User talk:Richwales/Archives/2015-07

you've got mail

Thank you SmrJ1956 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And I replied; please check your e-mail. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Keturah

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Keturah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Keturah you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Keturah for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Keturah you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Keturah for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:FactStraight again!

Hello Rich, there's user FactStraight problem again. He/She keeps pushing advocacy for a noble House of Mukhrani and is constantly provoking edit wars on the related articles. He is pushing a noble family into a royal dynasty. He was several times told that princely noble family differs from princely royal dynasty in the Georgian feudalism but no he still is pushing his advocacy and agenda. I'd like to ask to make everything possible to help with this issue as Wikipedia is not a place for his blatant advocacy and pushing wrong info in the encyclopedia. Please understand that this issue is of top-importance for the Georgian-related articles and what he does is simply a pure falsification of the Georgian history and this needs to stop. Thanks. Jaqeli 23:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Keturah

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Richwales/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran2FeciCnzFenerofus (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I received your e-mail, and I will look into the matter and take whatever action (if any) appears to be appropriate. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No respond?

My concern got archived and couldn't you respond? Jaqeli 08:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't feel I should intervene in an administrative capacity in a content dispute like this. I would strongly recommend a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country) regarding the general issue of how the Georgian royal/noble houses, current members, claimants, etc. should be handled in Wikipedia articles. As far as I can tell, no such discussion has ever taken place there (though, yes, I do acknowledge the argument you and FactStraight had in 2013 at Talk:Bagrationi dynasty#Current head of the Bagrations). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

All I want is you to take this issue to attention to other admins and people who could help out to have a discussion in this very important subject. The user FactStraight is pushing an evident bias so I'd like to have third party experienced wiki members to get involved and I want to ask you to get others aware with this issue as it is very important to Georgia and Georgian history articles. Jaqeli 18:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if there is anything I can do. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I see that Jaqeli seeks to have you or someone take up an obscure dynastic rivalry over a long abolished throne in which his complaint is that, having instructed me that he is absolutely right, that any sources which disagree with him are wrong and to be disregarded, that English Wikipedia should back the claim of the pretender he supports and that my edits to ensure that Wikipedia reflect the fact that there are 2 claimants between which Wikipedia must be neutral, Jaqeli has concluded he has grounds for initiating some sort of grievance against me. None of that is as strange as the fact that Georgia's most (perhaps, only?) serious monarchist, the Patriarch Ilia II, sought to bolster the royalist cause by encouraging the 2 rival branches of the Bagrationi family to mend their feud -- which they did, briefly, by joining their heirs in royal intermarriage just long enough to unite their dynastic claims in the form of a son, Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi, born in 2011 -- only to have that extraordinary compromise thwarted by the relentless irreconcilability of partisan monarchists who are more Catholic than the Pope in their determination to undermine their best chance at success. I am as flabbergasted by the comic spectacle of these antics as I am committed to not allowing English Wikipedia to become an outpost of either side in this wannabe modern War of the Roses. Sheesh. FactStraight (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I assume you've read WP:NPOV in the past, but I think you may want to read it again. If there is a dispute involving multiple viewpoints, NPOV demands that we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." While exceptions do exist for fringe theories (see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE), we need to be very hesitant to brand a viewpoint as an unworthy fringe theory unless the evidence for such a conclusion is overwhelming. If there is any doubt at all, you need to include all the views, cite sources, and help the reader understand what the disputes are, but without making Wikipedia take sides. Ideally — and this advice applies to all editors — readers of your work should not be able to tell what (if any) position you yourself may have on a subject you write on. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In case any clarification might be required here: If you believe a point of view is a fringe theory that doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all, even though it appears to be acknowledged as a legitimate position in reliable sources, the burden is on you to demonstrate that those sources do not in fact meet the standards for use in Wikipedia articles — i.e., if the sources look OK to most editors, we have a right and a duty to treat them as OK unless you can convince us that they are not. And again, if multiple viewpoints on a topic are represented in reliable sources, we don't decide that one is right, and the others are wrong, and suppress any mention of the "wrong" views because they are wrong — rather, we acknowledge both/all views, explaining which reliable sources support each view, and we leave it to the reader to decide which (if any) position is right (or let the reader simply understand that there are differences of opinion without forcing him/her to take a side).

Now if, in fact, we really are talking about a situation where all, or nearly all, of the reliable sources support one side of the argument, and the other side has few or no sources supporting it, then WP:FRINGE says we are justified in minimizing coverage of the fringe view. And I'll say here that I've seen cases on Wikipedia where virtually all sources agree on one side of an issue, and an opposing view is doggedly held only by obviously slanted "news" sites, partisan blogs, and Wikipedians' personal views — and in those cases, it has been obvious to most editors that only one viewpoint is deserving of mention. But if this is the case here, then there should be a broad consensus, involving many editors, in favour of putting forth only one view and marginalizing all others. If one user is pushing their POV, demanding that no other views should appear (or that their own view must be mentioned regardless of how much or how little it is supported by sources), insisting that policy is on their side and that contrary opinions are invalid because "consensus cannot override policy", then the lone warrior is out of line far more often than not. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do organize for this problem a platform for discussions. I want other members and admins to get into this issue involved as I want to get this issue settled once and for all. User FactStraight was told many times by me and by other users who have knowledge in Georgian historiography that he is wrong but he doesn't want to understand it. So please do as you've promised and organize a platform for involvement of other members in this very important issue. User FactStraight under of his umbrella of protecting his "neutrality" is directly forging and falsifying the Georgian history and this must be stopped. Your TP is not a place for all this discussions really so after your organization of new platform for discussion of this problem with other admins/members involved I will explain what exactly is the problem in details and I am sure the consensus will be achieved. Jaqeli 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll do some investigating and find what seems to be the best place to move the discussion. Please be patient with me — I live on the other side of the world from Georgia, and I have numerous real-life claims on my time — but if people are willing to deal with this issue in a spirit of cooperation and of commitment to creating an informative and neutral set of articles, hopefully the end result will be good. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure Rich. Take your time. Jaqeli 14:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, as a starting point, I would like to propose starting a discussion at Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty, in which the two of you (Jaqeli and FactStraight) — along with whoever else is interested — will discuss how broad the coverage of the article ought to be (e.g., which branches of the extended family); how the different viewpoints should be presented, explained, and compared; and what sources can be identified. The goal here should be to come to a consensus on how to explain the overall subject in a way that a reasonably intelligent person (but one who knows nothing about Georgian history or politics) can get a basic understanding of what is going on and what the various unresolved disputes are.

Please avoid any effort to establish that any particular viewpoint is or is not "the truth". Also, do not attack the reasonableness, sincerity, or motives of any faction — the idea here must not be to debate the subject until all sides but one are clearly defeated or give up. What is important is explaining the subject, not trying to achieve victory for any particular side.

I chose this particular article's talk page because it seems to me to be a reasonably general point where the different views probably converge — also because this appears to be a spot (one of several, to be sure) where the two of you have had a hard time agreeing or cooperating in the past. If you think some other place for the discussion would be better, by all means feel free to suggest a different venue. I will mention here that I considered trying to have the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country), but the WikiProject isn't very active, so I was worried that locating the discussion there might not work well. Wherever the discussion does take place, I'll probably put a note on the WikiProject's talk page, advising interested people of where an attempt is being made to hash out the issue. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Having this discussion would be much better on Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli since that family tree is the most controversially edited as it includes House of Mukhrani nobles and their status problem in it so I suggest we move our discussion to that one. Jaqeli 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

FactStraight, what are your thoughts about all this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to participating in a fairly conducted discussion of Georgian dynasticism, although I think there should be 1. clarity about the focus and objective lest the only outcomes be ad hominem assertions and forum shopping ad nauseum, and 2. that no plurality of previously unengaged participants, anons or unobjectively translated non-English sources be credited with the authority to establish a censorious consensus in this matter. If I understand Jaqeli's comments above correctly, he requests that you "do as you've promised" by convening a "platform" of admins and "third party experienced wiki members" to be set up "to get this issue settled once and for all" at which he is "sure the consensus will be achieved" to the effect that editing by me which touches on Georgian dynasticism under an "umbrella of protecting [my] 'neutrality' is directly forging and falsifying the Georgian history and this must be stopped." You have offered an alternative objective and set of rules to which I unreservedly consent, but which I do not believe have been accepted in principle or form by Jaqeli as definitive. Nor, frankly, am I aware of any process by which my edits or interpretations, right or wrong, may effectively be banned from articles touching on Georgian dynasticism -- nor what principles or rules I have violated to justify being subjected to any such process. FactStraight (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)