Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jacurek (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 16 October 2009 (Undid revision 320222628 by Jacurek (talk) sorry fir this (mistake)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Celebration

I know I was wrong for the last rollback usage. I am extremely sorry for that. When I realised that the IP had actually added a reference, I put it back up. However, the 1RR I can accept, only if it excludes blatant vandalism. --Legolas 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also if you could please elaborate on the 1RR proposal a little more clearly? Like suppose if I see someone adding any unsourced chart or rather WP:BADCHARTS, shouldn't I remove that? Or will that construe under 3RR? Also, I melieve I can add information as I choose, if anyone disagress I believe I have the right to discuss with that user. Does this come under 1RR? --Legolas 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only exception to the 1RR would be for vandalism, or in general, for any exceptions that already exist under WP:3RR#Exceptions. When you are adding brand-new material to an article which has never been there before, it is not a revert. No problem there. If someone removes the material for any reason, you would be reverting if you then decide to put it back. You would be free to discuss any of this on the Talk page. If your argument is persuasive, other editors will probably do as you advise. Or, if there is a stalemate, you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ADditions of WP:BADCHARTS to articles are supposed to be reverted or undid as per WP:CHARTS, however 1 revert per article would be enough I believe? Also, sometimes IPs may add any comment which are completely unsourced or may infact be not at all be related to the article at all. What about that kind of revert, or removing such unsourced additions? One eg is this addition where the article itself doesnot exist at all. --Legolas 16:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree to the 1RR restriction you can do *one* revert per day of an article for any reason. If you do so because of a chart guideline, you are free to do so, but it's not exempt from the edit-warring rules the way that vandalism would be exempt. If you think the IP was trying to *damage* the article, it is vandalism, but what you are talking about does not sound like that. These are just well-intentioned but incompetent people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know its 1 revert /day/article. Im clear about that. But what if a user continues to add, suppose something defamation or badcharts inspite of being explained? I won't revert then, but shall I report to ANI? --Legolas 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see any unsourced defamatory information (about a living person) being added, take it out and mention WP:BLP in your edit summary. This will not count as a revert for edit-warring purposes. If the editor persists, open a complaint at WP:BLPN. If it's truly horrible and needs quick action, bring it to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As Ed notes, for defamation, that falls under WP:BLP. If it is truly a WP:BLP issue, that's exempt from 3RR rules already. I'd be careful claiming that exemption, and be extremely certain that everyone would agree that it's a BLP issue. If it's a WP:BADCHART issue, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll respond appropriately.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If these issues are addressed and if Kevin can take care of any WP:BADCHART i don't have any problem accepting a 1RR till 31st October. --Legolas 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal, take 3

This time, editing from 121.185.27.53/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A search on all contributions from the /16 range shows that he's still the only activity across the whole range (do an in-text search for "2009-08", "2009-09", and "2009-10" to quickly find all recent contributions). After all this, he shows no indication of stopping his behavior, and since he's the only one from this range, I wouldn't mind seeing an indef block with talk page editing disabled (I just finished deleting a bunch of his user talk pages that he created with the same garbage he's been adding to articles). Also, if you remember correctly, the last time he showed up, I said I was going to attempt to contact the owner of the range - I never got any response back from them. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this search using Soxred93's CIDR tool. Do you see many edits from the last thirty days that are vandalism? You mentioned a /24, but that range does not seem very active at all. Perhaps there is too little vandalism here to bother with? EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my haste then, I'm simply getting tired of seeing this stuff passing through my watchlist. Looking through the last 50 edits from the whole /16 range, though, the only one that doesn't look like it's from this guy is this one on Dongdaemun Market (but it still looks like it could be borderline-unconstructive, to me at least). On a semi-related note, Mickey's House of Villains has had at least one pretty persistent vandal in the past, but I didn't review its more recent history, so I don't know what's up with it now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Albania

Hi Ed, how is it going?

First of all, let me thank you for your contribution on Albania/Kosovo related articles.

I need some help on WP:WikiProject Albania, and I came to you because you're an experienced editor and have been active lately on Albania-related articles. According to Category:Albania_task_force_articles, there are 1009 articles tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania. Using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Albania_task_force_articles, I can see recent changes but only for talk pages, no article changes. So, my question is: Is it somehow possible to track changes on these articles tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania, in a centralized way, something like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Albania_task_force_articles?

For WP:WikiProject Kosovo, I'm subscribed to it's public watchlist to track changes, using RSS feeds. I've started something similar, a public watchlist on WP:WikiProject Albania too. But the problem is that, I'll have to find those 1009 articles and to add to that list. The other problem is about synchronization between new articles being tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania and the list.

If you can help me on this issue, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you. kedadial 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Block on 81.70.102.204, re List of Jewish American entertainers

Just a quick thanks for this block, . Apart from the given reasons, this editor was making edits that were an unusual amount of work to fix, adding lots of material to an article that's already 259 kb long. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Content flags on Triple Goddess

Septentrionalis has tagged the article and section again, but not saying where in the article or section the problem is, so that it could be corrected. Last time his sole complaint was a talkpage dispute over talkpage claims that appeared nowhere in the article. This time he posted nothing about the tags in talk at all — which the tags themselves expect, since they point to the talkpage. Here he says he tagged as a way of bowing out, which suggests that he doesn't intend to discuss the matter at all, leaving no way to "resolve the dispute" and lift the tag... in fact, leaving no dispute. So what is the point of the tags, and why should they be left on there? (Note, this is a rephrase of my comment to him on the talkpage, to which he has made no response.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about a block evasion

Hello EdJohnston. Someone confirmed that the 78.2 IPs were Aradic-es. Look at this. Toroko (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser says that 195.29.221.170 is not him, and that's what concerned me the most. If the two 78 IPs resume editing, there could be reason for action. If 195 keeps going with his standard revert at Habsburg Monarchy, a long block for edit warring might be justified. Since he only edits a few times each month, two months would be the minimum worth considering. But a few times a month is not yet a big nuisance. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And Aradic-es' block evasion? Toroko (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin who closed the SPI case already gave his verdict that a block is not necessary. I am keeping an eye on Aradic's future edits to see if he is willing to follow our policies. If not, a new filing at WP:AN3 may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The 195.29.221.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP was already blocked in late September for 48 hours by a different admin. Since on October 12 he resumed adding his usual POV edit about the Croatian monarchy, the one that gets reverted by others every single time it appears, I have blocked the IP for six months. The block can be lifted if he will promise to obey the Misplaced Pages policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3 revert comment

Hello. You left a message on my talk page mentioing that I am "over" the 3RR. I'd appreciate it if you took another look. There has been discussion on how to word a certain section that we have been working with. Up until just recently we have been adding various cites and changeups. Recently I had one change outright reverted which I in turn reverted after disussing. It happened one other time where I was reverted and after discussing it reverted again. That makes 2 reverts I made one to the user AussieLegend and one to a sockpuppet from his same area. Would you please have a look and if you find that I've only made 2 reverts, remove your warning from my talk page. Thank you much. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for fixing the issue on my talk page. Have a good one. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet activity at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Also, I have no idea how to pursue this but it strongly appears that the above mentioned AussieLegend is using a sock puppet to get arround 3rr. Would you look into that? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were following up at all, but now there's a 3rd ip sock puppet doing the reverts. I'm done for today though. Thanks again for checking into it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for three days. This action is not directed at you but at the brand-new IPs, who do not participate on Talk. I hope that you will at least consider the possibility of creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out to the IP, after he made the bad faith allegation on my talk page, the IP is obviously not me. The WHOIS information that he provided points to somebody in Melbourne, about 1,000km south of here. As I then pointed out on his talk page, in response to this post, I can log on and off as much as I want and not get a new address because I have a static IP. Strangely, of all the posts I made on his page he chose that one to delete. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. :) Thanks for your speedy intervention, Ed. I was unsure of the next steps to take. --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox isn't the only thing I've been working on in various articles. I've been fixing different articles, expanding stubs and things like that. I truly believe that I have been doing constructive work, and it is difficult to do when I have someone reverting everything I do. Look at the articles I've edited if you don't believe me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to propose how to stop the edit war at Pete Rose. Outsiders don't know which version is best, we just know that you two guys keep on warring. It is not up to admins to resolve the dispute. You either must agree to stop editing yourself, or say how you will negotiate for a workable compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled beyond belief and at loss for words from what I am reading. I am not reverting "everything he does". He continues to claim that I am straight up reverting his edits when I have not purposely reverted any of the actual article part. I have only reverted the infobox edits because that is how every other retired mlb player infobox is and he continues to effect that.--Yankees10 21:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain how Misplaced Pages has given you the authority to decide which version of the infobox is correct. Can you link to a discussion on the subject? EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well what gives him the right? I am doing it based on consistancy with other infoboxes. And if you look at the talk page on Pete Rose pretty much everyone agreed on my style over his.--Yankees10 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The parts you proposed that were agreed with I have not disputed. For example, WWE hall of fame is not in the infobox. No one disputed my opinion on chronology, yet for some reason, you keep changing that. For that matter, I don't see why you insist on having the word "Selection" at the end of 17 X All Star. You nit pick on silly things, which is why I have a hard time taking any of your edits seriously.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as putting it in chronological order when a guy makes an All Star game 17 different years or wins a world series three different years. And why do you have to make comments like the last sentence it makes us even more far apart from coming up with a compromise. It just isnt necessary and solves NOTHING.--Yankees10 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also by saying im nitpicking, you are doing the same exact thing by reverting the edits back--Yankees10 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A better question is why do you find it necessary to remove the fact that Dave Kingman led the NL in home runs in 1982 from his infobox highlights? There is no logical explanation for that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he also led the league in strikeouts, sacrafice flies, slugging %, on base %, and AB per HR numerous times. Should we add all that to and make the infobox take up half the page. So thats why I remove when a player leads the league in something.--Yankees10 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You also abuse the BY template way to much. It is not intended to be linked on to every single date in a baseball players article, especially the year they were born.--Yankees10 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,

Just to let you know i reported PARARUBBAS (and his 16th sock!!) at the proper "location" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), if you could "drop in a word" it would be interesting.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, EdJohnston. Since you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported by User:Elkman (Result: )

In response to your query on my talk page (although I see you've also followed up with Acroterion, on whose talk page future discussion ought to occur): The 1RR rule the you suggest is a good idea (it even could be limited to topics related to NRHP historic districts), although I believe Acroterion tried it before, but had limited success. At some point, some sort of sanction may be needed to make it stick. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing "not" at AN3?

You wrote: "Unbiasedpov was the first person to move the Godhra train article, and he should have continued to move it after it was clear that the move was contested." I'm pretty sure you meant "should not have", but you're the only one who should edit that. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template protection.

Last night, you protected {{Infobox SG rail museum}}, due to a discussion at WP:AN3. Thank you for this. I was wondering if the same protection could be applied to related, currently unprotected, template {{Infobox rail museum}}, which has suffered the same series of reverts? As {{Infobox SG rail museum}} is simply a wrapper around {{Infobox rail museum}}, any edits to the unprotected template would be just as effective as editing the protected template. Thank you for your time. WuhWuzDat 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I hope you guys realize that you are not setting a good example for the rest of us. If you are willing to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, feel free to ask for assistance. It would be ridiculous if admins had to end up full-protecting everything to do with reporting marks. Sanctions on individuals would be more likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the problem needs more discussion, and fewer reverts. It has been suggested many times that User:NE2 seek mediation on this matter, and his typical reaction to this is to drag one of his editing buddies, an acquaintance from other websites, into the fray. Unofficial mediation may have been stumbled into by a non traditional channel here, and I welcome further input into the situation. WuhWuzDat 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

It seems a little impolite to me that a user insulted me when cited for 3RR and did not have the kindness to inform me. Note also that User:Urban XII removed the 3RR and civility warnings I left in his talk page, and that he came very close to 3RR on an unrelated article. When I asked him to take matters to the talk page, he answered as you may see at the bottom of Talk:Volksdeutsche. Feketekave (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. I have reverted my latest edit. Please notice that I understood the 3RR policy to refer to 3 reverts, rather than to 3 edits; I counted three reverts on both my part and on User:Urban XII's part, not counting, of course, the revert that you suggested I make to my latest revert. Please be so kind as to clarify this matter. Notice also that I did not claim the other user had already violated the policy.

Please notice as well that I have tried and am trying to obtain agreement in talk pages. Feketekave (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. See WP:REVERT for details of what constitutes a revert. In practice, if your edit winds up removing any material at all from an article it usually counts as a revert. To avoid problems with Digwuren issues, try to find least one other person on a Talk page who supports your change before making a controversial edit on any topic regarding Eastern Europe. If an edit gets reverted, you should immediately stop for a full-length discussion rather than revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you for the clarification; I appreciate your advice. Please notice that I have tried and am trying to have a full-length discussion in the talk page, and had started to do so before the warning. I provided a link to the talk page when I approached you as above. Feketekave (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to a 1RR

Hi Ed, I left you a message on my talk page. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment on Jacurek's Talkpage, which said user promptly deleted, pointing out that the user had agreed to limit self to 1r just 2 weeks ago, and look how well that worked out. WookMuff (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaunkars of Goa

Out of sheer curiosity, are you also his "Bocking" ADM? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See his block log for the name of the blocking admin. If you open the contributions list for an editor, you will be able to see a link to their block log. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome creationist editor

I have noticed a troublesome editor User:SRFoster making POV nonsensical edits to multiple articles, Ardipithecus (, , ), Al Franken (), and Imaginary number ().

He is not a very civil editor if you see his talk page. Can something be done about this user.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design may be controversial but imaginary numbers are not. Any more of this and he should receive a standard 24-hour block for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, ID is not controversial amongst biologists, as biologists are universally against it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That was just my feeble attempt at humor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wrong version" BS response

I don't know how you got the impression that this is a matter for joking around. CraigMonroe deliberately violated Misplaced Pages policy by ignoring a clear warning and breaking the 3RR rule. He has now been rewarded by not only not getting the block that policy dictates he should receive, but by having the page protected on his preferred version. What does this teach him? That Misplaced Pages administrators are spineless and that acting like a bully will get him his way. I am incredibly disappointed with the way this turned out, and most specifically, with your attitude. As an administrator, you should be open to giving a straight answer to a reasonable question instead of making the situation worse with such an ignorant response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Raise the issue with the protecting administrator, User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the attitude with with you replied to my question and your failure to apologize. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, do you see what I am dealing with and why I was forced to ask for admin assistance? By the way, as an Admin, do you have an opinion on the Chris Benoit issue? If so, post on the talk page. Anyway, have a nice day. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a nice person

The reason I was brainstorming in Gaunkers of Goa page is that I am a nice person and hate to see people in prison (and also because there are so few people in Misplaced Pages that know anything about Goa, which I seek to find references on). I do understand that people have to be in prison sometimes.

The main reason for writing to you is for further information on Google Docs. You mean there is a place we can type documents and letters for others to edit online? For example, if I am drafting a letter, can someone else access it through a password and help edit it? Or is it open for the public to see?

This information could be helpful to 1) use in daily life, 2) suggest to vandals that they go there to a specific document to see their writing appear on the computer screen. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Misplaced Pages has an article on Google Docs! All explained to me! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Try it out yourself. Open up http://docs.google.com and follow the steps to create a free account. I know you can create password-protected files; I assume you can make them world-readable also. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of information: This is NOT the Blocked Editor. Why should he create such an account? He seems to be an editor in Finland. So I do not understand why you're not addressing him directly? How about me asking you now to create such a special account for my benefit of observing your Wiki editing skills to see how easy that is? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, your comments are starting to be strange. Your advocacy of Gaunkars' cause seems out of proportion to any actual observations of his behavior. You are welcome to cite any diffs to show that he is able to edit neutrally concerning Goa. I plan to continue that discussion on Gaunkars' talk, so please make any reply there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My apology if my remark appears strange to you. I probably wasn't clear enough. I only wanted to know why talk question to you wasn't answered directly. Let me say again, I have no personal interests in the Blocked individual. Now I see that someone in Finland is defending someone in Goa. I assume s/he's also neutral. So there are two voices concerned. Doesn't that suggest that my remarks simply seek to benefit Misplaced Pages? We need good Wikipedians on board. No one has denied that this person has only been here since February 2009. So why not simply Restrict him from Goa related articles, and let him prove himself. What so strange about? Please explain, and I'll do my best to convince you that my request is extremely Reasonable. One of my fields of studies was Logic. So I hope I could explain myself better to you, if you wish. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great to have a new editor who is an expert on Goa, if we thought he could behave well. A new edit warrior from Goa who wants to fight for the holy cause of the abused Goan people may not be an asset, as you can perhaps understand. Use existing edits to make your arguments, not potential future edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt discography

So therefore, am I not allowed to even edit her article until October 20? I don't want to revert the edits, I just want to fix up the discography, which was my intention in the first place before this whole mess. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Make your proposal for what to do with the article on Talk:Linda Ronstadt discography. When I look around for people who might have an interest in the matter, I see that User:Koavf and User:TenPoundHammer have both edited the article in October. Leave them messages on their own Talk pages and see if they are willing to give their own views about your proposed edits on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston

I noticed that you mentioned me recently. In response I would like to clarify that the discussion on the Atanasoff article has evolved. Sources are provided that Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is due both to his being a Bulgarian-American and an inventor of a world changing invention. Bulgaria was also the first country in the world to recognize Atanasoff's invention in 1970 by bestowing him with the Order of Cyril and Methodius, First Class, Bulgaria's highest scientific honour. This was done a full three years before a patent dispute ruling in the Honeywell vs Sperry Rand case. The point being made is that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is central to his recognition and notability in Bulgaria. As such, both his notability in the US and in Bulgaria are real and valid. Even if we are to assume that his notability in Bulgaria is a countrywide "ethnic boosterism" phenomenon it is still no less real. I would also contend that such an assumption would negatively stereotype an entire nation and thus it would be unethical. Thus my premise the entire time (2 year dispute whereby I took a rest from it for more than 1 year) has been that both perspective/reasons for his notability in each country be included in the article. I have even proposed compromises on three occasions to no avail. In other words, the perspective of millions of Bulgarians and their reasons for naming streets, institutions and monuments in his honour should not be ignored, especially in light of the fact that Atanasoff's is more recognized as a notable figure in Bulgaria than elsewhere. Again the sources already provided show this. Even his birthday is celebrated by the populace there. Thus please excuse me if it seemed like nationalist POV pushing on my part, but I believe that if you look into the case you will see that there are valid points on both sides of the debate. Thank you for your time, help and opinion. I hope evnetually you will change your opinion of who I am and what I do here as a Misplaced Pages editor.--Monshuai (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the source I wanted to use in the Thracians article has now been shown to be academic, published and peer reviewed by other administrators in the reliable sources/noticeboard. It is called, The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. So, I was unfairly called a nationalist, even though my edit on the Thracians article was warranted while Moreschi was incorrect in deleting an academic source and in threatening me with a long block after I pointed out his inappropriate edits. What course of action should I take when an administrator threatens me about pointing out his error in deleting academic, peer reviewed work? Who should I speak to next? As far as I know the rules state that both editors and admins are accountable for their actions and neither is insulated from having their privileges taken away, especially when they use their power to intimidate and threaten those in disadvantaged (less authoritative) positions. Should I write emails to the admins I know? Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is misrepresenting me here after a clear warning at 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC), please see WP:RS/N#fifelfoowarns. The source Monshuai brought to RS/N was an unpublished PhD thesis, and I located a work by the same author appearing to substantially cover similar grounds. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am trying my best to work constructively with you on this issue. I was under the impression that we had come to agree that Dr. Aris Poulianos's written works are reliable since he is a respected anthropologist and a founder of the Greek Anthropological Association. I have asked you a few times now if you are willing for us to work together so that we can build on one another's expertise and present the full spectrum of academic information. I hope you will agree that we can maximize our productivity and objectivity by working together. Thus I welcome your criticisms, as I hope you do mine, as that is perhaps a way for us to build an editorial relationship herein.--Monshuai (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

Nothing nefarious to note outside of a permanently banned user using socks to circumvent a block - this is the MO of User:Eleemosynary and has been for some time - the sub pages on socks and suspected socks go back a couple of years, since the original permanent ban. user:StephenLaurie was the most recent attempt at this over the summer. That was already subject to WP:SPI and the result was a permanent ban (see Talk Page). It would be one thing if these latest accounts were a fresh start under a new handle, but these new accounts have jumped right back into the same pattern of incivility, BLP violations and edit warring as the others.

I've no particular dog in the hunt outside of having watched this unfold for sometime now as a lurker and occasional editor. The suspicion comes from the strange similarity in fixations on specific articles (namely Mark Levin, Mark Simone, Marshall Slyver, Mindy Kaling). It's pretty obvious if you check out the history and the fact that a brand new account jumped right into these articles with a fascinating understanding of Misplaced Pages rules and prior edit wars on these topics. If it looks like a duck...

I've seen this play out before, so just thought I'd chime in with the relevant links and my suspicions for anyone who has the time and patience to press for a SPI against the latest two socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.171.212 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek

Despite this user agreeing to a 1RR, twice today he has edited the London Victory Parade of 1946 article in a way which seems very much like reverting: once he yet again removed the word 'claims' with regard to invitations to Polish forces; the second time he reverted to a version which was made by another editor but which does not say what the sources given actually say (i.e. the article says "almost all" while the sources say "all").Varsovian (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I did not revert twice]. First was just a regular edit]. In fact, as I promised, I'm being very careful not to revert twice on every article. User Varsovian is focusing on me from the very beginning] of his sudden appearance on Sept. 28 2009 and I suspect that this is his whole purpose]. He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars and if this does not work then he falsely accuses me of breaking my promise now. I keep asking him to leave me alone] but he just keeps "hitting me" over and over and over and now this false accusation. I feel very much harassed by him. Please check his edit history. In fact he is the one who is edit warring there], reverting other editor but calling my name trying to create impression that it was me who made the changes he reverted. Is behavior like this acceptable? Please review his edits on the article including the talk page as well as my edits to see that I DID NOT reverted twice anywhere since my promise. Thanks and regards.--Jacurek (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, thanks for continuing to be careful. Since you are following 1RR you might learn how to create WP:RFCs. Regarding Varsovian, I suggested that he try to avoid the articles you edit for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, this is very useful link. No problem, I will do what I have promised, it is actually good for me and keeps me out of potential trouble. As far as Varsovian, I'm not interested in going after him or proving that he in fact is not a new user as he claims etc, etc. I just want him to stop focusing on my person. So far my impression is that since September 28 registration of account Varsovian the user was more interested in talking to me, making changes I would not like or finding something inappropriate in my behavior rather than constructive contribution. Since EE malling list "earthquake" I have been attacked by some strange IP's or new accounts few times already and I truly believe than Varsovian is an account created specifically to provoke me and get me in trouble. If I'm wrong and I will see that in a year or two Varsovian becomes actually active contributor with rich edit history I will apologize to him for what I'm saying now but today this is honestly what I think about him/her.--Jacurek (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Ed but I do feel that I am not 'bothering Jacurek'. I am attempting to stop him from editing incorrect information into an article, information which specifically does not reflect what the sources he provides say. So far he has accused me of being a sockpuppet ], of editing in bad faith (twice on that single page) and has called me a troll and implied that I am a liar . Is any of that acceptable under WP policies?

I have attempted to engage him in dialogue so that we can amicably resolve the differences which we have about this article and work together (I assume this is what is meant by "collaborative editing environment") but he refuses to discuss anything and continues to be incivil to me. I continue to assume good faith on his part but he continues to claim that I exist solely to provoke him . He says "He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars" and that he wants me to "stop focusing on person" but if you actually look at my history you will see that there is a grand total of one article which Jacurek and I have both edited, so much for edit wars. You will also see that there is only one discussion which I have attempted to engage him in: the one about that article! If I wanted to provoke him into edit wars, I wouldn't discuss anything: I'd just edit articles and refuse to discuss why I'd changed his edits. I'm not doing that, although he is editing my work and refusing to discuss his changes.Varsovian (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up

I've posted there. The content issue is a long complicated one. For months, Abu Kabir has been a stub about an Arab village. A little while ago, User:No More Mr Nice Guy decided it should also be about the present day neighborhood of Giv'at Herzl in Tel Aviv whose common name, he claims, is Abu Kabir. There is no source that says that Abu Kabir is an Israeli neighborhood in Tel Aviv, though there is one that says that "Abu Kabir (later to become Giv'at Herzl in the Israeli period)" ... There are a number of institutes in Tel Aviv known informally and formally as "Abu Kabir Institute for Forensic Medicine" and the like, and the word is used to refer to the "Abu Kabir Plain" as well as a new proposed metro station among other things.

But since Abu Kabir (the Arab village turned neighborhood before its depopulation in 1948) was destroyed. I see the Abu Kabir article as being about that historical place. Giv'at Herzl, the modern day neighborhood, may have sites in it known as Abu Kabir, but I don't think its boundaries are the same and its a different place with a different population altogether. Giv'at Herzl was founded(it seems) sometime in the 1930s and lay to the north of Abu Kabir, so it cannot be exactly the same place, even geographically speaking.

Anyway, its a long complicated story, both as far as content and editing histories of the users involved. A typical I-P mess. I'm sorry that I played a role in perpetuating it. While I do think my edits improved the article, I could have gone about it with more patience and kindness. Thanks for letting me know about the report. Tiamut 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin, overdue for recall

Hi Ed, just a note about this much-blocked admin Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've seen him in action at a few pages now, mostly because we clashed at 350 (organisation) and he's stalked me to a few other pages to revert me with comments of "vandalism", only to revert himself when he realised my edits were completely justified. He's even called one of my edits "justified" yet "disruptive" at the same time. Nutty.

This relates in part to the Garth Paltridge article, in which Rubin has taken a decisive role. My interactions with him on this page and 350 (organisation) have been decidedly unpleasant since he is apparently not interested in a quality encyclopedia, but rather in pushing his libertarian barrow. One example is the issue of the See also link to Global warming conspiracy theory on the Paltridge's page. I put the wikilink there since Paltridge makes some of the classic conspiracy theory accusations in his book The Climate Caper, including that it's all about world government, socialism, funding for scientists, etc. Classic stuff and so the link was completely, and I mean COMPLETELY appropriate. Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) predictably removed it with squeals of "BLP" and when I reverted, Rubin rushed in and reverted me, cheekily calling it "vandalism". Only then did Rubin look at the evidence and decide that yes, it was an appropriate link, and reverted himself back to my version. So predictably again, off went Alex Harvey (Alexh19740110) to like-minded Rubin's talk page to press his case for removing the link, and lo and behold, before too long Rubin is removing of the link again. And that's just some of the garbage editing coming from this "admin". I could go on with many other examples, including how he tried to merge-downgrade 350 (organisation) into the page Bill McKibben (because Rubin, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, is a disbeliever in the significance of global warming), etc.

This guy is the least admin-like admin I've come across in several years on wp. He blatantly edits to advance a POV, and shoots first and asks questions later. I don't have the time to make a federal issue of this at the moment. But I'm available if anyone wants my input for a recall drive. I see he frequently fights charges of edit warring with others as well, so it's not just me. ► RATEL ◄ 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your nomination of Arthur Rubin's Misplaced Pages article for deletion seems tacky and creates a concern that the AfD nomination might be based on personal animosity. The mention of cabalism in your comment adds spice but invites mockery. Better to try to work out an WP:RFC for the issues that are still troubling you at Garth Paltridge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's canvassing for delete votes via e-mail as well. I seriously, seriously doubt I am the only one he sent such a message to. Lara 03:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Lara. I didn't notice you being this supportive of him when you were complaining about his abuse of sysop tools, but I guess you see more upside for yourself in what you're doing versus helping me get rid of a self-promotional puff page about some minor academic who won a prize and got to be a co-author with some famous mathematician 30-summat years ago. Hey, good call. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The deletion motion on his page is a separate issue. The page just shouldn't be there, and that occurred to me separate to this issue. Just some reading around this to show what a troubled history this user has (there's more where this came from, this is just a quick selection):

Rubin abuses sysop tools

Rubin uses sysop tools while blocked

Rubin threatens to use sysop tools in dispute in which he's involved

Desysopping motion of Rubin, declined

All in all, not admin material! ► RATEL ◄ 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)