User talk:Alan.ca: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:21, 14 December 2006

Alan.ca (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to talk:Alan.ca/Archive1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Hamilton WikiProject

I noticed that you added a link to a WikiProject on Hamilton which has yet to be created on the Project Guide. I was wondering whether you might want to consider contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario to discuss with them the possibility of establishing such a group as a subproject of the Ontario project. Speaking as one of the primary constructors of the existing project directory, I know that it currently has over 1100 separate projects and that one of the biggest obstacles several of them have is recruiting members. If you were to establish such a group as a subproject of the Ontario project, you would benefit from having the members of that project know about your project, and likely get some contributions from them that you may not have gotten otherwise. As no project officially exists right now, I am removing the red-link from the project directory. If such a group becomes a subproject of the Ontario project, I am sure that they will reinsert it. If after discussion, you still feel that the best or only way to proceed is as a separate project, please read the Project Guide for some ideas on how other successful projects have developed, and perhaps contact me at my talk page if you want any help setting the project page up. Good luck. Badbilltucker 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea...count me in. Nhl4hamilton 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New verifiability discussion

Hi. I have chosen to remove the discussion last edited on 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC) here to avoid it getting lost. Your edit was "Actually Mark, an editor can remove any statement that is not sourced. By definition any disputed fact is controversial. You should also notice that when I remove a statement, I often use html comment tags to make it disappear from the article, but leave it intact in the wikitext in case someone chooses to verify the fact and reinclude it. Please do not assert I am disrespectful when I am clearly acting in a non-destructive fashion."

My point was based on Wikipedia:Citing sources: ~~:To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:~~

If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the ^{[citation needed]} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.

This is not relevant as wp:cite is a style guide, not an official policy document. I have therefore stuck out this point.Alan.ca 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your point about disruption refers to this edit of mine. I'm sorry to not assume good faith but putting aside the fact that it is very obviously a major company there were very many ways for you to check if the article was notable, i.e. discussing it on the talk page or contacting main contributors. Mark83 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first point to make here is that Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia where as Citing sources is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. Understand that Verifiability is one of the three pillars of this project and the citing sources article is a guide to helping editors comply with policy.Alan.ca 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large company is not always a notable company. It is the responsibility of the contributing editor to prove the notability of a subject by using cited facts. Please realize there is a difference between the notability of a subject in your mind and the proven notability of it in an encyclopedic article.Alan.ca 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, please know, I do appreciate the work you did on the Hughes Electronics article. I am having this debate with not to just hammer a point, but to debate it. It's possible you might change my mind, but obviously I think I'm in the right here. Alan.ca 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Barbara Biggs' AfD

Hi Alan. I've fixed up the AfD tag you put on this article, since you'd written what was basically a Prod rationale into it - thus preventing a link to the discussion itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bighatz, I must be getting tired. :) Alan.ca 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced tagging

Alan, as you're noticing from the above you're quickly becoming a pest with the speedy tagging. You better turn of your bot before people get too aggravated. In my case the bio, finished less than a minute before your tag, was sourced by stating that it was a translation from the Dutch wikipedia article. On top of that, I was about to add some more info (like a link to a Dutch website) which perhaps would have stopped you from adding the tag in the first place. You seem to feel strongly that your tags are important, but please give people at least some time to finalize their article.Afasmit 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a bot, I was flying through manually. I admit I went to far with a few of them. I apologize if your article was one of them. It was my first run of new page patrol and I already admitted some of it went too far. Please also note, the original author is not permitted to remove a speedy tag.Alan.ca 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Afasmit, I didn't tag your page for speedy deletion. I put an unsourced tag because your article did not have any sources. There is no reason to remove the tag, it is cleanup tag to notify other editors that this article needs sources. Please return the tag. Alan.ca 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alan, I never said you tagged this innocent little article on the athletic achievements of a non-living person that I simply translated from the Dutch wikipedia for deletion. I was trying to warn you that your current overly fast and thus poorly-thought-out tagging and probably other editing (like your answers to my complaint) will lead to a lot of flaming from less benign editors, as witnessed by all the text that you've already cleared from this page. Perhaps you can live with that, or even enjoy it, but it does not encourage people from adding information to wikipedia, which hopefully still is at the heart of this project and at least equally important as your beloved 3 pillars. It would make more sense if the new-page patrol (a thankless job, I'm sure) focuses on articles that contain some level of potentially controversial or dubious data. I'm sure there are plenty of those. In the case of Chris Berger, his sprint records of the 1930s can often be confirmed in the wikipedia articles to which I'd internally linked. With respect to the tag, I removed it because I'd added the source that I was about to add when you out-tagged me. Adding a source seems a good reason for removing a no-source tag, but apparently I didn't follow the rules exactly. Is it because I called it an external link rather than an external source or reference? In that case you would've corrected the header instead, so that won't be it. Or is it that the source is in Dutch? It'll be hard to find such a good source for information on this person in English. With such rigorous requirements, you will have a lot of work tagging unsourced articles. There will be over a million of those. Afasmit 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who challenges a great deal of edits is going to have some backlash. An unsourced tag is no reason for backlash, but apparently some people misunderstand its purpose. If an article is unsourced for any period of time, the unsourced tag is an acceptabl placement. The fact that there is so much discussion on my talk page is a testament to the fact that I explain my choices to those who challenge it and try to work to find the best solution for wikipedia. In your case, I think it's a simple over reaction to a simple maintenance tag. IF you want my constructive criticism, here it goes:

1) When citing sources please try to include the reference in the text of the article where the statement you are citing lies. I generally use footnotes which can be learned about at wp:foot. Have you seen the citation templates available?

2) Consider when initially creating an article to write something brief that contains well sources facts. This gives other editors time to contribute to your work while limiting the need for someone like myself to come along and challenge the unsourced nature of your article. Either way, thanks for the feedback and I hope you continue to invest the time to translate articles. Alan.ca 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise - wikify Kurgan obelisks

Kurgan Obelisks

Alan,I will gldly wikify, but I need help: what to do and how to do it. Will you please advise me about your specific requirements. Barefact 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to know, that in tagging the article I'm not implying it should be deleted in anyway. You obviously put a lot of work into that article, the purpose of the tag is to get others to help you improve it. Have you tried reading the Wikipedia:Guide to layout article? Alan.ca 08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Biggs AfD

I might be coming accross as combative and I don't mean to. Sorry if it appears that way. You seem to be making a concerted effort to make that a good article and that deserves praise. At this point, I don't think it's a question of notability under WP:BIO guildlines, but I always agree that articles should be written in NPOV language. --Oakshade 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this debate is to first establish what sources are valid in the article. Do you agree that if Barb makes a statement in an interview, if it is published, televised or whatever else, it is still coming from Barb? The whole idea of independent sourcing is to get an outsider's point of view, that is independent on the subject of the article. Therefore, we cannot cite Barb's statements in an interview, no matter where it has been published. Agreed? Alan.ca 08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the question of notability, as per POV and article content, as always I agree. In the BBC interview, even in just the openning statements by the inteviewer (and on the written summary page for that matter), there is a 3rd party journalistic verification about what that inteviewer is saying about the suject and that in itself can be considered a reliable source. Of course what the subject says as the inteveiw commences is not 3rd party. --Oakshade 09:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we agree on that point. *phew* Can you provide the link here and the text that you believe attests to her notability? Alan.ca 09:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*phew* I'm glad too. For notability, this is where we might have detailed dissagreement. I do believe that her being the primary subject of the two The Age articles and the BBC inteview (however much of the latter is should not be used as content verification) satisifies WP:BIO quite handily. Just that the news directors and producers of those entities chose to cover the subject the way that they did follows both the letter and "spirit" of the guildline. (If you do respond to this, I'm sorry I won't respond quickly as I'm very tired and going to sleep now). --Oakshade 09:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am a deletionist, if there is such an animal, and I am satisfied as to notability: multiple published works, non-trivial coverage. I am bothered by the WP:AUTO but that is not a deletion criterion if the article is otherwise sound. If you are also convinced, we can WP:SNOW this one. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's drop it Robert. I will try and work with Barb to keep her fingers out of it and restain herself to providing sources or points of interest on the talk page. It looks like she may turn out to be an excellent contributor to articles within her area of expertise on wikipedia.Alan.ca 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Oakshade is arguing for notable on the basis of the BBC interview and the Age article, you will all see now many more citations to many more articles which were not there before. I have been the subject of a great many high profile journalistic interviews which I have now mentioned in the article. (But if this is seen as biased, remove the sentence by all means. But if you want notability, these references provide more.) The list of articles cited now in the entry is by no means complete - many important ones can't be found now on google since they several years old. But in any case, there are so many it would be silly to include them all even if they were to hand. As for the verifiability of my story, with the enormous amount of media coverage it has received, nobody has yet questioned any single fact I have claimed happened to me. How would one, under your criteria, say, for example, prove that what happened th Frank McCourt when he was a boy, really happened? Presumably he is the only one who could verify many of these events. Anyone in the media who then talks about these events, would only be doing so based on what he had said since nobody else would ever have published anything else, independantly, about his life. On this basis, you could never verify any memoir of a non-famous person. Also, I have suggested to Oakshade on his own article, since he gave the entry a strong keep recommendation, that he may have an interest in rewriting or rejigging the article. Or asked where I could post a notice requesting that some interested party might do this. In any case, where does this leave the entry now? Barbbiggs 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barb, we're going to withdraw the deletion process, but please stop writing your own biography! It violates many fundamental principals of wikipedia. The article has a talk page where you can provide sourced information for consideration, but it is better for everyone if you let a neutral editor include it in the article.Alan.ca 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you change your unvote to "Keep" then you (or someone else) can speedy close it. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My WP username seems to have been deleted. Are you able to explain how or why this may have happened? My laptop is in for repair, so I'm in an internet cafe logging on, but that shouldn't change anything should it? If I create a new user name, it means I can't access any messages in discussion or talk pages under my old username. What does withdrawing the delete process mean? It's still marked for deletion when I request the page as a non-user. I have stopped writing my own biography. I have merely sourced what was there to satisfy the complaints that were identified as problems. I have lived my life not relying on others to fix problems for me. If I'd waited for that I'd still be back at the amoeba phase! In any case, I'm pleased to see that someone has put back the political candidacy reference, added quotes from Peter Hollingworth etc. As for sources, the ones I found, I did so because I knew where to look. Surely you're not going to tell me that sourcing comments yourself violates fundamental Wikipedia policy. I read an article in the Washington Post that someone sent me about Wikipedia's treatment of its delete policy. It was not a positive article for the Wikipedia profile. 203.36.217.79 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barb, the deletion process is a debate. Robert and I, as the main opposition of keeping your article have agreed to keep your article with the understanding that you will be supervised not to edit the main page article. That includes adding sources. I cannot comment on the review you speak of, but in this case we simply do not want someone writing their own biography as it does not respect the wikipedia principle of neutral point of view. Please understand that things move slowly on wikipedia and that failure to include everything that should be in the article instantly is not a failing of this process. Are you aware that having your biography on wikipedia may lead to it including information that you may not be comfortable with being shared on the Internet? Please remember you are not the authority on what goes in and does not go in to your biography on wikipedia. If you can respect this principle, your article will grow in time and people will volunteer to improve it. If you choose to violate this principle you will find that your article will be content locked from being changed and that your user account will become banned. I hope this is not what has to happen as I believe you will continue to make great contributions to wikipedia in the form of editing other articles. Alan.ca 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review comments

Thank you for providing a comment on my editor review, and your kind words are appreciated! Seraphimblade 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome my friend, your assistance in helping me work towards staying neutral has benefited me personally and wikipedia as well. It is through your mentorship activities that your wisdom is multiplied. Alan.ca 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cites to self-published sources

I noticed your comments to the Amy Loftus AFD and find you seem to (IMO) be misrepresenting accurate sourcing. It has always been acceptable to source non-controversial detail to statements made by an individual about themselves. Self-published sources cannot establish notability, of course, but they are valid sources for information. Even if a newspaper article does not actually quote a subject directly when making statements about them, it is most likely that they simply got those details from the subject in any event; thus no real extra reliability is gained thereby.

You should also be very careful about ever removing a stated source from an article - in other words, don't do it unless you have a very good reason, which should normally be that you have found a better source for that information (although it never hurts to keep multiple references). Sources are cited to document where the information came from. If you delete a source, you are in effect losing that origin information. A poor source is not ideal, but it is better than no source being stated at all.

We take self-published statements as sources all the time. We source a company's own press releases in writing an article about it. We source Microsoft's web site when writing an article about Microsoft Word. We source peoples' personal websites to gain biographical detail. This is normal, natural and correct. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback Morven, citing sources is a point of interest for me. I may have been too agressive with that Amy Loftus article, I often comment out or move such things to the talk page. However, on the issue of unreliable sources, do you not agree that referenced citations in an article tend to give crediblity to that article if they are accurate or not? As strange as it may sound, from my POV, when I see that footnote, I don't always click it, I somehow assume that if someone included it, it must be useful. In the case of a reference to the subject's web site or a blog page, I feel as though the integrity of all citations are being brought into question.

That's not to say that I do not check citations when the subject is important, but that I know many people do not. In the case that I do check a citation, I try to make certain it meets the standard of verifiability and NPOV, so when someone like myself reads the article, in the case when they do not check, I am improving the accuracy of what is being read or indicating the fact has not been checked properly. I guess where we differ in opinion, is that, I see a poor reference as no reference at all. As in, I never ask a friendly fisherman to show me with his hands how big was the fish he caught when I was not around. To me, this blatant conflict of interest can only lead to trouble and therefore I discount the evidence. I'm not arguing that independent sources cannot be wrong, but I guess that's where I draw the line. Further on this subject, what is your point of view on citing a subject's statements from a public interview?Alan.ca 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it all depends on what a subject's own statement is being used to support. If it is a non-controversial detail, then I'm definitely fine with it. We (and journalists, for that matter) tend to use a subject's own statements for things like that when there is no suggestion of controversy.

If the subject's statements are being used to support something stronger than minor detail, I want the article text to explicitly state that this is the subject's own claims, rather than leave it appearing to be a neutral statement. E.g. "In an interview, Subject claimed that she was sexually abused between the ages of ten to fourteen".

As to references, I think a poor source is better than leaving the content in the article unsourced. Depending on what is claimed, sometimes the right thing to do with a poor source is to remove the statement from the article (placing it in the talk page so that others can find references). IMO, one should never leave the statement in the article but remove the source; that just loses useful information.

I don't agree that references in an article add undeserved credibility to it. Since sourcing is mandatory, every statement in Wikipedia should (in general) be sourced. There is some argument to the idea of 'invisible' references, reducing the clutter to the general reader. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been quite challenged by the Barbara Biggs page, if you read the associated AfD you will see how I tried to resolve it. I have been seeking advice from another wiki editor as a second opinion on many things as I have just recently started removing articles and content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to offer me future guidance in this regard? I would like to get your opinion on the Barbara Biggs article if you're interested. Alan.ca 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one living person accuses another living person, Wikipedia should be especially careful about sourcing. While poor or marginal sources are acceptable for many purposes, they are never acceptable for a derogatory claim about a living person. Also, where it is not clear whether a person is living or dead, we must presume them living. I have no clue whether the person that Barbara Biggs accuses is still living, but until I see a reliable source concerning his death, I must presume him alive. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Project

If you were to set up a project, you would probably want the project to cover more than just the individual article. You would probably want it to exist as a project covering all things related to Hamilton; the history, people, and so on, pretty much everything in the Category:Hamilton, Ontario. To address the matter of the specific existing faults of the Hamilton, Ontario page, you might want to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario and see if one of them would be willing to review the article, specifically with an eye to addressing the existing deficiencies. Also, you might mention at the same time that you might want to consider setting up a task force to deal specifically with articles relating to Hamilton, its people, geography and culture, and ask them if they would be willing to perhaps create a subproject to deal with it. Subprojects tend to have advantages over full-fledged projects, particularly in having much less administrative tasks to deal with, as the mother project generally performs them. Anyway, best of luck with your endeavors. Badbilltucker 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Liberal Party of Canada and Template:Infobox Canada Political Party

Please help me fix the info box in Liberal Party of Canada and Template:Infobox Canada Political Party Alan.ca 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good now? There was a | missing somewhere on the LPC page :) If you need anything else, don't hesitate to put the helpme template back. Happy Editing! -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

putting the helpme template back, there might be an issue with the template in fact... The rendering seems good on the Article pages though... So I let someone else take a broader look at it. PS: Go Warriors! -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks okay to me - removing help-men tag - however, the information on the number of seats for a party is not used. --sony-youth 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD issues

The Barbara Biggs one I'm not sure on, but the fraternity sure doesn't look too notable to me (and long lists of "notable alumni" aside, notability by association isn't). Just be aware that trying to delete anything but the most obvious and unimprovable pile of crap will run you into opposition. Seraphimblade 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aziza Abdel-Halim

Aziza Abdel-Halim - I don't know how to cite or source... maybe you can help? See http://www.mwnna.org.au/aboutus.htm for a reference...

--PeterMarkSmith 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the page and demonstrated the use of a web citation. However, you will need to add more content and sources to meet the criteria of Notability for a biography.Alan.ca 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright

I am concerned that the Picture of Stephen Harper may not be licensed properly. The photograph that we're using, is clearly copywritten by Mr. Chung as seen at this url.Alan.ca 12:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that it is copyrighted, and thus should be removed from any articles, and deleted from Wikipedia. Bjelleklang - talk 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Saxon

I noticed you reversed my changes. What are you looking for and what are you trying to do? I encourage you to spell it out in simple language so we can both accomplish our goals quicker. Cheers.--P-Chan 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main point would be, cite sources for any controversial statements. If you require assistance in integrating a source you have found I may be able to assist.Alan.ca 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People Power Party

I noticed you made a number of edits to this article - it's nice to know people notice articles you've worked on! As a semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia (I have occassional bursts of enthusiasm) I freely admit I don't totally appreciate the minutiae of the editorial rules so could you please briefly explain your edits to this article? As the editor who originally organised and added to this stub I'm somewhat confused by your succession of edits - i.e. the speedy delete tag (which I realise you did end up removing), your comments about citations from the party website (which I linked to originally as they give the best indication of the substance of a party's election policies - as well as what mainstream media there was relating to them) as well as the removal of a number of secondary source article citations (even if they were broken links then should they rather be converted into footnotes?) I really don't mean to sound narky just interested in learning a few of these rules for future reference - thanks for your help! Cheers. -- CumberlandsAshes81, 13 December 2006

No problem, I appreciate your good faith assumption represented in your posting. I can't recall the specific edits to that article, but in looking at the edit history it appears as though my concern was around the matter of verifiability and the citing of independent sources. Have you had an opportunity to read wp:v and wp:cite? Alan.ca 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with conflict of interest

What is the best way to address an editor who is writing their own biography on wikipedia? Barbara Biggs Alan.ca 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to them on their talk page and then do an AfD. (one has already been started) Cbrown1023 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done both of these things, the community wants to permit the article because of the subject's notability and I don't have much of a problem with it. The problem arises from the fact that the subject continues to edit their own biography and include their non wp:npov and wp:or.Alan.ca 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you left a note at their talk page about WP:COI, and WP:AUTO? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had extensive conversation with the user and I have pointed to those guidelines many times. In fact, other users have also pointed this out to her, yet her merciless editing of her own biography continues. You should see her talk page User talk:Barbbiggs.Alan.ca 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If at least two users have tried to advice the problem user on their talk page, a request for comment may be filed for user conduct. Just ask one more time for the user to obey policies and guidelines, but don't threaten them with a RfC. If they refuse, ask two other users who have tried to calm the situation to help you file one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some advice on both her talk page and the article talk page. I tried to strike a tone between admonitory and advisory. BTW, are you satisfied that the barrister is no longer living? If so, {{blp2}} was unjustified and should be removed from her talk page, IMO. Even if you are not satisfied, I suggest that {{blp1}} might have been more appropriate because the case is not clearcut. In any event, I suggest you use the parameter to clarify and move the warning to an appropriate section with a timestamp to help out any admins who may need to take action later. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin who is engaging in revert wars with more than one user.

How do I deal with a wikipedia admin who is presently engaged in a revert war with me for the second time, on an entirely separate article. I have filed a cabal case and complained on the 3r admin noticeboard. I investigated this user's edits and have found that on atleast one other occassion, this month he has engaged in another revert war. This other article is the Paul Christie article. Alan.ca 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your 3RR complaint, I have to agree that it is not valid. Aside from problems of form (you need diffs, not versions), you need to prove four reverts within 24 hours. The four you cited covered nearly sixty hours. That's not even close. Do you have any evidence that the Admin is using his powers to intimidate you or gain an advantage? If you feel that he has, then you can report the problem on WP:AN/I, but I see no clear evidence of an actionable problem. Feel free to leave a message either here (I will watch) or on my talk page and I will try to help you sort it out. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am the wikipedia admin Alan.ca is referring to. The "revert war" he's alleging is on the Judy Marsales article, wherein I've removed inconsequential information than appears to be thinly-disguised POV-pushing. Calling this a "war" of any sort would be an overstatement, though if Alan.ca wishes to flag a content dispute, he may want to make a Request for Comment.

The other situation involves my dispute with User:GoldDragon. GoldDragon's general "modus operandi" on Wikipedia is to repost the same edits over and over and over, even in situations where everyone else disagrees with him. I've dealt with him over a period of several months, and consider him to be a nuisance editor most of the time (although not a vandal). I'm certain that I'm not alone in this view. I've tried introducing compromise language several times, but, unfortunately, I've learned that one frequently has to descend to his level of multiple reverts to counter his dubious edits. It isn't pleasant, but the alternative is generally worse.

None of this has anything to do with admin powers. CJCurrie 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asserting abuse of admin powers, but I do believe that someone who holds these powers should be more consistent with the criteria to be nominated as an admin, namely, acting consistent with wikipedia policies. Reverting an edit, refusing to discuss it and subsequently returning uncited information while removing a well source statement, doesn't seem consistent with the ideals of this project. Alan.ca 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my actions more than once. The accuracy of your situation was never at issue; the relevance of the information is. CJCurrie 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your contributions, you seem to think you are the authority on article content. You may want to consider, that you do not hold the stick of final decision. This is not the first time that you have reincluded unsourced information and removed someone elses cited work. I do, however, find it interesting that most of your reverts are when the included information suggests a right winged political view, where you seem to have no problem including uncited statements when it supports a left wing view. So let us continue to skirt the 3r rule as we continue to revert war on the article.Alan.ca 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to discover that I've been adding detailed citations to several political articles over the last year. Now, per your request ...

You removed a cited contribution I had made to the Judy Marsales Article. We can discuss the wording if you like, but the fact that she voted against the public opinion of her constituents is releveant to her biography. It could be argued that this citation demonstrates a style of politics.

"The fact that she voted against the public opinion of her constituents" is a POV extrapolation of the information in question. One might indeed argue that "this citation demonstrates a style of politics", but one should find a different forum if one wants to make this argument. In any event, a government backbencher's decision to vote against an opposition member's private bill is hardly a matter of consequence. CJCurrie 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is about Judy Marsales, if she is notable, then her actions that define her role that made her notable are relevant to her biography. The opinion expressed was not my personal opinion, but the finding of a reporter who wrote the article. You are free to include a cited statement that contradicts this assertion, but I don't see how it is neccessary to remove it simply because you don't agree with it. Are you saying that you do not object to the publishing of the vote, but to the opinion that it was against the opinion of her constituents? Alan.ca 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was objecting to your rationale for inclusion. I've already stated that I do not consider the matter of sufficient importance, no matter how it is presented. CJCurrie 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of the greater good, are you willing to consent that both of our statements will be left out while we pursue dispute resolution of which you will cooperate? Alan.ca 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my statements are you referring to? CJCurrie 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced list of awards that were attributed to Judy Marsales which I had moved to the talk page. I would also move the section I had added to the talk page under a dispute heading. Alan.ca 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. CJCurrie 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Box

Sort of. I'll explain on that mediation page, but in short, the whole request is absurd. The claimant has edited the page twice, in spite of a few discussions on Talk:Serial Box explaining why the link can't go into the article (violates one and possibly two policies). I'm not sure how someone who's edited the page twice jumps right to mediation. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why this case was even accepted, as there was no ongoing conflict with User:Bshrode, nor did he make any attempts to discuss his issues on the article's talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case was accepted because the user had filed a complaint for mediation. You appear to be interested in discussing the matter for resolution. Are you now withdrawing your interest to resolve the dispute through my mediation?Alan.ca 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation -- Christian Democracy

Do you agree to accept me as your mediator in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy? Alan.ca 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I believe it is now a non-issue - the edit-warring has stopped and some form of consensus has been reached, as Itake left. He also stated to me via e-mail that he would no longer interfere with my editing, or, in his words, he would "stop ******* around with the Wikipedia articles". You should regard the case as closed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the case, good luck with your future edits.Alan.ca 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation -- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

Are you a respondent in this case? Alan.ca 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check the WP:MEDCAB page, you'll notice I'm the Mediation Cabal Coordinator. I go through all the new cases and rename them when needed, fill out the templates if they're not done by the requestor (who didn't do this in your case), delete invalid cases (if they're complete nonsense, for instance), and deal with mediator requests for administrative functions. If, for instance, you needed an article semiprotected due to vandalism which is part of a case, you'd leave a note for myself or Cowman109.

Anywho, nice to have you mediating cases for us, it's a lot of hard work for everyone involved, but I think the end result is worth it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper Copyvio

As the image is not a copyright violation, I took down the tag so that it would not get deleted after seven days. There was already licensing info on the page, it was listed for deletion in bad faith and was eligible for speedy keep. --Arctic Gnome 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not list it in bad faith. The url where the image is taken from contains a copyright notice for a Mr. Chung. Unless you have a release from Mr. Chung, you have no release at all. Therefore, you are vandalizing the page by removing the tag. If you won't follow procedure I will report you as a vandal.Alan.ca 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says © House of Commons on the main page of Harper's page, which we have permission from the house and the PMO, which Herman Chung is part of as Harper's offical photographer. SFrank85 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla de Villiers

Thanks for the note: I'm not sure I can find much info to add without better access to sources. However, I was wondering: why were CAVEAT and de Villiers merged? While CAVEAT is now defunct, I think it was sufficiently important during its years of operation that it merits its own article even now. That de Villiers does is beyond question. --Saforrest 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was faced with the fact that both articles were lacking sources and not very well maintained. I figured instead of risking losing both, I would merge them in hopes of saving one. I chose de Villiers because she was really the force behind CAVEAT and continues to progress beyond the closure of the organization. Alan.ca 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation: Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

Hello, I haven't been that involved in the articles releated to Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation. I mostly reverted POV-pushing by User:Itake, especially in the first sentence of Militant anti-fascism. I'm willing to express my assessment of the situation though. Just let me know what I should do. Spylab 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the applicant, but have not received a response for his intention to proceed. I will let you know if and when the matter moves forward. Thanks for the prompt reply. Alan.ca 10:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case was closed at the applicant's request. Thank you for your cooperation. Alan.ca 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed?!

Is it enough if i fill in the list of participants? [1] --Striver 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell,

This has progressed to RfC see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and help there would be appreciated. I have close this Mediation Cabal and put a link to the RfC. I think I have done it correctly - please check. Thanks Lethaniol 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation -- Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

I have opened the case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation on the mediation cabal. Do you wish to proceed with the mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That too is now a non-issue. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

Sorry to ask this, but how do I confirm that I'm a respondent in the Aly & AJ Gernre Classification Case? I thought I was part of the case anyway. Do I confirm it here or somewhere else? Acalamari 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You click this link Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification and you will see your account listed as other parties. Alan.ca 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already clicked on it, now what do I do? Acalamari 16:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is voluntary, the requestor put your name on the page to indicate that you should be contacted as a party to the mediation. The idea of mediation is to have the parties discuss an issue with an impartial mediator. If you do not want to participate, state so and I will remove your name. Alan.ca 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a party in the mediation; definitely. I just wasn't sure how to confirm that I was in it. You're the mediator, and yes, I will be a party in the discussion (I got blocked due to the edit war, so I WILL be in the mediation). My only concern is that the User King Bee and I were having the edit war with, Switchfo0t813, will not participate in the mediation. Acalamari 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We only require two parties with a conflict to proceed with mediation. Alan.ca 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all I do is edit the discussion section and sign with the four tildes? Simple as that? Acalamari 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 254: / Line 254: @@
 :::I'll be a party in the mediation; definitely. I just wasn't sure how to confirm that I was in it. You're the mediator, and yes, I will be a party in the discussion (I got blocked due to the edit war, so I WILL be in the mediation). My only concern is that the User [[User:King Bee|King Bee]] and I were having the edit war with, [[User:Switchfo0t813|Switchfo0t813]], will not participate in the mediation. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 ::::We only require two parties with a conflict to proceed with mediation. [[User:Alan.ca|Alan.ca]] 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
+:::::So all I do is edit the discussion section and sign with the four tildes? Simple as that? [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)