User talk:Relata refero/Archive 1

Hundred Days

You might like to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and have a look at the Battle of Waterloo for a related page with lots of citations. Also you might interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history --Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Waterloo in January, it is only this year that it has had citations included. Of course it will take time for the Hundred Days to reach the same standard, but it was thanks to User:Tirronan insisting on citations that the article Battle of Waterloo is in the state it is today. Tirronan started the same process on the Hundred days, and I agree with him/her. It was Tirronan who put the essay templates on the Hundred days for example.

Recently I have done some work on the [Battle of Quatre Bras], and made sure to cite my sources as much as I could given I was working with online sources and I translated the Battle of Ligny from the German version (along with some text from the Waterloo article) -- unfortunately the Germans have not sourced their article :-( The point is that if we are to get these articles up to the same standard as the Battle of Waterloo, we are faced with a problem. Either we delete all the unsourced material and start again or we improve it as we go along. As you are improving the article you may as well cite your sources because otherwise it will have to be deleted later and replaced with cited text. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain see Talk:Hundred Days#References and citations --Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also for your information please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule --Philip Baird Shearer 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a categories with out no reson

Stop deleting the Jewish American scientists category from Roger Myerson and his el's articles-you have absulotly no right to do so.--Gilisa 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would delete it once again - I will complain about you. Sources are easy to find about all of them.--Gilisa 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do go ahead and complain if you feel I've violated any policy. As I said, WP policy enjoins us to find a source of self-identification. Relata refero 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems-and btw-explain why didnt you delete the other categories- (and about the Jewishness- I will cite it, no worries mate).--Gilisa 13:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have your own VOP and technically you are right even though you made yet another edit (and I bet that you didn't look for citations for yourself)-writing that you did it following a discussion -only few minutes after your last reply to me. I think that it don’t looks good.--Gilisa 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear amigo, dont take it too hard-the all issue is solved all ready.--Gilisa 14:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply on my talk page, please see it.--Gilisa 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Myerson

OK. I didnt knew that (the A.B). Any way, he said at the end of his speach that "..And next fall, at Yom Kippur, we should ask how we can atone for the evil". I think that you miss this line - which clearly wouldn't come out of non-Jewish or even from a Jew which dont consider himself as such. Any way, we can also send him a question via e-mail if it takes.cheers--Gilisa 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source about both maskin and myerson http://www.jinfo.org/Economists.html

Eric Maskin

Is this source about Eric Maskin all right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.22.190 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Here is a source http://www.juf.org/news/local.aspx?id=27390 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.173.82 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( Please feel free to ask for a third opinion, or file a request for comment, if you prefer) I would really like to sort this Eric Maskin issue once and for all but if other from the 6 different sources that i have already brough up(that are unreliable from what you are saying)i haven't got any other ideas left, so all that is left for me is to ask you how do you do what you suggest in the above, or if there is any way in the world that Wikipedia will track down MR Maskin himself to ask him that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.173.82 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Agate

I disagree with you about your change to the James_Agate page, about his being a collector of aphorisms, vs. an aphorist himself, but I won't belabor it. I don't see anything about Agate on the page of Frank_Muir that you cited as a source. Have you read the nine volumes of his Ego? I don't see how you can dismiss him in this way, and suspect you aren't familiar with his work. SwampT 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wrote on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page because I was replying to a comment made THERE before you archived the page. Amit@Talk 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Siddiqui

Keep a "watch" on that article, we have a persistant IP who wants to add information from blogs. Thanks Taprobanus 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill

Hello, firstly I wish to thank you for your contributions thus far to the article. Secondly I ask you please to be more civil in the lead discussion on the talk page, see WP:Civil. Please do not disregard another user who concurs with an argument. This is called WP:Consensus where users can agree with one another to help support an argument. I hope you understand that myself and Jooler are attempting to argue that summing up Churchill as an Imperalist in the lead would be misleading. I do not believe that we should not mention the Imperalism argument at all, but that it belongs in the main article (not the lead) and most importantly that should be balanced with arguments from multiple sources. LordHarris 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy RfCU

the first RfCU seems to have vanished, and as I am concerned that I am bollixing the second request, might I trouble you to make sure I have done so properly? Input on how I can/could/should have done it better would be greatly appreciated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

NB: Request for Checkuser: Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 07:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some good examples

Hey, i am sure you saw the whole DreamGuy ArbCom enforcement thing, and the ensuing Jhochman follow-up. I was wondering if you know of any good examples of ArbCom enforcement complaints? It would be halpful to know what a good one is, and not just because I want to cringe at how far mine had deviated from it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Relata refero

I'm glad to inform you that Eric Maskin Jewishness and self identification are now well referenced as WP:BLP enjoin as to do. Best wishes from me to you --Gilisa 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now for Roger Myerson as well.--Gilisa 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Maskin

I'm not sure that I quite understand you nor do I think that I understand your use in terms like "disrespectful" and etc, I truly think that you are overdoing it. I know people who knows him very well (this is However don't meet the WP criterions you know), and I don't think that you are right-there is a massive difference between not want to be identified as a religious Jew than not want to be identified as a Jew (there are people who were born Jewish but don’t want to be mentioned not as a religious nor as Jewish at all, however, these are completely different cases) - you are the one who factually wrong if you think otherwise, trust me on this.. Maskin were asked if he identified himself as Jewish and he answered "sure", what can be more clear than that... There is no place in which it is written that one should identify himself as a religious Jew to be included in the Jewish categories (actually there are different categories for Jews by their religious preference and etc-such as orthodox Jews),any way these categories are also, and mostly, for ethnic Jews, and Maskin is certainly one. Claiming that Jewishness, for any matter, is only about religion is to claim that 80% of the Jews who define themselves as such are not Jewish and it is any way only your’s commentary. So please, you must understand that there is absolutely no problem with the references been given, especially not according to WP:BLP policy.Cheers--Gilisa 09:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As answered on Gilisa's talkpage, it isn't about 80% of Jewish people, but about this one particular person. Relata refero 09:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like we will never agree, let’s agree about it and finish the all story. again, all I see is your commentary only, and any way I didn't based it as you wrote, you are putting words into my mouth! I based it on a direct citation of him : "..But is he culturally Jewish ? "Sure," he said"...(e.g. he was asked whether he is seeing himself as a Jew). And regarding your claim to rename the categories to avoid the confusion, well, I think that most people today refer to ethnic Jew when they see category of Jews-you think else, it's your right-but it have no support in WP:BLP rules which are good for ethnic and religious identities as well (even when are separated).--Gilisa 10:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please do not restore personal attacks, further disruption might result in a block. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do tell me why precisely? Can you point to any section of policy that would justify your original editing of others' comments? Can you point to any section of policy that would justify your blocking me for undoing it? Relata refero (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit by Dbachmann is a personal attack, specifically when he is referring to an edit which was made by myself. The removed text was specifically directed against me. Please cease and desist from this disruption immediately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the sections of policy I linked to in my edit comments? Please do try and read the relevant policy first. In this case, what you should have done was ignore it (or request Dbachmann to remove it), rather than increase the level of drama by responding to what you see as provocative, by doing something clearly not recommended by policy and precedent. Also, I suggest you avoid waving blocks around like that, they don't intimidate as much when the admin's clearly not on sure ground. Relata refero (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section properly. The personal attack was directed towards me, and so it was removed. On the other hand, it appears that it is your intention to exacerbate the circumstances and contribute to what is colloquially known as "wiki-drama". Your actions are disruptive and you are requested to stop. If however, you intend to continue, it is quite possible that you would be shortly blocked by an administrator for abuse of Wikipedia's policy against abusive and deceptive sockpuppetry. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Read the section properly". Right. Lets look at what we have here, shall we? the section says "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." So the 'attack' was directed at you. You seem to have read that section ("properly") to indicate that that means that you are entitled to remove it. I fancy that most would read that section to clearly state in fact, precisely the opposite. I suggest that you, in future, be a little more careful about policy.

It is clearly not my intention to exacerbate the circs.; if it was, I would have not have restored it, but left a snide little note elsewhere indicating what you did. What I did do wsa merely restore it presumably hoping that it would not be noticed. If you genuinely think that using the word "trolling " in an edit comment as you did (in your original edit of DBachmann's statement) conveys an intent to reduce "wiki-drama", you must be living in a different WP from the rest of us.

Oh, and "if I continue" I'd like to see what evidence this hypothetical administrator would have that I violated any of the provisions in WP:SOCK. If I was genuinely interested in drama, as some other people appear to be, I'd "continue" (continue what?) just to see what happened. Unfortunately, I have better things to do. I recommend that you find something too. Re-reading WP:ATTACK and WP:SOCK might be a start. Relata refero (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, you seriously need to learn to stop throwing your weight around like that. The edit in question itself was most problematic. In my book, you have a propensity for wheel warring. I asked you to take the problem you had with Moreschi's admin measures to AN. You refused, preferring to stage a pathetic show of admin infighting. Now you go around branding me as a "borderline troll" because I dared draw attention to your problematic behaviour, and now you end up bullying completely uninvolved users who thought that I had a point. Where do you think you are headed with an attitude like that? Please accept that if you feel you are being abused or "personally" attacked, especially by one of your fellow admins, you are to take the matter to another admin, ideally AN/I and ask for wider input. You need to accept that you are not a law unto yourself around here, and that it may be possible, unbelievable as it may strike you, to honestly disagree with your autocratic approach to adminship. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question

As you point out, it's tremendously difficult to do research on many topics about Wikipedia, even ones which are recent. It's possible that I've miss-stated the situation. I should have made it clearer that I was just giving my opinion. Even so, I do believe that it is fairly common to see socks acting in ways that are individually acceptable, but collectively problematic. However in most of those cases there was an initial block that was later circumvented, which is a problem of its own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi

This seems to have removed some sourced sentences as well – [1]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I did think that there's too much on Quattrochi in there, as he is far more relevant to discussions on the Rajiv Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi page (I did leave a sentence). Thal Vaishet is perhaps not notable enough in the context of Indira's life as opposed to its notability in the context of theories about Sonia's influence and her Italian connections. I notice I removed the Ashok Malik opinion article but left the Sandhya Jain op-ed in. I fancy I should have done it the other way 'round, given what people appear to think about their relative reliability. If you have any suggestions on how it could be handled, please do put in alternative text, and restore the Ashok Malik article, or (in preference) replace the Sandhya Jain one. (Do remember, incidentaly, that BLP extends to details about living persons in a non-BLP bio.) Incidentally, a couple of peer-revied articles on Thal Vaishet don't mention Quattrochi at all - consider this one. Relata refero (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Taslima Nasrin

The vandalism was really bad a few days ago, but it's seemed to have simmered down recently. Are there any recent events concerning her that might attract attention to the article? east.718 at 10:21, November 25, 2007

Sounds good, I've hit it with a prot. east.718 at 10:29, November 25, 2007

Disruptive editing and threats

I've reported your threats on the Talk:Winston Churchill page on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Regards. Jooler (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HINDRAF Edits

Hi stop messing the main context in HINDRAF wikipage. All out of suddent you posted picture unrelated to the context and reverted my restoration. Please refain from doing that ! --Killerserv ^Talk 08:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

I liked your comment in your vote for Giano. Do you recommend any other candidates who support content over process? edward (buckner) 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I did notice that one, but thanks for confirming first impressions. edward (buckner) 09:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I cast appropriately. We haven't talked about 'oppose', and this is probably in bad taste, but you might care to look at this. Pseudo-science and process-w4nkery in extremis. edward (buckner) 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sutton

You have recently made reversions to this page, but have not placed any note on the talk page informing others as to what you are objecting. I am asking you to do so as per my discussion with Mr Black Kite, so that the article can be improved. Please respond on the talk page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lupercal grotto.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lupercal grotto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

Thanks for your comments on the Asian fetish talk page. Do you have any advice on how I can deal with the situation on this page? I've found that nearly all the summarization of sources on this page has been a gross manipulation. Also people constantly try to delete items from the page for some red tape reason. This discussion about WP:LEAD is confusing since Sexism and Racism pages starts out with a definition. BTW somebody is claiming that the sources to User:Saranghae honey definition is valid even though you wrote it was poorly sourced. You meant Saranghae honey's definition right? Any advice would be appreciated. Tkguy (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re rfcu

hi. regarding your question on a rfcu on ghanadar galpa (you meant for sock-puppetering, right?), the political opinions on caste differ between the two (see Hkelkar's edits on Anti-Brahmanism, compare with ghanadar galpa's edits on CPI(M)). There is of course always a possibility that a user can create socks to take up different positions, but personally I'd like to have something more concrete before opening a community process. There are some IP numbers that seem likely to be related to Ghanadar galpa, do we know anything on IP numbers used by Hkelkar and his socks? --Soman (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account that Otolemur, once a foe and now a fellow traveller of Ghanadar galpa, accused of being the same as Ghanadar galpa was at Virginia based ISP. I've also come across another IP, with edits quite similar to galpa's, on the same Virginia ISP. --Soman (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Since a few simple diffs to Soman and Conjoiner's talk pages will show that you have been revert-warring in tandem with the two Communists, you have violated 3RR together with them. What I suggest is that, instead of gaming the 3RR system as is frequently done on wikipedia by edit cabals, you simply engage with otolemur crassicaudatus in the talk page about these edits until a consensus is reached. I will participate when things cool off there, as the discussion is getting a little emotive and heated right now, and we're all starting to lose it. Otherwise the situation will rapidly escalate and become worse, as more editors drop by and start revert-warring. This is clearly a controversial issue.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will report each other :) [2]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

From the 3RR page:

Both editors are blocked for revert warring. The "involvement" of Relata refero was three reverts/blanking of a huge chunk of text (I assume, disputed). I consider this to be an attempt of gaming of system rather than dispute resolution. `'Míkka >t 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]