User talk:Rd232/archive4

Cohen

Hi, despite the consensus on the BLP notice board, and your edit here in accordance [1]. One IP keeps reverting your edit and restoring the questionable material [2]. Could you please keep an eye on this? --NewLionDragon (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Articles about some Somali Towns

Every now and then I'll hear about something or other in Somalia on the news and Wikipedia it hoping to learn more about something or other. I have on a few occasions run into articles on various third world towns and rebel groups that seem to be written by extremely partial editors. I usually clean things up as I see them, and there have been a couple of occasions where I have had to hack out large portions of articles because of their blatantly unacceptable content (Bu'aale, Sudan_Liberation_Movement/Army, Merca; if you look at the versions before my earliest edit in the article histories).

I stumbled back on the Merca article and I noticed that it seems to have been made into an advertisement of its subject again. I don't like getting into forum arguments, I'm not a Wikipedia cop, and I don't really know if there is a decorous way of telling an editor or editors to knock something off; but whoever is reediting that article back to advertise its subject needs to cut it out. You're an admin (or so it seems). Can you do something about it? --Nogburt (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some self-promotion here: [3]. Generally if you can't sort it yourself by talking to the other editors, either on the article talk pages or on their user talk pages, you should start by getting others involved, eg at WP:NPOVN, WP:COIN, or possibly WP:AN. Sometimes an WP:RFC might be helpful. Sometimes there are relevant wikiprojects that you can bring problematic articles to the attention of. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

The problem has come back so I'm posting over on WP:AN.--Nogburt (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content forking

I know you have an interest in copy-editing policies and guidelines, so do you think you could find time to take a pass at Wikipedia:Content forking and see if you can root out any potential inconsistencies and also any scope drift? Hiding T 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. Disembrangler (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The prince of darkness.

Thanks for looking at that. Perhaps one day I will have the authority that when I take something out no one puts it back. I took the liar bit out twice and it was replaced twice and to be honest I wanted to keep taking it out until I was blocked for reverting. Those political biographies, unless they are looked over by an experianced editor, are a sorry reflection of the wikipedia 'rules'. Anything that has been written by a pov pushing daily paper being inserted as 'well cited'. Sorry if I seemed a bit short of patience. It is hard sometimes to take a step back when you remove something and it is reinserted and you take it out and it is reinserted, at that point taking it out again is a blockable offence and at that point it is hard to know what to do. Best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Ian McKellen

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback requested

Hello there. Noticed you were a frequent and recent contributor to the talk page for List of wars and disasters by death toll. Your feedback on the discussion here (and on my talk page here and here) regarding certain sources and abortion's relation to the subject of the article are requested and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already commented from my "insecure-location" account (User:Disembrangler). Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

Hello, Rd232. A recent Arbitration request in which you were named as a party, "telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation", has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You can review the reasons why the Arbitrators felt this case was not appropriate for arbitration at the archived version here; most probably, the declination would have been because the dispute appeared to be primarily a content issue only or because there was not enough effort to address this problem through other forms of dispute resolution prior to the filing of the request. If this issue is still in need of resolution, please consider pursuing other forms of dispute resolution (such as a request for comment or informal or formal mediation). Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me or another clerk.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

In appreciation for the clean-up and referencing you provided on the Alfred Taban article, I hearby present you with a tasty cookie. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yum!

) thanx. Rd232 ^talk 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the "Moving Forward" and summary

Thanks for stepping in with the "Moving Forward" and summary. I think the discussion was getting off track/bogged down (and I realize I contributed to that to some extent). Gosh, if I had known, I would have just submitted a bug report, and the NOINDEX default for User space would be in by now! LOL. Also, to be fair, this part: "*Some collateral damage - some useful userspace content may not be found via external search engines anymore (unless it's mirrored)" - the mirror will not reflect the current status/changes in wikipedia. Plus, mirrors don't necessarily copy all of wikipedia. So, it is iffy about mirrors supplementing what is lost to being able to search wikipedia by SE. --stmrlbs|talk 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying that searching a mirror does not replace being able to search wikipedia. But, I will leave it to the proponents of indexing everything to point that out. --stmrlbs|talk 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For most purposes it doesn't. But I wasn't saying (and I thought not implying) that. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

East Germany

@ History Section: So, what would make those headings appropriate? --Klingon83 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, having a really close look, I see how little you actually changed in what I added. Let's keep up the good work. ;-) --Klingon83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC).

AN/I thread

The thread on Kasaalan is far from over. Nothing has been done about the core issue: Kasaalan's behavior. Enigma^msg 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan would like the thread reopened, if possible. He says Kasaalan has resumed the behavior that got the thread started in the first place. See my talk. Enigma^msg 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing revert

Why do you keep reverting to Kaasalan's extremely POV and OR lead? Sentences like these: "WRMEA is criticized by many pro-Israel groups, however it has been known for having a large number of Jewish supporters and writers." are totally bogus and was obviously written by an editor.

So is "Criticism of WRMEA has been particularly strong and consistent from three US organizations dedicated to advocating for Israel and criticising what they see as "anti-Israel" positions in the media."

And "The Jewish Virtual Library (a member of the Israel on Campus Coalition)." I'm messaging you because your revert is a direct restoration to K's edit which means you either endorse it or approve of it. Clearly Kasaalan's obsession with Israel and Jews isn't going to stop. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"obsession with Israel and Jews"... Well perhaps you'd like to add to the Criticism of WRMEA some critics who are not self-avowed pro-Israel organisations. Or is that you just want to be allowed to cite them without saying who they are, as if it was irrelevant to reader interpretation of what they say? Rd232 ^talk 09:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits are still there. Continuing to edit the article in a POV fashion (or at least acting indifferent to its sour state) is most certainly discouraging. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

By the by, it's stating the obvious but it needs to be said - it's your personal opinion that these edits are "POV". It's a disagreement which we're trying to resolve through discussion, and a few of your comments here and elsewhere seem to neglect WP:AGF somewhat. Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(response to my talk) Your edits imply that by virtue of these organizations of having affiliations with Jews/Israel they are somehow obligated to attack WRMEA. That's total backwards and is not sanctioned by wikipedia policy. It is your personal POV that these sentences (which are OR btw) should be included. Not all the criticism comes from exclusively pro-Israel websites or news stuff. If we are going to apply your logic then we must say "The majority of contributors belong to the following categories: Anti-Israel/Anti-semitic, Holocaust deniers, Ultra-leftists, Extreme-rightists, etc...etc...Whatever the truthiness it is still absurd to demand the inclusion based off NPOV. You should know this. How does not painting the criticism of being unconditionally bon-a-fide "ZOMG PRO ISRAEL" somehow equal gospel? Uh?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

" Your edits imply that by virtue of these organizations of having affiliations with Jews/Israel they are somehow obligated to attack WRMEA. " I've said nothing about affiliations. I've summarised what their articles say about their purpose. Their criticism of WMREA is part of that purpose. That doesn't make the comments illegitimate or even wrong, but it does make their purpose relevant context. And for the last time, please, FFS, stop putting words in my mouth like "ZOMG pro israel" (what is ZOMG anyway?). Rd232 ^talk 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You've made a conscious effort in needlessly exposing their Jewishness and by not doing so it somehow makes it "gospel." That is what you said. You are putting far too much wait on the credibility of these sources. Editors can click on the blue if they want to know more, telling them about it in intellectually dishonest way is not fair nor appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit, we could also applying your reasoning to other subjects. You didn't respond to the later portion of my post (this was discussed more thoroughly). Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which post? this user talk discussion to-and-fro is confusing (which is why it should stay on article talk). However I'm off for a while now. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you provide a diff showing where I've pointed to their "Jewishness", as opposed to Israel advocacy, or apologise for effectively accusing me of anti-semitism, I'm going to pursue WP:DR in some form. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a dispute resolution is consistent with what is going on, though my issues is less with you and more with Kaasalan. Do you want really diffs? You endorse the current criticism section, and as of late has mostly been crafted by yourself. My opinions of it can be found in talk, with you responding. You haven't disputed the Jewishness of the article but rather the NPOV of the inclusions. Correct? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And no, I am not accusing you of being antisemitic. Though the current criticism section borders libel and uncompromisingly bent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't disputed the Jewishness of the article" - I don't even know what that means. Aside from sources having "Jewish" in the name, which is ahem a bit unavoidable, it hasn't come up. "the current criticism section borders libel" - an interesting interpretation, given that the parts you object to cite the organisations themselves (taken from existing WP articles). Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing references. What I'm saying is the current criticms section makes an extreme effort to point out the Jewishness/Israel relationships to an offensive extent. There is no reason to plast (pro-Israel watchdog group) over every thing, and lead sentence was OR (most of these criticisms come from Israel groups who attack anyone they believe has an anti-Israel bias). Come'on, Rd. Someone wrote that from their own confirmation bias and then people start fishing for sources. It is not simply undue but libelous. You are doing exactly what Kaasalan did. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Communication has clearly broken down here, you're repeating points I've already responded to. And as said before, user talk pages are not the place to discuss this. Rd232 ^talk 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs&diff=302902132&oldid=302846739 This isn't part of their political position. Wikipedia isn't going to host WRMEA. Whether or not they keep tabs on *gasp* donations to Israel has little to do with policy. Also, please don't edit-war unreferenced information. The sentence has a. Find a reference and I'll be happy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

Did your recent comment relate to the rewritten version (posted a few minutes previously) or to the original version? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Current at time of writing. As my comment suggested, this isn't about particular things written (though that may be improvable), it's about the whole "anti-Israel" frame. It is not WP:NPOV to accept that frame for the article title (which drives the article focus). Rd232 ^talk 10:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title is problematic. It is the only place where the expression is used where it is not attributed to a pro-Israeli source. But I don't believe that the "anti-Israeli" term is driving the article any longer. Strip off the title, and don't read past the section on "prestatehood". Do you still believe it is POV? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if there was another term that referred to this same group of organizations, I would gladly prefer it. But somehow, "pro-Arab" or "pro-Palestinian" doesn't seem to cut it, and "anti-Israel" is the term by which, for better or worse, the group is identified in every press clipping I have ever seen.

Merging it with the Israel lobby article, would, of course, get rid of the problem of the title. We could then call the merged article "Middle East lobbying in the United States". --Ravpapa (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is a terminological problem. Probably some merger like that is the least bad solution. Rd232 ^talk 10:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry bio

Hello Rd232, problems persist on the Roland Perry page. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roland_Perry

Some guidance to resolve would be greatly appreciated.

Haruspex101 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Bob Ainsworth

Will you please reconsider your removal of the reference to Bob Ainsworth and the IMG? In doing so, you appear to me to have ignored and pre-empted the discussion now taking place. Mr Ainsworth has confirmed (to me, via his spokesperson) that he attended IMG meetings at this period. He will not answer questions about how many he attended, or about what IMG activities he participated in. He has denied being a member of the IMG, but at no stage has this allegation been made. Attempts to get him to clarify his actual status have met with unhelpful silence. You are incorrect, thefefore, in sayingt that there is 'zip, nada' etc about this. We have an allegation, a partial confirmation (that he attended meetings, that eh had a friedn in the IMG he introduced him to the organisation)and a mystery. Mr Ainsworth is not a private citizen minding his own business, but Secretary of State for Defence, and his political past (especially if he is secretive about it) is surely relevant. On the discussion page of the entry I suggested a modified entry. That is why I ask you to reconsider your action. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it, exactly, that you say is not verified? As I have already said, more than once, Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson confirms, in direct quotation, that he attended IMG meetings in Coventry at this period. The same spokesperson has declined to answer supplementary questions on his involvement. I am happy to show you her e-mail provided you agree to respect the convention under which it was sent, which means she is not named. What more reliable source would you require? To erase the previous reference and replace it with nothing at all is absurd, and would suggest to an innocent reader that the original allegation was wholly without foundation, which is not the case. You are also a third party in this discussion, I was debating it with another contributor when you swooped down from your lofty perch and deleted without substitution. Please pay some attention. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall try to persist. I do not think you are paying attention to what I am saying. There is a published source. The following has been published in The Mail on Sunday, (19th July 2009, p.27):

"I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. I think the links between ‘New Labour’ and the revolutionary Marxist Left are extensive, interesting and important. So I asked a ‘spokesperson’ about it. She said: ‘He was never a member.’ Well, that looks like a denial, but isn’t. The story says he was a candidate for membership, not that he was a member. The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ Apparently he went to ‘a couple’ of meetings? Only two, or more? No answer. The source wouldn’t say. The source said he just went because he was open-minded. So would he have gone to a BNP meeting, being so open-minded? The source: 'Certainly not.’Then why go to a meeting of a group that supported the IRA? The spokesperson floundered. Eventually I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’. If he had such a firm view already, why go once, let alone twice? When I asked several supplementary questions, the answer was silence. I shall publish the unanswered questions on my blog and continue to press for answers."

The article can be found on the web at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html

So can my supplementary questions at

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-international-marxist-group.html

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message to me - Well, what more can I do? The article is in fact a sourced fact ( not even a claim). Assuming good faith - as you have not done from the beginning of your dealings with me - I took it that your inability to understand this might arise fom a lack of knowledge about the terminology and rules of political journalism. To reassure you that the terminology used was normal, and that the 'spokesperson' quoted was, as I said, an official spokesperson for the Secretary of State, and the words I quoted were the spokesperson's as communicated to me via the government e-mail system, I was and remain prepared to forward you a copy of the e-mail. This is not to establish veracity, which is already clearly established in the eyes of those who understand how political journalism works ( and practically anyoe else, in my view) , but to help you understand an area of life you appear not to understand. Of course, were I to assume that you just wanted to keep the information out of the entry for other reasons, I needn't bother. But, as I said, I'm assuming good faith. Isn't it time you did the same? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always assumed good faith re your WP actions (partly because you've never given me any reason to question it). My "smear" comments about the frivolous IRA connection were directed at your published off-WP article, and is a fairly un-avoidable inference about that work, I think (it's not one you've ever tried to argue, either). Nice work on the condescension, by the way - good stuff. Rd232 ^talk 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Partiality Problems Involving Political Campaign Articles

I have edited Houston politics-related articles in the past; but at present I happen to be actively involved in the subjects that those articles cover. I'm having a bit of trouble trying to decide where I should draw my own line. Specifically, I'm trying to decide how I should or shouldn't allow myself to work on present Houston Mayoral Election-related articles.

It would be nice if there was some group of editors who had no interest in this particular election who would bother to work on its relevant articles so that I could recuse myself from them. But the reality seems to be that most of the interest in working on the articles comes from those who have an interest in the subject of those articles and particular electoral outcomes. The supporters of a candidate are generally in the best position to know about that candidate, but they are also rather disposed to promoting their candidate. And there is a sometimes blurry line between giving information about someone and advertising them.

For instance, everyone agrees that basic biographical information like the date and place of birth, and the offices held by a person are relevant. But what if a person has done something? Is that thing that was done some achievement worth noting in Wikipedia? If so, how does one note it without promoting the subject? How does one determine what is "balanced" and "relevant"?

In addition to any advice you may have on these problems I would greatly appreciate it if you or someone else who had no interest in Houston Politics would look at:
-The Houston mayoral election, 2009 article to see if everything on it is appropriate.
-The pages for the major candidates in the election: Peter Hoyt Brown, Gene Locke, Roy Morales, and Annise Parker to see if these articles are encyclopedic and in generally proper form.
-Decide whether or not Roy Morales is a notable-enough person to have a Wikipedia article.

--Nogburt (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 04:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

RFC structure/problems

I was hoping there would be more discussion about what you said on the User Page Indexing RFC talk page. However, I guess the RFC isn't the place for it. I was wondering what your thoughts were on what would be a better way to approach something like this RFC? I have not been participating on Wikipedia as long as many of the people involved, but I agree with your assessment based on what I've seen. I sometimes think voting would be better in that I think it would keep people involved if they thought a majority vote might change something. The way it is now, the status quo is set in stone because in order to change it, consensus must be reached, and the larger the group is, the harder this is. I also think people realize that all that is needed to not reach consensus is a very vocal minority. Once there is a "solid" minority, I think a lot of people assume, "why bother", or "oh good, that won't change", because the minority is strong enough to stop consensus. For that matter, the minority might not even be the minority, but might just be the participating percentage of the majority - but it is hard to tell. I think voting would bring more people to the table. Even voting where it took a majority - say 75%, instead of 51%, to invoke any change. My opinion, based on my relatively short time at Wikipedia. So, I am interested in what you think would improve it, and has this been discussed before at any higher level? --stmrlbs|talk 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name. Thank you. Rico 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Admin request

Please move Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis back to Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état.
SqueakBox executed an invalid, controversial, upsetting, undiscussed move-sans-consensus one minute after posting on the talk page:
"You cannot call the sub article by a different name from the main article [...] I suggest we [m]ove both to political crisis" -- a "different name" from the other article.
Discussion of another move had been underway, but no consensus had been reached.
SqueakBox didn't propose his move first, by leaving a note on the talk page to give his reasons, far enough in advance to give other editors a chance to discuss his proposal.
The new name actually changes the article into something other than what it was, and the name is ambiguous.
I wasn't able to move the article back myself. -- Rico 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor

I'm sure you didn't mean to attack me personally, but I think we'd both be happier if you focused on content, rather than the contributors. If you could refactor your remarks on the noticeboard, I'd appreciate it. IronDuke 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When did criticising other editors' editing behaviour become a "personal attack"? Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When the tone is obviously insulting and aggressive. It's also the case that when you take that tone, you essentially indicating that you have no real argument about the issue at hand, and must distract from that lack of useful input through innuendo and attack. I hope and believe that's not really what you want to be doing. IronDuke 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't consider the tone to be either insulting or aggressive. And it appears from that thread that the person who has nothing constructive to say about the issue is you. Since I'm not willing to really challenge your editing behaviour (which may be perfectly good faith, but is problematic in some ways in regards in particular to selection of sources and quoting from them), and you don't want to discuss it, let's just drop it. Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One can criticize me for many things, but lack of willingness to discuss isn't one of them. I'm happy to move on, hoping you will be more mindful of tone the future. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Correcting word use

Not at all :). Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning up!

hi Rd232 - thanks for sorting out the Hondura/Honduras error. i had noticed the missing 's' but i had thought that i had correctly copied/pasted from the Spanish source somewhere, and i guessed that maybe the local usage is sometimes without 's' - e.g. the English version could be plural and the Spanish singular. i should have double-checked a bit more carefully. i can't see an obvious source that has the 's' missing. Anyway, wiki, wiki, wiki - no great harm done, you cleaned up after me. :) Thanks. Boud (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some Latin American spoken Spanish often drops a trailing 's', so you may have heard "Hondura". Rd232 ^talk 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

weisbrot mediation

We are going to need mediation -- I object to your characterization of references as 'terrible' there is no wiki page on 'terrible' one, and two, the references you so casually delete are publications the subject makes... in a half a dozen place, representative of his work -- so it cant be irrelevant or terrible it is his own words. Your wholesale deletion is in error, your justification is terrible -- surpring for someone claiming to be an admin. You must be aware of the ongoing dispute and you have inserted yourself in a rude manner... so now we are going to the mediation mats bud. --Altoids Man (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources are "terrible" in relation to being far from being considered reliable sources. See also my reply at Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey you have no justification for deleting the information that is posted. We are going to get mediation. There is no "Concensus" on material on wikipedia. If you go to many poeople's pages there is true but unkind information posted. They may not like it, but it is true.

You reference to TERRIBLE is unsupported. All I did was to post REFERENCES THE AUTHORS WORK ON SOCIALIST PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE NOT BLOGS. SO THERE IS NOT PROBLEM WITH THAT how can you call yourself an admin? And don't lecture me about the temperature -- it is quite cool around here for me don't you worry about that.--Altoids Man (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life

Was it appropriate for you to boldly move a longstanding article without any prior discussion or move request or consensus? Was it appropriate for you to then use your admin tools to block regular users from undoing your bold move without discussion or consensus? I would kindly request that you undo yourself, and go through the appropriate channels of requesting a move, and starting a discussion. At the very least, please consider un-move-protecting the article, as I consider that a clear abuse of the tools. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Yes, I thought the move was so flagrantly obvious that it was appropriate to WP:BOLDly do it. And I didn't change the protection level, it was move-protected before. I'm not going to undo either of those unless a discussion on talk suggests substantial opposition. Rd232 ^talk 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users

Please note you are required to notify other users if you post about them on WP:ANI, I have done this for you on this occasion. Please user {{subst:ani}} to notify them on their talk page(s). Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mm, forgot, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke

Do you have any advice regarding dealing with him? Malay Agin (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging by The Guardian / Talk:The Guardian, where he basically got what he wanted, I'd say no.... But in general, bring in as many people as you can by using dispute resolution (like the WP:BLPN noticeboard). Just be careful in not doing overdoing that - don't go to several noticeboards at once (that will generally get you accused of forumshopping and get you nowhere). Don't be afraid to re-post after a while to the same noticeboard if the same issue or similar issues persist. Stay civil, obviously. Try and find other sources, and even develop other under-developed topics on the page. Rd232 ^talk 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do. A review of his history would seem to show that he has protection from some very powerful people here, so it may not make sense to oppose him on something that doesn't matter that much. Nonetheless, I hate to see Wikipedia labeling people with POV epithets of any kind. Malay Agin (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Political_parties#Single-party_state

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Political_parties#Single-party_state.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind 3RR

Hi, I see that you've been doing some work at Paul Krugman. However, I also see that it's getting very heated there. Just want to warn you that some editors on there are experienced Wiki-lawyers, and they will count your edits and report you if you break WP:3RR. So, keep in mind all wiki rules, and make sure you don't break any. Best, and g'luck LK (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that I was giving advice to someone who's been editing longer than me. D'oh! I saw the welcome template at the top of the page and just assumed that you were a new(ish) user. Thanks for not pointing out how silly I was being. ;-) LK (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and it was a good reminder :) I left the message there in the hope it might be useful to newbies coming to my talk page BTW. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Please don't remove fully formatted and valuable citations as you did here [4]. Calling it an "irrelevant" source as you did in your edit summary is also very misleading and borders on vandalism. The article is about Krugman and goes into some detail on his career and notability. If you want to use it in a different way that would be fine, but removing good sources like that is very damaging. There seem to be a lot of radical ideological partisans at work on Wikipedia trying to skew our article content to their liking, but we are supposed to base our articles on what reliable sources say, not on personal opinions. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AGF has nothing to do with it. Your edit summary says "remove irrelevant source". It's obviously a very relevant source, one of the best we have. Please restore the source. I'm confident you can find something appropriate to use from it to add to the article. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. If it's such a great source, why is it only used once? If it makes you happy I'll stick it on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling well. I apologize if I was a bit harsh. The personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith on that article's talk page are frustrating to me and I suppose I'm getting a bit tired of it. After going back and forth over the opinion articles as sources (I was fine either way as long as we were consistent and worked out any deviations) it was frustrating to see one of the better sources removed completely. I hope you understand how your edit summary appeared to me, although I should have backed off after you indicated that wasn't how you meant it. I was unhappy that you couldn't just say okay, let's put it back. And frankly I didn't want to be the one to do it, because the way the editing climate is on that article, whatever content I added based on it was certain to be objected to. I chose something that seemed to be a recurring theme in the article and ta focus of the article. I'm open to it being tweaked or replaced, I'm not completely satisfied with it and it may belong in the body rather than the lead. But the main thing is that I just don't want to be attacked any more. :) Take care. I hope you feel better soon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Onward and upward. Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring

I crated 'Partisanship' section to address lack of mention of Krugman's partisanship in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But you haven't introduced any new sources, you persist with this one source. Is it for a bet? I mean how many (better) sources could you have found in the time you've argued this? Rd232 ^talk 12:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that an article in The Economist is the most appropriate source for sourcing a BLP on economist. However, if someone wants to propose some different source he can do it there. -- Vision Thing -- 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case, for reasons discussed. And rejecting that use of that source is not contingent on finding others. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I think that this comment is off-topic and that it should be moved here, but I will leave that decision to you. -- Vision Thing -- 14:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the comment if you redo the refactoring. I'd suggest starting a new section on other sources on criticism/partisanship, but it doesn't seem like you intend to look for any. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Micheletti

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roberto Micheletti. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vercetticarl (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Um hm. one revert and a 3RR warning to you, and this is your response? Rd232 ^talk 07:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

wikiquette

How wonderful. Thanks so much. I am pleased that you are helping to draw wider attention to this dispute. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

reboot

Thanks for your note. I was thinking about dropping you a very similar one myself. We should certainly start over with this in a more relaxed tone. I apologize if I have irritated you. I was joining this case via WP:FTN where Doug noted that he was about to give up. Now Doug is indeed a "wikiangel" with a very sane and relaxed approach, and my experience tells me that when Doug's approach isn't working, it is time to insist on strict policy adherence more aggresively. But I may in this case have been too rash. I am talking about my tone and pace, I do stand by my assessment of the issues the article has.

Now, after I have apologized to you explicitly, I must return the compliment that "your edits have been unacceptable". You have edit-warred over the inclusion of cleanup tags even though an excellent case had been made for their presence. This action of yours was what triggered my anti-troll mode in the first place.

Now I would appreciate if you could show some awareness of the points raised.

• WP:NOTE: I do not dispute that Rohl's stuff has notability. The question is, does it have the notability for several standalone articles. As far as I can see, Rohl is notable as the guy who published some books and a TV series on his ideas on Egyptian chronology. How do we justify having a biography article on Rohl and an article on his "New Chronology". We can merge the Rohl article in the NC one, or the NC one into the Rohl one, but if you want to keep them separate, you need to make a case better than "no-one else doubts notability".
• WP:RS: I have repeatedly stated that if a theory hasn't been received academically, it is not an academic theory. We used to have no evidence of any scholarly reception at the point you were edit warring over the article. It would have been your task to present the content of Bennett and point out that while clearly negative, this is at least an academic review of the thesis. As it happened, you left it to me to do your job for you and find the relevant passages in Bennett's article. Fine, so now I have done that we have one academic assessment, saying the theory is deeply flawed but an interesting read by an author who does know his stuff. In the light of this, and this only (our single data point of Bennett 1996), I am prepared to file this under "Egyptology" and call Rohl an "Egyptologist". You see that I do not have any opinion on this, just like you say you don't. But I want to be shown the references. Without Bennett, we could not claim this is worth noting. With Bennett, we can say there was at least one academic review saying that Rohl's stuff is flawed, but at least it is "magnificently" flawed in an academic sense. In the future, could you please try to resolve conflicts by presenting solid references as opposed to edit-warring and creating wikidrama?
• WP:COI: Rohl is still editing the article, and more significantly is still trying to give advice on how to write the article on talk. This isn't how Wikipedia works. We are a tertiary source, as in (1) Rohl writes his books, (2) expert reviewers comment on his books and (3) we report on what the reviewers had to say. Shortcutting (1) to (3) is not acceptable, as set down in numerous policy and guideline pages, including WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH etc. I am frankly at a loss as to why I should have to point this out to you.
• I do have indeed every interest in improving the article. Improving the article means throwing out all the offtopic material that is not discussing Rohl and Rohl's reception so much as coatracking about Egyptian chronology in general. I want a clean presentation of who Rohl is, where he is coming from, what he is suggesting, and how his suggestions have been received. It turns out that he is from a Velikovskian (pseudo-scholarly) background originally, a former collaborator of Peter James, associations he does not like to see mentioned today. It turns out that his suggestions are suggested out-of-hand in Egyptology, although Bennett does grant that in comparison to the average "revised chronology" crackpot, he does know his stuff and raises a number of interesting points. Since this is how the situation presents itself, I think it is self-evident that our article should present it in this way, and I frankly fail to see what problem you have with my edits.

--dab (𒁳) 10:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On your blanking of the [5] specifically I have to say this,

• if you are as neutral and uninvolved as you claim, why do you insist on constantly playing devil's advocate and take a position of "in dubio pro Rohl"? You are quite obviously attempting to present Rohl in the best possible light, i.e. you defend the unrelated material that is attempting to create an impression of credibility while you object to directly relevant material that takes away such credibility. I cannot consider such a position uninvolved, neutral or intellectually honest, and it is this behaviour that I was describing as "fraudulent".
• I do not insist on including the Berthoud reference. But Berthoud is one of the very few authors who even bother to mention Rohl that we have. That Rohl has serious notability issues should be evident from the slim "reception" section and the apparent impossibility to enlarge it without incurring yours or Mr. Rohl's wrath (because the additions will without fail be less than favourable). --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed you used the word "blanking" to refer to the removal of a single sentence. Idiosyncratic to say the least. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing plagiarism

"Not aware that it's plagiarism"? You're kidding, right? He's a babe in the woods about how sources should be used?

Maybe you missed this: [6]. See it? Look at the edit summary especially. He snottily rips out a whole paragraph because a citation doesn't have a page number, even though it's clear that the work cited doesn't even need a page number to be a supporting source.

You think it's possible that he doesn't know that people shouldn't rip off whole sentences and more from books?

If you don't think my documentation of his plagiarism belongs on the Paul Krugman talk page, tell me which admin you'd recommend for consultation. I've alerted User:SlimVirgin and copied the section you deleted to Susan Leschman's Talk page. But please: Don't tell me to take it up with a serial plagiarist. AND serial WP:PRESERVE violator.

I have put a note on his Talk page. I've told him where to look for the evidence I turned up. But I'm not going to talk to him. This is copyright violation we're talking about here, not just hairsplitting distinctions about admissible RS in BLP. That's illegal, remember? He has no business editing Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on LK's talk page, but much of what I wrote there applies to your help as well. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes w.r.t. my case against VT on plagiarism -- it was a wakeup call, telling me I've got to disengage or I'll start to really lose it. There's much yet to do on Paul Krugman, but not by me, I guess. It requires more care than I can bring to it while under provocation. Let cooler heads move forward with it. Yakushima (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk entropy

I disagree with renaming the title page. The issue was not simply some question about edits by quantumechanic, it was specifically about his competence in the subject. If it is now judged that one cannot have a title like that at all (and presumably also not question the competence of an editor in the section itself), then clearly the whole section will have to go. The section is no longer relevant now anyway, so it can be deleted without problems. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good close

This was a good move. I was EC-ed out of making a final response to Ncmv's accusations, so I've posted my response to my own talkpage. Thanks for your contributions at WQA. UnitAnode 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

edit summary.

I rather not split hairs with you about my edits, I am here to talk? Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rd232. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Hello.
Since this is the last day I'll have this address (someone else gets the computer next week), I want to take this last chance to thank you. It's nice when clear heads prevail.
It's actually people like you that are the reason I haven't stopped editing entirely. (Well, that's not true. I'd still correct "it's" and "its" and similar mistakes no matter what. Obsessive compulsive over stuff like that) erm. anyways, thanks, and goodbye. :) 139.57.101.134 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd still encourage you to get a username though. It can be anonymous and it would sometimes make life easier - and you needn't get "involved in politics" as you say you did before. (And you could ditch it and go back to anon editing if you found yourself caught up in it again.) cheers, Rd232 ^talk 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe I will. If I stick to the focuses I've had for the last year or so, I can't imagine getting wrapped up in too much of that stuff. :) 139.57.101.134 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong?

Have I said something to offend you? I'm not sure why you think you're in a Turing Test?

Background to the last statement you responded to: I occasionally work for a bank as a sort of web-developer, and as part of my duties I monitor an internal wiki they're running. ^^;; So your analogy accidentally got compared to the real world. Sorry if that wasn't the intent? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

When you start addressing my points, instead of raising seemingly-relevant but actually just diversionary questions, we can try again to have a discussion. Rd232 ^talk 10:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of us is deliberately trying to be diversionary, it's just that we're coming at this from very different angles.

If you're saying that we should somehow work more on moving towards convergence, well, that's fair enough. I'll try to do my best, if you do too? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've made my points; if you want to go back and address those, be my guest. But I've kind of had enough of this - it's like we're on a team but playing different sports: frustrating, occasionally comical, very unproductive. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because we obviously are playing different sports. What we (should be) trying to do here is to figure out the differences, and decide what we'll be playing in future. This *is* policy we're talking about, after all, it's what tells us what sport we're supposed to be playing. And I'm willing to be just as patient as you are. :-)

The one good thing is at least we're talking in one place. Imagine how much worse it'd be if we had to redo this in many places at once. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The World League for Freedom and Democracy article

Hello, last month you (re)added the following sentence to the World League for Freedom and Democracy article:

This branch [the USCWF] has generated controversy, as it has been found to have illegally supplied firearms to guerillas in the Iran-Contra Affair and, in 1981, the USCWF was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted the organization had increasingly become a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.

This sentence, as you noted in your edit summary, is from an October 2008 version of the article. However, this information cannot be verified as the only citation provided (this NY Times article) appears to be unrelated. I discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. --darolew (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I left a reply there. A brief summary: 1) The second reference is a deadlink, 2) the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly match the NY Times article, and should be modified. Thanks. --darolew (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. =) --darolew (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

Good work. --John (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Work in progress... Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very glad that you stepped in Lot 49a^talk 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to hear. :) Rd232 ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll third that. I'm amazed by the progress since you came along. Thanks. -Throwaway85 (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Sockery

Hey Rd232, saw your message on my talk page. As for my experience using Wikipedia, I have an internet connection. Occasionally, I will use a search engine. Wikipedia is always the first result. I've been here plenty, I just never created an account before. I'm aware of Wikipedia's general guidelines, and usual inability to follow them. As for any bias I may have, I stated on the PIRA page that I'm of Irish Catholic stock, and support a unified and free Ireland. I also support a neutral article. Speaking of which, good job on the PIRA article. It's nice to have an active admin there. The last guy was useless. -Throwaway85 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I wonder if you would have time to look over these articles please, with a particular eye to neutrality, and possibly make some improvements: Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom, Ernest J. Sternglass... many thanks... Johnfos (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not at the moment. I need to limit my Wikipedia commitments a bit right now (well, a lot, but I'm realistic - I can at least avoid taking on new topics at the moment). Maybe some time in the future. Rd232 ^talk 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no worries... Johnfos (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Toby Wilkinson

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Toby Wilkinson. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cromwellian Conquest

Was that an account ban or IP ban? I'm assuming he was proxy'd, but still. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, I used the default settings, without perhaps enough thought... Account creation blocked, and auto-block of IPs used. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Word Definition

The word "Redacted" is used to mean that someone who MADE a comment has taken it back, so when I see "[redacted personal attack]" on my talkpage, I get the impression that the [redacted searing insult] who placed it thought better of it, when in fact, they were probably miffed that I didn't get to read it. Just to let you know. But, thanks for watching my page. --King Öomie 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that; you may be confusing it with "retracted". See Wiktionary. [7]. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit- oh wow, finished working through my watchlist. Nice job with Trollquest. I guess blocking him makes you "pro-terrorist" XD --King Öomie 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone questioning the block, regardless of their views, will have a hard time defending the actions I blocked him for. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

Please see User:O Fenian/Abuse for a partial overview, in particular the Irish general election, 1918 section. It has not been updated with recent edits, but as you can see from the talk page I have disputed their claim that their edit is sourced by Laffan and said so in edit summaries, yet they have continued to edit war breaking 3RR. This is the problematic edit, and this is the problematic addition.

That the Catholic electorate was not simply voting for separation is revealed by comparing some results especially where both stood. In East Donegal the IPP got 7,596 votes (the Unionist 4,797) while Sinn Fein received 46, yet in South Donegal with no Unionist, it was 5,787 votes for Sinn Fein to 4,752 for the IPP. In Tyrone North East it was 56 for Sinn Fein against 7,596 for the IPP but in adjacent Tyrone North West where no Redmondite ran, Sinn Fein polled 10,442.

Here is the relevant passage (certainly regarding Donegal, I can find no results for either "North West Tyrone" or "Tyrone North West"). As you can see, the source does not make the analytical claims that the editor says it does? O Fenian (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Obvious WP:SYNTH issue. I can't comment on the content itself, but I agree that the added content uses unpublished synthesis. --King Öomie 12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And now we are back to the standard disruptive tactic here. Last time I checked Wikipedia:Verifiability did not say "If the majority of an article is unsourced or lacking footnotes, feel free to add as much unsourced content to it as you want". Does the burden of evidence not matter any more? O Fenian (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Make it clear that the onus doesn't fall to YOU to bring the article to FA-status before removing his unsourced addition. Sounds very wp:owney to me. --King Öomie 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my recent edit and made a suggestion here, I hope something positive can come out of it. O Fenian (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Das Baz's signature

I also asked the user to fix his sig, months ago. Would it be possible to block him until he changes it? That would provide him the incentive to pay attention to these messages, and it wouldn't have to be a long block (since it only takes 5 seconds to fix the signature). And, given his problematic editing style, I don't think the encyclopedia would be losing much in the interim anyway... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I've a left message. If he ignores or rejects that, a block would be appropriate to get his attention. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish general election, 1918

Please feel to carry out the request here if you think it's appropriate. I have rejected the request and given my reasons there, but if you think it should be done, I have no objections :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IP ABUSE

If I appear a bit gruff, this small outline of the issue my help to illustrate why. This is the IP on just one article the Hart Article.

Notice the type of Articles the IP focus on? This has to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been addressed Domer48. He's on 1RR now, and I'm sure any future problems can be dealt with as needed. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound! Something has to be done. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm watching hardly any of those so let me know if there are problems. Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I considered the possibility that the IP was User:Cromwellian Conquest, but I couldn't see any evidence for that. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe so. I believe it would be unreasonable to expect Rd232 to watch a large number of articles Domer48, especially as the IP does occasionally make good edits as then Rd232 would have to be expected to be able to tell which edits are good and which are not, which is not always easy. Far better to just notify him here of any problems, as suggested. O Fenian (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound!--Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Different editor! Same attitude though. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A start was made on this issue before, lets hope it is seen through. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Previous tracking: User talk:81.151.165.183. More recent tracking: User talk:86.164.136.21. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest IP's

86.171.176.194 Adding unsourced text.

81.158.160.101 Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."[27] [28] --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first, please use User talk:86.164.136.21 to update tracking of the IP, not my talk page. Second, those "NPA" comments are entirely reasonable contributions, and the comments on editors' actions are entirely appropriate. Third, yes unsourced contributions, which you reverted. Fine. Fourth, the 1RR restriction is not intended to enable you to revert without discussion, or to avoid talk page debate. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite receiving many warnings about copyright in the past, and indeed being blocked for continuing to add copyright violations, the IP editor made this edit which directly copies a large amount (not always in exact order) from the source cited. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just been one of those days, but I've had it with that IP. I've banned him from contributing anonymously, and his edits or talk page contributions may be reverted without discussion (User talk:86.164.137.11]). If he does get an account, there is a reasonable chance he can become a useful contributor, but I've had it with trying to deal with his dynamic IP when he keeps causing problems (not deliberately, I think, but still). Rd232 ^talk 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

They have been a bit fast and loose with respect to copyright for some time, for example see the history of this article that I meant to document on my abuse page, which seems a bit pointless now. While I would admit the article is a bit of a mess and needs to lose the quotefarm, their comment on the talk page in particular shows a complete ignorance of copyright. AFAIK, Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann debates are not copyrighted, since they are just transcripts of verbal debate, and the other quotes are both small and properly attributed, unlike the massive copy and paste text dump from the RTÉ site. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in a way it's fine to make individual mistakes - there's a learning curve, and more experienced contributors have to be patient and willing to help newbies with the various complexities of Wikipedia. But having a dynamic IP and not getting an account makes that impractical to an extent that's become ridiculous, and clearly he's not climbing up the learning curve fast enough this way. Enough, I say - there's a balance between helping and wasting people's time. Rd232 ^talk 22:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

You never rendered an opinion on the proposal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging WP:UIAR into WP:IAR?

Since you're a major contributor to one or the other of these documents, I'm writing to let you know about a proposed merger which I wrote about at: Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Understanding IAR and Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge. Any input on this would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting the boot from a User's talkpage

I've noticed you've been 'deleted' from an editor's talkpage. Don't worry about it, I've been barred by 2 editors, from their respective talkpages. The best thing to do? just leave him/her alone. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

er, thanks. I'm not actually objecting to the deletion (permissible under WP:Blanking) so much as the lack of response. Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the treatment I got, unless one considers 'deletion' a response. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What I love most is being deleted, with an extremely rude edit summary. Gives me the warm fuzzies. --King Öomie 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, how did I know, he was gonna 'delete' your advising him of his Rfc/U, without comment? Anyways, I hope ya'll can work things out. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

James Caan (entrepreneur)

Thank you very much for your help on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page, following my appeal on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. However, the dispute's continuing, and I'm not sure what to do next :P The alternative spelling of the former name ("Khant") has now appeared in the Independent, a couple of days ago. However, the overwhelming majority of sources still say "Khan", the Independent's "Khant" didn't come from a direct quote, and given how frequently "Khant" has appeared on the Wikipedia page, my worry is that the Independent journalist could simply have drawn their information from that. I've put all this on the Talk Page, but I've not yet received a response. I'm also a bit suspicious of the user currently inserting "Khant", (Macgrissom), whose other contributions to Wikipedia include what appear to be several instances of vandalism (eg [29])

Please can you help again???

Stephen 02:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.2.220 (talk)

Done. Thanks for your contributions. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You've reinforced my faith in the ideals of Wikipedia :)

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! BTW, if you get an account (WP:Signup), you won't have to write "Stephen" every time you sign a comment. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Oh Big Jock Knew on PIRA lede draft talk page.

New User, similar posting style to Cromwellian Conquest, similar user page. I'm sure you've already seen him, and we must abide by WP:AGF, but I'd just like to bring his presence to your attention. Hopefully nothing will come of it. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I missed that, so thanks for letting me know. Indefblocked as an obvious sock. Rd232 ^talk 10:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your speedy action. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Hello. I would appreciate it if you would stop contributing to my talk page. I'm assuming good faith but you appear to lack all the background you need to issue warnings in this case. I have not yet been blocked for anything on Wikipedia, whereas members of the other party have, and the line I tried to add was properly sourced, taken from passages in a modern and widely read biography. Finally, we have different opinions on what counts as incivility and I cannot accept your characterizations. I suggest you let other admins handle what remains of the situation. Please do not reply on my talk page. DinDraithou (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(after further exchange) no problem. You don't want friendly advice? Fine. Good luck with your Wikipedia career (with that attitude, you're going to need it).Rd232 ^talk 02:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead that is too short

Rice--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

er, what? Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It was empty in my browser yesterday. Try this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. No wonder it doesn't have a lead - it's a mess! Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer48

What happened to the RFC? Lot 49a^talk 06:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The page (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48) was deleted because despite a number of comments indicating agreement, no-one was willing to put their signature in the Certify section. (WP:RFC/Us require a second user to certify the basis of the dispute.) I must say that was a bit disappointing. It also makes me wonder if the process can't be improved, but I lack the energy to think about how (agreeing the scope of a dispute may be an issue); I'm trying to get the Article Wizard off the ground right now. Rd232 ^talk 11:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If it comes up again, I would put my signature on it. I was away on business so didn't see the exchange until too late. Lot 49a^talk 12:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we'll see. I've posted the substance on his talk page; if he responds appropriately, further action would hopefully not be necessary. Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Some hope. I must be an optimist! I really thought he might reply constructively that time. Pff. I've had about enough of this, wish I'd just looked the other way. WP:ANI#User:Domer48. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

wp:harassment

Your behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please cease your hounding of Domer. It's time for you to step back and to let uninvoled parties handle the situation. There is no need for you to make any additional postings on that editors talk page or to abuse the noticeboards and RfC process with any more frivolous attempts to pursue your personal vendetta. Please limit yourself to comments regarding article and content issues on the relevant article discussion pages. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I've already noted on WP:ANI that my posting there is an attempt to withdraw from this without allowing Domer's refusal to engage to cause the substantial issues to be ignored, your post is entirely redundant. And in view of your previous comments on this issue, and our previous history on unrelated topics, and your recent history of abusing admins, you'll excuse me if I take your comments with the tiniest grain of salt. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

For what it's worth, your comments started out (and generally remained) quite civil, but there's not a clear explanation of the dispute or what intervention you're seeking from other administrators. Your one conspicuous slip into incivility was the sarcastic shot at CoM: [30]. While I gather and can appreciate that you may have found this process frustrating, it doesn't help anyone if you respond to goading.

Your initial post referred to half a dozen discussions and talk page posts, along with a deleted RfC, but never actually came out and said – clearly and succinctly – what the problem was with Domer48's conduct. You left the other editors on AN/I to play detective to find out the cause of the dispute. No, I didn't know that you were trying to mediate in a topic area that Domer edits — you didn't say so in your post to AN/I. The net result was that the only comments your request had so far attracted were from editors who had some experience with the particular dispute or the editors involved. That led (unsurprisingly) to bickering among those parties, and made it unlikely that any independent administrator would want to wade in to the mess.

And no, I made no attempt to dig through the background of the dispute. My comments were based solely on the fact that I saw a number of editors behaving badly at AN/I, and it didn't take a genius to see that if they didn't stop and take a breather, there would be pages of bickering and insults followed by a complete lack of resolution of whatever the underlying dispute is.

Lest there be any confusion, it should not be misunderstood that I believe that all of the parties to that discussion are/were behaving equally badly — the amounts by which the different editors fell short of expected standards varied considerably. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)