| Revision as of 13:55, 6 January 2015 editAlon12 (talk | contribs)307 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,233 edits OneClickArchived "Is this an adequate source?" to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | |||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | |||
| <!--User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=240 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=31 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 250000 | |||
| --> | |||
| {{archives|search=yes}} | |||
| == Merry Christmas & Happy New Year == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> is wishing you a Merry ]! I am grateful for your assistance and advice over the last year. Best Holiday wishes and Happy New Year to you and your family! <br /> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Review of contributions == | |||
| Hello ]. Could you please review ], as requested on ] with respect to , and offer input? Thanks. ] (]) 19:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], see also: . Thanks. ] (]) 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like this is being handled by ] at ]. My own review would probably be similar. ] (]) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == TBan discussion == | |||
| You are still watching ]? So far, it seems like both were clearly aware of the real meaning of those references, yet they continued to misrepresent in order to push their point of view and edit war for removing issue tags. Nawabmalhi claims that I, along with rskrinath05, and one more editor are '3 Indian POV pushers', though I have never posted my nationality anywhere here. What you say? ] (]) 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not edited since holidays. Occult pulled discussion back from archive 2 times. Why is this so personal. Stop this. 3 Involved users voted to ban and 1 other user made comment. Vand revised again after protection expired it is his 18th revision! ---] (]) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverts continue == | |||
| I don't know if this is the right place to post this... After you blocked MiGR25, the reverting in ] did not stop.<br> | |||
| MiGR25 has not made a revert, but other users continue to in a similar matter.<br> | |||
| First Nug (who actively tried to defend MiGR25 and divert attention to me at the AN3 | |||
| ( | |||
| ) makes reverts. Then out of no where comes Iryna Harpy. This looks like a coordinated effort.<br> | |||
| This is not about content dispute, but reverting existing large pieces of article text without consensus, violating ]. I am not against making changes if the consensus changes, but those users revert text without it. I don't think consensus is created only by reverting.<br> | |||
| Also, I want to note that all this reverting started with "new" user MiGR25. No one had a problem with the text before. -] (]) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Why don't you open a ] on the article talk page? You yourself have made several reverts in the last couple of days. You should be looking for consensus. It's unwise to treat the previous page content as sacred. Reverting to defend it can get you in trouble. ] (]) 03:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is why I stopped trying to revert and came here to ask you. | |||
| ::I am ok with dispute resolution or RfC, but they can't just remove a large piece of text that is not new from the article without reaching a consensus. Is not that the point of WP:BRD? -] (]) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] isn't a policy; it is only an essay. Try to find a new consensus. The current discussions at ] don't seem to have reached agreement. Here is a situation where an ] could help, since it would allow bringing in new participants. ] (]) 04:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, it can help, but besides the content dispute, there is an obvious violation of wiki principals that may encourage further violations if successful. | |||
| ::::WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and the ] of it says that ''in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit''. -] (]) 05:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have fully protected ] until 27 January. Please use the talk page to discuss the matter. ] (]) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Well done Ed. As so often is the case with editors who attempt to elicit admin intervention to gain the upper hand in content disputes, they tend misrepresent the facts so as to provoke admins into action. FWIW, MiGR25 hadn't actually breached 3RR and YMB29 had reverted as often as he had. MiGR25 was obviously a newby and you could have given him some latitude, he had stopped reverting and had taken the discussion to talk, but you blocked him anyway and let YMB29 off despite this and the fact that he reverted as often as MiGR25 had. It is apparent that YMB29 is a veteran who knows how to push admin's buttons to get the desired result. | |||
| :I obviously was drawn to the article after MiGR25's unfortunate experience and I attempted to clean this article up a bit. The two edits I made wasn't actually reverting anything, the first edit cited by YMB29 as a "revert" was to summarise Senyavskaya more concisely and YMB29 essentially reverted that summary, the second edit was remove coat-racked content added to the article some time ago. These edits represented the "B" part of BRD. The only people reverting was YMB29 and Iryna Harpy, and I end up getting a warning on my talk page with a somewhat bizarre note (with a hint of unjustified hostility): ''"If you are intending to be an active editor on hot topics you might rethink the black box hinting you are retired and consider archiving your talk page instead of clearing it"'' despite my patient discussion on ]. --] (]) 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You were not so patient, as you reverted before the discussion began. | |||
| ::You are still defending MiGR25 and claiming that he is a new user? All you were doing is repeating his behavior, whether it is reverting under the excuse of summarizing or coat racking. | |||
| ::Asking an admin to intervene in such cases is the right thing to do, especially compared to getting another editor to revert on your behalf... | |||
| ::There is a difference between reverting to force changes through and reverting so that the content reflects consensus. -] (]) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There you go, misrepresenting the facts again. This edit was to remove text that was coat racked to the article some time in the past, I don't know when. MiGR25 never touched that text. Your definition of "revert" seems to be any change to text you might have added some time in the distant past. Do you seriously expect people to analyse the last six months of an article history before making an edit. --] (]) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You just like MiGR25 were trying to remove similar pieces of text, representing the Russian view, that you don't like. You both did not care for establishing any consensus and just reverted. -] (]) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please spare me the conspiracy theories, I'm getting the impression that you have some ] issues. --] (]) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Asking others to follow the consensus policy means I have issues with WP:OWN? -] (]) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As for the page protection, it was the right thing to do, but I don't understand why the last revert was allowed to stand. As I explained above, it is clearly a violation of the consensus policy. -] (]) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh dear, Ed protected the "wrong version". You better ease up or some people may draw the conclusion that you are a veteran POV pusher who knows how to game the system. --] (]) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are complaining about me being a POV pusher... | |||
| ::Following wiki policies is not POV pushing. -] (]) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well then why don't you adhere to ] and ] with respect to your own edits? --] (]) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Continually accusing me of violating policies can't cover up your disruptive behavior, especially your disrespect of consensus. -] (]) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Continuing the lie that my two edits, which were not reverts as there was no previous version which these edits restored, were some how disruptive does not engender good faith nor do anything to help you build consensus. --] (]) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Irredentist edits in Misplaced Pages pages == | |||
| I found several innovations and new WIKI rules applied by some users, that violates the normal comportament of editors. | |||
| These estonishing edits were made by some editors who managed to block all oponents using gang tactics and misinformation of administrators. | |||
| See next page: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&action=history | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:40, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (110,912 bytes) (-995) . . (→Further reading: -books written before WWII) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:39, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (111,907 bytes) (+1) . . (-unreferred (non-English) source; +the deleted source English version) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:36, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (111,906 bytes) (-158) . . (→Secondary sources: -unreferred source which was written before WWII) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:35, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (112,064 bytes) (-636) . . (→Theory of Daco-Romanian continuity: WP:NPOV (this section presents the scholars' views, not their argumentation )) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:32, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (112,700 bytes) (-634) . . (→Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: there is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents' POV (X does not accept Y's view and says that Y's view is exclusivelly based on Y's biased, stupid, .. approach) .) | |||
| (cur | prev) 17:28, 18 November 2014 Borsoka (talk | contribs) . . (113,334 bytes) (-346) . . (→Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: unrelevant information (and the two specialist mentioned in connection with the immigrationist theory are not Hungarians - and more non-Hungarian scholar could be added)) | |||
| All these edits show the real character of the editor named Borsoka. He is considered as an irredentist editor by Romanians, Ukrainian and Serb editors. | |||
| Amazing reasons to erase Romanian references and Romanian historians text: | |||
| 1. Book before WW 2 ! | |||
| 2. Non English reference ! | |||
| 3. Scholar's view and not scholar's argumentation (here original research of Borsoka) | |||
| 4. There is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents (but in his Hungarian history pages there are a lot of such opinions) | |||
| 5. Stupid approach (new original research of Borsoka about Romanian references) | |||
| 6. Specialists are not Hungarians ! | |||
| Also the user Fakirbakir erased several Romanian references because he considered | |||
| that he personally disagree the opinions of the Romanian author and if he disagrees an author (here about Georgescu, a historian) he erases it from WIKI pages: | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians (section Georgescu's statement) | |||
| "I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement". | |||
| There is a simple explanation of these amazing innovations and new Misplaced Pages rules: | |||
| The two editors Borsoka and Fakirbakir act as a gang against editors from neighboring countries and act alternatively to avoid the 3RR rule and to eliminate | |||
| single editors. Their scope: to emphasize the priority in history of Hungarians; this is a part of the definition of IRREDENTISM: to show the priority in history, against neigbouring countries. | |||
| All these reasons made the mentioned history article to be of very bad quality due to irredentist edits. Some Romanian journals wrote about these activities in the Misplaced Pages pages and so Misplaced Pages is considered as an unreliable source for history due to these amazing edits. Unfortunately no administrator acted against these tactics. | |||
| I mentioned you the vandalism in the mentioned pages but no result. | |||
| ] (]) 11:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], you are still under a topic ban from Hungary and Romania, per ]. The ban applies to all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk, so you are violating your ban by mentioning the issue here. Please let this go and cease pursuing it. Your ban expires on 8 May 2015. Please also undo your recent edit to ] which is also a ban violation since it mentions Romanians. If you are unwilling to follow your ban you can be blocked by any administrator. Thank you, ] (]) 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == SPI notification == | |||
| Because you were the blocking admin (see here:), I thought you might be interested in the SPI I just filed here: . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protection of article on ]== | |||
| You protected that article and asked for finding a consensus on the talk page. | |||
| That protection is set to expire today. | |||
| I requested a regarding ] - as i suspect him of having started two new accounts to seemingly find a consensus on the talk page. | |||
| I hereby ask you for extending the time of protection of that article.] (]) 23:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The SPI might well lead to a result. But the best way to settle the content dispute might be a compromise on the wording of ]'s status. ]] looks to me like it balances the uncertainties. Assuming that it's not contradicted by sources. Your idea that Kyrgyzstan is either in or out may be too simplistic given the conflicting reports we have. I won't be enacting the edit request because I'm uncertain of the consensus, but I hope you'll consider supporting something like this yourself. ] (]) 02:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| I saw your comment on arbitration page and agree. I am leaving and will not be able to participate, however, I can see only one contributor at the moment, whose ''current'' editing is clearly problematic. He edit war on a page currently discussed by Arbcom , , while taking part in the arbitration discussion. He was warned by another admin about this previously . He soapboax and accuse others in relation to this page ,, and I was unable to convince him to stop . Saying that, I may be biased, and therefore leave everything on discretion of AE administrators. Happy holidays! ] (]) 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Unusual == | |||
| Just a heads up. Please see on my Talk page.--] (]) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested Move Template == | |||
| I swear I did use the requested move template. | |||
| I don't understand what was wrong? | |||
| ] (]) 05:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :, as your contribution history shows. That page is maintained by the bot. Instead you should have edited the talk page of the article you want to have moved. ] (]) 05:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Could you look at == | |||
| ]'s talk page. I have been trying for some weeks to try to get ] to stop edit-warring, and he has, though advised several times on his talk page, again broken 1R. I dislike making AE reports, and have given him another notice there and on his page, but he refuses to budge. I don't want sanctions, but an authoritative word his way might be useful (if your assessment agrees with mine, which it may not). Sorry for the bother.] (]) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I said sorry for the 24 hrs rules. The facts though, remain same. The last edit was removing information that was proved to be outdated/false and was discussed in details at ]. ] response was - "Do not use hearsday as an argument (2) B'tselem's POV is given with attribution, whether it is true or false is not relevant". Some facts have no space for POV and if B'tselem says it was only used in West Bank while there is an article and video showing contrary, Nishidani can either use sophisticated wording to reflect it or erase it all together. What if B'tselem said the world is flat? Will Nishidani quote them and say it is their POV? | |||
| :If you already spend the time looking at the page, can you please give your opinion on the way it was kidnapped and any time the Skunk appears in pro-Palestinian media appears there. Maybe it should be renamed "instances Skunk was used". Nishidani mistaken it with his baby article ]. | |||
| :I too apologize for bothering you. Happy New Year.] (]) 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Ed, and thanks also to Ashtul. I have dropped a note explaining what may not be clear to you, on your talk page. Best wishes for the coming year to both of you.] (]) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Just FYI for now == | |||
| Advice solicited. . ] (]) 21:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :OK so far. This seems to be a copyright issue. If you believe there is a wider problem and you need to take the next step one of the people listed at ] might be able to help. ] (]) 00:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Continuing from Bbb23's talk page == | |||
| He seemed to indicate he was done, so I suppose I should ask you here? | |||
| I am interested, and would like some details about how to successfully participate in some of the places you mentioned, including closing certain move discussions. | |||
| My first glance at Requested Moves noticeboard seemed like it's currently full of landmines, and moves that are highly likely to be disputed if an editor hauls off and moves them. | |||
| Also, in regards to your comment about reformatting reports not being a job most people would volunteer for — Apparently {{diff|WP:AN3|639778691|639778247|I'm}} {{diff|WP:AN3|639876373|639876243|not}} {{diff|WP:AN3|639876631|639876615|most}} {{diff|WP:AN3|640032645|640026275|people}}. I've also attempted to summarize the case for the responding admin when I've not been busy trying to pretend to be the responding admin myself. I suppose those are tasks I can safely continue? ] (]) 03:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Here are some ideas: | |||
| #It looks like you signed up for ]. That's a good idea. | |||
| #For a 3RR to be easy to handle, the header should be filled in correctly (user names entered and spelled correctly, userlinks, pagelinks with article spelled correctly), which fails to be done in maybe 5-10% of cases. Usually a passing admin fixes that. If the admin is too annoyed by the low quality they sometimes close the report as malformed. | |||
| #The diffs should be actual diffs (not versions) and preferably include the edit summary. The diffs should be reverts and not be consecutive. (Several edits in succession count as at most one revert). | |||
| #The best format of diffs is the one generated by , though it's not well documented. It includes the edit summaries and shows consecutive edits properly. | |||
| :If you want to consider helping at ], why not go and vote in a half-dozen of the open cases. There is a bit of a learning curve there, but you'll notice some frequent participants who do know their stuff and will answer newcomers' questions. If you want, come back here for any questions. I don't suggest trying to close any moves yourself unless you have a month or more of experience and have voted in 100 moves without causing uproar. | |||
| :If you are interested in deletion issues, the safest way to get started is to work with ]s. If you think a PROD nomination is undeserved, you can remove it yourself. ] (]) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==About warn== | |||
| I see I was warned. I want to know what will happened after the warning, Thank you. 19:45, 29 December 2014 ] (]) | |||
| :Technically you broke the ] rule, hence the warning. There was no block or ban, but in my closure at ] I suggested ways that people could try to find consensus on the disputed items. If you simply continue to revert, that would be a bad idea and could lead to admin action. | |||
| :Please note that your signature does not include the date. It merely says "Miracle dream (talk)" The lack of a date could interfere with bot archiving. If you go into ] and clear the checkbox next to 'Signature' it's possible you might fix that. The other possibility is that you could be signing with only three tildes instead of four. See ] for details. Thank you, ] (]) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you want the date to be recognized by the archive bots, it needs to include the "(UTC)" and it should follow your name, not preceed it. ] (]) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==AN/I ]== | |||
| With reference to AN/I, I would like to ask your opinion about something, please. I have never been the subject of an AN/I before and do not know the form. I am concerned that ] is still adding comments, much of it repetition, and is now asking me close questions on matters gone over before, but I do not want to deny him the chance to cross-examine further if that is what he wishes. How far should I go in acceding to his requests for answers? Should I use my discretion in this? I have been fairly brusque so far, but I still want to be fair to him. I am also concerned that the text of the AN/I is now swelling to enormous proportions and this cannot be good for those trying to assess it. ] (]) 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Gregkaye seems to have stopped now, so please ignore the above. ] (]) 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the ANi is very easy to assess. Its a whole bunch of needless back and forth, just like the activity that lead to the ANi. ] (]) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::]: I tend to agree with you, but I had to defend myself against what I saw as quite a few unjust charges, not only at the start but unfortunately throughout. I was appalled at how it was being dragged out, but had to respond to some things as I really was concerned about some of the misrepresentations. I would like to know which of the charges are upheld by those adjudicating, but I suspect from the way things are developing that this is going to be swept aside. That will be a bad result for both of us. I think a lot of this back and forth could have been saved if I had gone ahead and requested a straightforward IBAN on both when I first suggested it, of the kind you suggested. ] (]) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==constitucion== | |||
| Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Do you have a regular account that you can log in from? That could help me understand the background of your request. Thank you, ] (]) 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy New Year!== | |||
| <div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br> <span style="color:red">'''HAPPY NEW YEAR'''</span> Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!<br> From a fellow editor,<br> --] (]) | |||
| <small>This message promotes ]. Originally created by ] (see "invisible note"). <!--To use this template, leave <nowiki>{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}}</nowiki> on someone else's talk page.--></small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == New Year's greetings and a thank you for your good work == | |||
| Happy New Year, EdJohnston! Just a quick note to thank you for the hard work and civility with which you handle ARBEE affairs (and the others, of course). It's been quite a year for edit warriors considering the events in Ukraine, bringing a fresh tide of POV-ers from both sides. Let's hope that peace breaks out across the world, and that nationalist, religious, socio-political upheavals become articles about our distant past as the project evolves. | |||
| Well, I'm not even pretending to be a realist... but we can still live in hope. --] (]) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic Banned Editor == | |||
| This violates this ] ban (right near bottom) you imposed by directly editing a reference to ISIL. I've just reverted the edit. I'd almost argue that ], as a sworn supporter and African version of ISIL, should be an off limits article for ISIL banned editors. ] (]) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left a note at ] about the scope of his ISIL ban. There is nothing on the noticeboards to show that an ISIL ban covers ] as such. So Signedzzz is only excluded from making ISIL-related changes to other articles. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bhargava== | |||
| *] has breached his topic ban again. ] (]) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit count Tools request== | |||
| Hi EdJohnston; From my visit to my Talk page earlier today, under the editor Tools for "Edit count" on my user account, the count summary currently indicates in my history that the account has been blocked for a month, following an erroneous report. Could I request that this be repaired or do you know who maintains this Tool for "Edit count" and its data base. ] (]) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide the complete URL for the edit counter you are using? At present I get no response from http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec so I can't look into this any further. You could ask ] whose name is provided at http://tools.wmflabs.org. ] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The counter is working again but it's not giving any reasonable results for your account. ] (]) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your link at WP/AE== | |||
| Ed - you wrote "The issues raised by User:Vrinan are more fully explained by him and others in this ANI thread (permalink)" - but the link you gave says "This page revision has been removed from the public archives." So whatever his/her explanations for his/her shocking statements, we cannot read them.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed the permalink. Somebody must have done a revdel at ANI which caused the specified revision to disappear. Whatever was deleted didn't seem to affect the thing I was trying to link to, so I just specified a later revision which does exist. ] (]) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Game Changer move == | |||
| Hello. I've seen that you made the move of "Game Changer" to "Game Changer (Modern Family)" as 'per talk page discussion' and used the "Game Changer" page as a dis page. What about all the pages that were already linked to "Game Changer" before the move? All those links that were supposed to lead to the Modern Family's episode now lead to the dis page. Is there a way to change them not manually? ''''']''''' 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I did it manually but, do you know if there is a way to do it automatically? Thanks ''''']''''' 06:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] gives some advice. See also ]. There were some tools for link repair but I don't think they survived the demise of the Toolserver. Thanks for the work that you did. At present I'm not aware of any quicker way. ] (]) 14:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. I'll read the links you posted to see what they say. It's a problem when the links are too many. This one was kind of easy. Thanks again for answering. ''''']''''' 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == About the Edit Warring noticeboard == | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| Hi, I see that you closed the edit warring case, and suggested using dispute resolution, I was going to open a case there, but there is already one, and was already closed The problem is that the user I'm having problems with is very close minded, and don't think I will get anything of him by arguig on his talk page (one of their first reactions was to dare me to call the admins). Putting it simply he wants sourced and competent information removed and we've been in a tiring argument in the last hours about it. He wants a source to a study that claims that around half of White Americans have varying degrees of ancestry other than European removed, and his reason to do it is because he has an study that says that Spaniards have a large variety of Haplotypes compared to Italians and what seems to be White Americans from Utah, he has also talked about how Spaniards are "racially impurer" and what not (claims and mentality that I think are out of place on Misplaced Pages). I got tired of going on circles and asked him what has that to do with the other study he wants removed to begin with, and keeps saying that it must be removed because apparently he regards Spaniards as impurer, I don't see what has that to do with the other study, or why it is a reason to remove it, when that section talks about the genetic variety and different racial perceptions of the United States and Mexico and if you check the section it looks "cutted" and incomplete, and that's not the only source there is, I added a source from a book some time ago that addresses these themes, but he removed it aswell, and don't wants any of it back because Spaniards are "less European", what do you think? Maybe is because I'm on the defending side, but in my opinion his posture isn't apropiated, and the reasons he is removing the material aren't either, in my opinion is not about debating which posture is correct, because his argument to remove the information is that spaniards are "less pure" and Latin Americans are "diluted Spaniards". I wonder what is the posture of Misplaced Pages towards such "infounded racism". For one I'm getting bored of going on circles with him, because that's nowhere close to be a competent argument to remove information, and when confronted just throws walls of text, moves the goalpost and says again and again that my sources are from fake blogs when it's a genetic study study published in a medical news website and books. What do you think? ] (]) 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't want to get into the details of the content. But you might be interested to look at ]. That article caused a big uproar on the admin boards and was fully protected for more than a month at the end of 2009. Finally it got straightened out because of a good content writer who did a lot of research and was able to persuade people to support his changes. It sounds like you plan to work more on ]. If you hope to see it through to consensus you'll need a lot of patience. ] (]) 06:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was thinking about using the same kind of entrance that White American has, now that I see the White Brazilian page, I think that an entrance like "White Mexican is a Mexican citizen from European descent or origin" is the best way to go. I think that could solve the warring over a the entrance of the article, and the section of the body the other editor keeps removing, although the issue with the study and the book citation that he wants removed continues, I don't think it is something that requires any debate over it, because his reason is that he regards Spaniards as "impure", that's not a good reason to remove anything at all, the edit history of the article has been going without any incident, on my time here there wasn't any big problem until Alon12 started editing in late december, and like I told you before,and I thinkthat rather than convincing him of anything (because he is totally closed) I will need the backup of other editors or an administrator. ] (]) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The main issue with your Agenda, Aergas, is that the 'white brazilian' page, doesn't bother to compare itself to 'white americans', you are purposefully trying to contort that message using ill-sourced biased propaganda to self-satisfy your point of view. Yet the actual genetic data as attested in comprehensive studies provided by genetic journals, shows the opposite. Iberians and Spaniards are far more genetically admixed than 'white americans', so it makes no sense to even mention white americans at all in the 'mexicans of european descent' page, you are trying to make a fallacious comparison, which is of little relevance and should not even exist. There is no real purpose for making such claims about 'white americans' on the 'mexicans of european descent' page in the first place, and secondly, it is inaccurate, as iberians and their descendants are more admixed than those white americans, in any case. So it would be a moot point. The original page of 'mexicans of european descent' from over a year back, never mentioned 'mexicans of european descent' being full-european, it rather said predominant. There was also no fallacious comparison with white americans, you added both of those elements to the article, while providing ill-sourced and inaccurate references from blogs, which do not actually reflect the content contained therein. I've genuinely suggested for you to improve your comprehension of the english language. ] (]) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)