Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales [1]
A certain user, JuanMuslim, seems to be posting his own school assigments on Wikipedia: see Virgin Mary in Islam. Some of this information could probably be incorporated into another article, but it doesn't really work alone. His page Juan Galvan also seems to be autobiographical, so I'm not sure if the information necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia. What does one do in this case? (Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia.) Emiao01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! Another question: I know how to revert pages, but how do you produce the edit summary "Revert changes made by X to last version by Y"? Do you have to write the whole thing out? Emiao05:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Blocklog
Hey, SV, that's a very good question—I ran into a similar problem a little while back. It turns out the problem is that when Jtdirl blocked the user, he put "User:Leifern" as the username instead of "Leifern". The system ignores the extra "User:" and still blocks the appropriate person, but it won't show up on the block log unless you change the title field to say "User:User:Leifern"; see [2]. There's no way around it that I know of except to ask people not to block "User:User:xxx". Maybe I should see if I can add a note to the block page. — Knowledge Seekerদ04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Serbia
Ahem...In case you haven't noticed:
the issue was thoroughly discussed at Talk:Greater_Serbia, pt. 1. (Vuk Karadzic's linguistic pan-Serbism)
the user "Dejvid" started a revert war with his unsubstianted claims and revisions
he failed to justify his revisions and, during the debate, simply avoided to discuss the tricky questions. Or, vice versa, heaped unimportant jounalistic material as a "proof" of his theses etc.
all dubious points are thoroughly discussed at the Talk page. So, the whole "affair" is not about differences in opinion, but about vandals who would like, at any cost, to impose their distorted perception of reality. Mir Harven08:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First I have checked the history and I'm sure I didn't break the 3RR. I may have broken the spirit of the rule and were you to say that I would not take issue. I accept that "3 reverts is not a right" but it is an important line and I really don't think I crossed it. Please check that bit again.
The real problem is not that there is no longer any discussion but when there was we were talking past each other. My perception is Mir is to blame for that and likewise Mir thinks the same about me. Really we need a 3rd opinion but no one responded to the request. Maybe that is not surprising as the reputation of a 19th century Balkan linguist must sound pretty boring to those not in the know and that isn't helped by the condition that the request for a 3rd opinion must be neutrally worded. Any advice as how to make a third person feel it interesting enough to take the time to get involved would be much appreciated. As the problem is not over facts but their interpretation it really wouldn't matter if the 3rd person initially knew nothing about the background.
In the meantime I will try discussion. Who knows, it might work out better this time.
Frankly- I don't see the reason for unprotecting the article. This Serbian apologist named «Dejvid» is not «talking» or «arguing» in any logical meaning of the word- these are just old Greater-Serbian dogmas, repeated ad nauseam (in a quasi-conciliatory manner to leave the impression of tolerance and good intentions). His revisions of the Greater Serbia article are, the way he phrased them, examples of distortion, falsity and unsubstantiated sophistry. And- they are very easily recognized as such, for anyone conversant with the topic. Just, due to the nice & goody-goody package, they may not be diagnosed properly by the average uninformed outsider. In this case: civility is a cover for a malign ideology. Please protect this article from further ideologically motivated vandalism perpetrated (yes, like a crime) by user «Dejvid». Mir Harven10:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One interpretation of your warning "If you continue to revert" is that the two of us are under a permanent zero revert rule in relation to the Greater Serbian Page. If you could clarify that it would be much apreciated. I just want to know what the ground rules we should be working to. Dejvid15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get someone who can offer a 3rd opinion then none of us will need to get close to the 3RR. Might I suggest that expertise is not essential just a passion for NPOV. Indeed it may be easier for someone who hasn't taken an interest in the Balkans up to now might find it easier to stay neutral. Not many people start to gen up on the Balkans out of pure academic interest. I certainly can't claim that. Dejvid23:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Slrubenstein
Just so you know, I would have just warned this user for the 3RR violation, had it not been for a previous block for the same thing on the same article. I am not in favour of blocking on technicality, but when the offence is apparently repeated, I would definitely act more harshly. Smoddy(Rabbit and pork)16:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you remove your comments from here: [3] to avoid looking like an idiot.
Fine, they claim they are the copyright holder in that notice, but I still fail to see where and by the burden of what evidence they are able to substantiate the claim that they are. El_C04:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't bring it up, so maybe it's a different problem. I assume that it's the same one as the Molloy salute photo on this page http://fightdemback.blogspot.com/. I don't think that would be a good photo to use for a number of reasons. One of the other photos on fightdemback may be suitableto add as well. I see that a previously uninvolved editor has just added back the old version of the banner photo, to my surprise. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I resized the image, so it can fit well. But, if the consensus is to have the image be gone from the article until the (c) issues are taken care of, then so be it. However, I think the logo should be moved to the top of the article. Zscout370(talk)00:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the consensus is the photo should stay. I'm going to leave a note for Molloy asking for some evidence from the NZNF that they're the copyright holders. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for crashing your talk page, Slim. If we can properly claim fair use then it may not matter who the copyright holder is, though of course we should record that info. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I also apologize too, but as El C (?) said, Molloy will have to come up with evidence that he is the copyright holder. Also, one more thing, what is Yase!? Zscout370(talk)00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the thought of Wikipedia succumbing to bullying by essentially anonymous editors making unverified/false claims. I suspect this is how the group operates in real-life as well, mostly bullying and unverified/false claims. Jayjg (talk)01:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout, I see you deleted it again. Did you mean to do that? SlimVirgin(talk) 01:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I did. I replaced that image with the logo of the NZNF. I feel ok if we wait until this dispute is resolved befor introducing the photo again. I should have explained it, and I am sorry. Zscout370(talk)02:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put it back, Zscout, as we're claiming fair use. Perhaps we can discuss it on the talk page? SlimVirgin(talk) 02:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's also a Star Trek reference: Yet another Seven Episode (YASE). This is Seven, but fans got fed up with too many episodes about her apparently. ;-) SlimVirgin(talk) 23:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Man, we are just killing Slim's page. Well, it looks like the photo is not being contested so (hopefully), this issue is finished. YASE! Zscout370(talk)00:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yuber
Please do something about Yuber's constant vandalizing of pages - in addition to the Dhimmi page, he also continues to push his own POV edits in Saudi Arabia, ignoring the fact that his edits were rejected in dispute resolution. There are a few other pages he's pulling the same garbage on as well. KaintheScion
Please ignore this sockpuppet. He has been stalking me around on every page I edit and reverting it. He also listed me as vandalizing a page when I was clearly engaged in talk discussions and compromise.Yuber(talk)13:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, since an RFC was done on KaintheScion, we should do one on Yuber. Though Yuber has been reverting and inserting questionable items, but he does not really attack anyone and everyone. I believe we can convert this user to the Light side. Zscout370(Sound Off)04:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent comments regarding verifiability and "truth". If we didn't go by sources... if we started a personal investigation into every article on Wikipedia, we wouldn't get anywhere.
And I must say, nice user page.
Ignorance - Beware this boy...
The story of the slim virgin is an odd one... cheaters and scoundrels get their just desserts, I guess. Like karma.
Interesting in giving comments on a bitter dispute?
Then have a look at guru and talk:guru. There seems nothing to improve anymore with regards to citing from reputable sources but that doesn't make the dispute go away. Andries20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at Mr Tan (talk·contribs) and his behaviour. There's an RfC on him, which brings out most of the relevant facts, but he has been utterly unaffected by it, continuing to behave in exactly the same way, aggressively taking control of articles, becoming if anything more brash and rude, adding editorial notes to articles, together with links to temp pages, which he has in turn protected with notes telling other editors not to edit them. I seem to spend a great deal of my time simply reverting his edits and protecting articles from his blundering attempts to improve their English (as you'll see, his own English is among the worst to be encountered on Wikipedia, yet he has written very scathing attacks on other editors' language skills).
I'm now too involved in all the articles to do anything of an admin-nature; if I hadn't been, I'd probably have blocked him from editing by now (one article, Zanskar, has been protected twice in order to stop his (at least near-)vandalising edits). More voices might persuade him to stop and think, or at least to slow down. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)14:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
just guess
Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [4], [5]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that was me, the official spammer of this talk page. :( I misread the diff, I'm not sure how sober I was, too. Not that that would stop me next time. Anyway, yeah, I signed your name in error (which, unincidentally, I seem to be making a lot lately!), thereby depriving the Anon of his signature, and totally distorting the message! Giblets anyone? Forgivæness please!El_C23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your revert.
unfortunately you didn't revert the first vandalism though.
there are some moron/s who have nothing better to do with their time than continually vandalise my page because they disagree with my beliefs. Xtra09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
screwup on VfD nom
I tried to be bold, but seem to have messed something up with my VfD nomination for Ryan Coleman. It shows as item 2. on today's VfD listing, instead of 1.3141268 or whatever. Help. :-/ TomerTALK 18:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind. thanks. I deleted it and put it back in and it works now. TomerTALK 18:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of RJII's comment
I noticed that you removed RJII's somewhat uncivil comment on the BCE/CE debate page. While I agree that RJII's comment doesn't help the discussion directly, it helps us understand his decision making process and his views behind his edits. I seriously doubt Slrubenstein would have been hurt by the comment, and I really don't believe it was your place to remove it. Be Bold isn't intended to apply to editing other people's discussion outside of the main article space. --Gmaxwell17:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, thanks for your message. RJII's comment did not serve to explain anything about his vote and wasn't attached to a vote. This is an entirely personal thing directed against Steve, due to a dispute they had at another article. RJII is prone to make personal attacks and they serve only to create ill-feeling; for that reason, I feel justified in removing it according to Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I hope you'll consider supporting me in this. The page has deteriorated somewhat from its initial purpose (which was to decide on the BC/AD thing and to generate discussion of the NPOV policy), and I don't want to see it entirely degenerate into abuse. Steve has decided to drop out for the time being, which means he can't respond, so in addition to the above, it's simply unfair that these comments should be left on the page, in my view. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I can respect your position, although I strongly disagree with the practice of removing personal attacks. So, I will not create any more fuss about your reversion of RJII's commentary. I think this case is a good example of one of the reasons why I disagree with removing personal attacks: Right now there are several people who disagree with Slrubenstein who are accusing him of making personal attacks because some of the comments he made once the discussion became heated were somewhat uncivil, and yet no one has gone back and cleaned up his act. As a result of attack removal a reader of Slrubenstein's commentary would not see the real sequence of events that led to the strongly worded replies, and the reader might reasonably conclude that Slrubenstein was acting irrationally. If removing a personal attack actually caused it to never exist, I would probably agree with the practice but it doesn't. I think it would be more productive of us to reply to personal attacks by stating that making such attacks is unbecoming for a wikipedian and that we support the attacked, or at least don't agree with the attacker. I've also seen many cases where the accusation 'personal attack', when used on someones borderline commentary, comes across as insulting itself (after all, a good wikipedia tries not to use language that comes off as attacking) and as a result only manages to further heat a hot temper. I understand that we probably disagree on this subject, and I'm thankful for your politely worded and well thought out reply. ... Happy editing --Gmaxwell18:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, actually I agree with most of what you said, though I haven't read the entire page and so I don't know what the exact sequence of posts is. However, RJII's comment stuck out like a sore thumb because it wasn't part of any exchange, but was a sort of "up yours" parting shot at Steve, completely detached from the debate, which is why I felt justified in removing it. I'm not going to get into a further edit war about it, however (I've deleted it once more, but won't do so if it's restored again) and I also thank you for your thoughtful response, and for agreeing not to restore the remark. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
In case you're interested...
... there's a dispute that has been listed on RfC at Talk:Perverted-Justice.com and so far I'm the only person who's come calling. I'm afraid my one lone opinion against two very entrenched opinions is not going to make terribly much difference... and beyond that, there are several issues that I've never dealt with before personally. (For instance, the webmasters of this site have created a special page for people who visit from the Wikipedia page, decrying certain Wikipedia practices and presenting certain information. I find this curious and I'm not entirely sure how best to deal with it). Anyway, FWIW! · Katefan0(scribble) 00:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
my theory
i believe this is either PSYCH or someone associated with him or her thus:
it appears to be a similar style each time.
i am almost 90% sure PSYCH has done at least some of it.
PSYCH said he had posted to a left wing blog to tell everyone to attack me.
therefore, i believe it is either PSYCH or someone acting on PSYCH's advice (e.g. Buffy05 who Tim Starling told me used the same IP as PSYCH).
Mind you they keep on using different IPs it is quite hard to stop. Xtra09:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
snow-coat.jpg?lang=en)
