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
- Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
- Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
- (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
- (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
- (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.
- Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
- Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
- Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A land without a people for a people without a land
- You were involved with adding the cherry picked tag to this article several months ago. I am trying to keep that tag and an editor named historicist is continually deleting it. I believe that the article is still heavily based on one biased source. I don't know if you know anything about this subject or care, but I would appreciate your thoughts at the talk page because I could use some support. annoynmous 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The debate to refer to Australian soccer to "football" or association football" from the agreed term football (soccer) has returned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_126.96.36.199_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits Please give your thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Nehru Birla House Cartier-Bresson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Nehru Birla House Cartier-Bresson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Halutzim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. UltraMagnusspeak 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
nice job on File:JusticeTenniel1857Punch.jpg
that is a very interesting scan, thanks for uploading it. File:JusticeTenniel1857Punch.jpg Decora (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Really late feedback
Hi. I'm not sure I ever replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive392, anyway, here's the diff you asked for  --Soman (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File:JP SK rally.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JP SK rally.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Gora Bhave.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gora Bhave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Gandhigora.jpg
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Gora a.jpg
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Common man.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Common man.jpg
. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use
. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit
is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
or whether it should be deleted
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit
is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
or whether it should be deleted
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)