User talk:Rigley/Archive 5

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)

Thanks for keeping going on copyvio investigation backlog

I'm trying to help out on the copyvio backlog too, and I know it is tough; much of it is clean so it can be like looking for a needle in the haystack. And it may seem thankless, so I wanted to take a moment and say THANK YOU! I really appreciate your efforts. Thank you. NickDupree (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the appreciation! CCIs are tough, but also interesting. The copyright and plagiarism aspect of writing articles is definitely not emphasized enough to new editors, and I learned a few things about policy and law myself from doing this. The relative emphasis given to this backlog, compared to unsourced BLPs for example, really needs to change. Quigley (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disappearing comments on Wokou talk

I think this is a side effect of all the Edit Conflicts on the talk page. I can assure you in the one case where my edit removed yours it was entirely unintentional and I apologize. What I have started doing is to write my comment in a separate document then paste it into a new edit window as fast as possible. This minimizes the amount of time from opening the edit page and saving, thereby reducing the number of conflicts. Colincbn (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just worried because the user whose comment was removed the second time didn't catch it himself. Quigley (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have posted into the wrong edit window or something. I'm not used to pages with this much activity and have not had to deal with Edit Conflicts often. I will simply be reopening the edit page from now on to avoid this. But thanks for catching it! Colincbn (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

btw

I like the quote you put on your userpage; it struck me as peculiar as well when I saw it... yesterday? not sure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought that it might offend some people, but it does have some personal resonance, and I think I'll keep it for a while. Quigley (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A Request

I would like to think I have been a moderate voice in this and I have not called for Cirt's retirement at all and Nor to my memory has any one else. Would you please stop engaging in hyperbole which the talk page discussion to further be inflamed. I understand you dont think well of some individuals motives that a legitimate point to bring up in RFC/U. What is not ok is to keep repeating it at every chance ignoring. So far you have provided no diff where some one has stated that as their wish or even such a post off site. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not okay to call only the people criticizing Cirt moderates and the people defending Cirt extremists by implication. I will repeat to you what I said to Griswaldo: why have you not endorsed any statements that rebut criticisms of Cirt's editing as I have JoshuaZ's, Hobit's, and DGG's? Is it because Cirt is absolutely wrong and the certifiers against him are absolutely right? That's not my definition of a moderate voice.

I apologize for not providing a diff in that case. The discussion is pretty fast-paced and the participants familiar enough, that it happens regularly that people make assertions for which they have no diff offhand, like how Jayen466 sarcastically shot off about my supposed intentions right before that comment you point out. Not wanting to give a rehash of my stated view in the RfC/U every time I want to comment in the discussion, I gave you direction for where to look if you wanted the relevant link to the Scientology-santorum conspiracy theory. When asked, I personally spoonfed it to you. So in the future, I wish you'd assume good faith of me, as I assume good faith of you, and not accuse me of ignoring peoples' concerns.

sidenote, I'd like to contain the vitriol from that discussion out of my talk page in the future, thanks! Quigley (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on the page I had defended Cirt when he has been harassed and acknowledged his withdraw from Scientology.(which you endorsed) I had hope you had considered me more moderate than Jayen466 or Cla68 who according to you "represent a faction that is militantly opposed to the existence of Santorum" I would have hoped you would have considered me less "militant" than them.

I do wish Jayen had been more concise as the TL;DR does seem to have backfired on him. I have I think some of his complaints are petty but that does not make them illegitimate as a whole. My concern here was more about for Cirt's retirement and admission comment; which I felt was hyperbole. I understand it is fast paced conversation. I dont expect you to dig one up for every statement but would appreciate if you accusations could reasonably backed up. I am working here to assume good faith with every one too. I have no desire to clutter up your page rehashing the RFC points. I felt talking to you directly rather than arguing on the RFC talk page would allow us to discuss it in slightly less tense environment. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your tireless work to preserve the integrity of the project. NickDupree (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for the affirmation. Editing Wikipedia is not tireless, but it is much better because of users like you. Quigley (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm growing more and more concerned about User:Arilang1234's impact

I have a long history of collaboration and contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese history (especially pre-Mao China) and I am increasingly concerned that Arilang1234's negative impact may be too widespread to easily reverse.

Not only (as you point out) is the POV-pushing on Boxer Rebellion atrocious (Boxers remain described as "looting and burning" and "killing christian converts and local Han Chinese population" IN THE BOXER military conflict infobox!!!!) but, even more worrying, IMO, is the spate of new Boxer-related articles Arilang1234 has created in rapid succession, most of which have titles that don't conform with the rules for titles, have titles 6-10 words long, and are riddled with grammatical errors. I'm talking about articles like Imperial Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol, Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan, 1901: The shadow of an Empire, The withering Empire: Final ten years of Qing Dynasty, and The final seventy years of Qing Dynasty to name a few, all full of English writing/grammar issues in addition to wikifying and quality issues.

My concern over the situation culminated in my nomination of Imperial Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol for merging into Boxer Protocol, and opening an RfC on the matter on June 15. I also listed the RfC to merge on WikiProject China to no response. But during this RfC period, Arilang1234 has continued his rampant creation of new articles, largely content forks/borderline POV forks of topics that already have articles.

So right now my biggest concern is that very few editors devote their time to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Imperial China, you and I are only two men and we are not able to reverse the damage being done. It's an uphill battle, like I am playing whack-a-mole against Arilang1234's endless stream of newly created forks, and this is quite worrying.

So I am writing you for advice on where to go from here? What next steps should be taken? Do we open an RfC on the impact of Arilang1234's edits as a whole? Can anything be done, or is the damage going to be neigh-irreversible?

Sincerely, NickDupree (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how effective an RfC on this user would be. They take long to prepare, and long to air, and for all that work, it could turn out for no consensus on a course of action. Arilang1234's behavior has been discussed at ANI at least three times before, each time on the cusp of his receiving some sort of topic ban or sanction. This latest rash of Boxer articles may push him over the edge. I recommend the creation of a userpage subpage, where we can collect evidence of breaches of Arilang's last promise (in May) to abide by neutrality rules, to be brought to the appropriate fora when ripe. That may be ANI; that may be RfC/U; but any place will need something more convincing than personal testimony of playing whack-a-mole against these difficult edits. I have noticed Arilang's impact on modern China and Cultural Revolution articles since my first edits on the Pedia, but I have always treated these edits as individual problems rather than the products of a problematic editor. Arilang1234 has not changed after so much fraught dialogue, so I know that it's time for my own lackadaisical attitude towards him to change. It would probably be best for you to create the page, like User:NickDupree/Arilang1234, since you are not as polarizing a personality as me, Dungane, or some of the other users who have a history with him. If and once you create that page, you could invite some editors who participated in Arilang's ANI discussions before (at least ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, PCPP, and So God created Manchester) to collaboratively contribute evidence and a desired outcome.

P.S. as an upbeat rejoinder to the negative example of the RfC on Tenmei, which emerged as no consensus, the community ban discussion for Maheshkumaryadav offers a model for another way forward, for another case of a user creating a slew of poorly written, POV articles, for whom mentorship has not helped. Arilang1234 says that his current mentor is User:Ohconfucius (possibly as a condition of parole?), but I can't discern a moderating effect on Arilang's behavior from Ohconfucius's influence. Quigley (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at this tommorrow, but the claim that he made here about Cixi keeping a "personal shrine" to the Yihetuan at "home" sounds like BS to me. He is hijacking the article to portray Empress Dowager Cixi as Satan himself.

The historian with an actual degree in chinese history, Dr. Joseph Esherick quoted the Dowager Empress Cixi as saying "Perhaps their magic is not to be relied upon; but can we not rely on the hearts and minds of the people? Today China is extremely weak. We have only the people's hearts and minds to depend upon. If we cast them aside and lose the people's hearts, what can we use to sustain the country?"

Cixi clearly was not hooked or fooled by the Boxer's claim of invincibility, but was extremely concerned about the situation and wanted to get China out of the crisis, concluding that since the majority of the Chinese peasants in northern China supported the Boxers, they had to go along with the Boxers.

Arilang1234 then inserted this random quote by Cixi into wikiquote- "To keep those invading nations happy, we need to give them whatever China can afford to give"

Cixi said that since she was about to sign the Boxer Protocol, in order to save China from being split and colonized by the foreign powers, and she agreed to the Protocol because its terms were favorable, included all foreigners withdrawing from Chinese territory, and that no chinese territory would be annexed. Before the Boxer war, German and russia were prepared to carve big pieces of land out of China. The Qing court even played hardball, and refused to allow the execution of the (non Manchu) Dong Fuxiang, allowing him to keep his personal mansion and private army, while agreeing for the Manchu Yuxian to be executed.

And Arilang1234 keeps claiming the Boxers were bandits with zero popular support. the majority of chinese in the area (North china around Beijing) supported the Boxers. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think admins who dealt with him like Nick-D should be alerted to his behavior. The users on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians whom Arilang1234 tried to game the system against should also be alerted. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley -- Those are constructive thoughts for a way forward long-term, but what about the short-term? Short term we're faced with some seriously bad, ACUTE issues like the harsh, radical anti-Boxer POV on Boxer Rebellion. Some sixth grade kid could be accepting the bias on Boxer Rebellion as fact right now, including the military conflict infobox up top that describes Boxers as all about looting and killing civilians. I'm so concerned about the possible impact on impressionable students reading Boxer Rebellion in its current, hyper-POV state, that I will revert back to the pre-Arilang1234 version tonight. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is correct that the rash of additions by Arilang recently violate the policy on non-English sources because English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. I think even though he attributes the POV content usually, that isn't enough because of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and sometimes even WP:FRINGE. And certainly THE FRONT AND CENTER Infobox isn't the place for POV, even attributed POV.

Quigley, I'd like to brainstorm with you privately. Could you, if possible, talk to me on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel, or IM me through the screen names listed on User:NickDupree#Contact? Typically on weekdays I'm available 2:00pm to 1:00am, in the U.S. Eastern Daylight Time, -04 GMT. NickDupree (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As my name has been brought up here, I thought I'd clarify that my relationship with Arliang is not a formal one. I did see some redeeming qualities in his work, notwithstanding his earlier issues with copyright, and I proposed during the last ANI to give him another chance. Others seemingly deferred to my proposal, saving him from a community ban. He may feel closer to me than many others for that reason. He does occasionally come (not exclusively) to my talk page with queries; he doesn't by all means ask my advice on everything. Nor do I involve myself with what he does on a daily basis, except when it appears on some article or talkpage on my watchlist.

Now, I am increasingly aware of the scope of his entrenched views. I seem to have noticed Arilang's stance does appear to be softer when I am around, but he doesn't always listen to me. I do admire his tenacity, and I am equally aware of how this can enhance his potential to disrupt. I have had words with him on more than one occasion. As he works most of the time outside my areas of expertise and interest, often in article creation, I pretty leave him to get on with it. For most of his work, particularly those related to the Qing and Boxer, I took on face value. It now appears that many of his article creations are indeed ideologically driven. His behaviour has changed in some ways since the last ANI, He is less confrontational, but he seems to have an incredibly short fuse. I very much regret what appears to be happening with his ideological agenda at Boxer, and I agree it must stop. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion about this at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Quigley (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I admire your contributions and would like to see your thoughts on what I've written re: Arilang's edits on dispute resolution noticeboard and Talk:Boxer Rebellion. NickDupree (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

review this

can you look over this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ/1905 Tibetan Rebellion before I make it into an article? Like check over the grammar, references, and remove any POV, (the sources which I found, such as the account by George Forrest seemed to insinuate that the Tibetan tribes were wild barbarians, and gave graphic accounts of their atrocities).ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some grammatical and POV fixes, but I would have to spend some time reading the sources to fix the chronology and answer some of the questions I had while reading it. I did tag some sentences with {{clarify}}, {{who}}, and the like as a guide, and will revisit it later, whether in user space or article space. Quigley (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lhasa

Will need a closer watch on the history section...can't let those two run amok there. Sorry that I ask you to do this when you are busy with many other disputes and discussions. You certainly know what the majority of my work involves, and that when I deal with politics, it is mostly, if not entirely, for the protection of the encyclopaedia. Thanks —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching it, but it's on the back burner. I don't really have a problem with Nishidani's edits, which seem to be genuinely helpful, better sourced, and less ideological than Tibetsnow's, and the two on the whole seem to be more in conflict than in cooperation. Quigley (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize I spoke too soon for Nishidani's good intentions. Sorry for doubting your judgment. Quigley (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the "run amok" judgment regarding Nishidani stemmed from what I saw on his user page, not so much what he did at Lhasa, which I have no problem with. And at the least he is discussing the title of the Incorporation/Invasion article, and not proceeding to move it or use questionable edit summaries. PS congratulations on your first DYK[ I have seen been awarded to you]! —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but I would appreciate being told where on my user page I 'run amok'? If it is a sign of bad intentions to nudge the editors of a page I refrain from editing, to reexamine the prose of the incipit which is indigestible, or if saying the article is 'sinocentric' as opposed to cleaving toWP:NPOV, I am read as revealing some tacit anti-Chinese hostility, then I have no defence that would convince you. I don't have preconceived 'readings' of editors. I see a lot of good work done by editors whose POV, case per case, might strike me as totally opposed to my own private views. And I think it best to judge editors on the merits of their actual contributions, not on vague impressions. My fundamental concern with wikipedia is systemic bias. Thanks for listening, and apologies for intruding.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not "intruding". I was referring to your section on "Tibet-Palestine" from the Times Literary Supplement. Certainly any of of my "vague impressions" of you have been cancelled by your work at Lhasa, which I could never hope to equal. No worries. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a relief. I'm not 'sensitive', but I do tend to wake up at odd hours, puzzling that my intentions at times on difficult articles may be misunderstood, hence the WP:TLDR style. It's late here. Thanks and best regards. Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Echoing HXL49's conclusions, I have a deep respect for your contributions and your philosophy, in that you "do not think what I personally know should interfere with what I must edit in". I have stricken out my private exception to your comment. Quigley (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for New York Agreement

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rigley. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ani

hI, Please don't meatpuppet revert at ANI thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop calling me a meatpuppet; it's a personal attack. Quigley (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Back off and stop disrupting. Off2riorob (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed Strange Passerby's denial of permission to you to edit his comments, nor have you substantiated the (incorrect) claim that Strange Passerby has "no authority" to close the discussion despite warnings on your talk page. Quigley (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism and Cultural Revolution

You wouldn't happen to know much about this dark period or the sources available on it, do you? I could use some help to avoid 3 reverts of material (from only one source) stating that 100,000 people died from cannibalism in Guangxi alone. Thanks—Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but I looked at the cited document (itself suspect), and it just said that there were 100,000 deaths in the province during the period; not just from cannabalism, so I modified that. I pass no judgment on the other material. Quigley (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint about Historiographer

Regarding WP:AN3#User:Historiographer reported by User:Quigley (Result: ). Technically this doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation. You might have an argument that it's a long-term edit war. I notice that many people working on Goguryeo have trouble writing idiomatic English. Historiographer is persistently restoring his version, but it is much better worded and more understandable than what he is replacing. At 02:13 on 24 July he replaced a previous version which included:

Emperor Taizong much regretted to launch the campaign and is believed to suffer from an illness. However, all Chinese source failed to specify the details.

Although Historiographer is stubborn and scolds people in his edit summaries, he is improving the article prose. Do you think you might be willing to set up a WP:Request for comment to help get agreement on the matters in dispute? You seem to write well also, so you can perhaps see what I'm driving at. If some kind of proper discussion were started, it may be possible to close the 3RR with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I already left a note at the article's talk page about the disputed text. If nobody replies and disputes persist, I'll start a RfC. Thanks for the suggestion. Quigley (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Aua

this user Aua appeared on the List of Chinese inventions talkpage, preparing to axe the article, claiming "it's a case of national pride run amok".

I believe this user is under the severely mistaken assumption that User:Gun Powder Ma is Chinese, by looking at his username, and as you know, Gun Powder Ma was on the List of inventions in medieval Islam, trying to axe sections off the article, I believe that User:Aua, was motivated by revenge by this to axe sections off the Chinese list as he/she stated here

Aua claimed that there were "unsourced" inventions of the Chinese list. So far as I can see, all of them are sourced. I request you come onto the Talk:List of Chinese inventions, and cool down this situation before it escalates into another ANI brawl.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Non-sovereign territories templates

Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Aua again

another personal attack by User:Aua, calling another person an "ESL people" (implying their english is terrible, and backtracking on his own claim that he could tell that other editors were Chinese.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As requested re:GNAA

You've asked for some info on violations of WP:AVOIDCOI with regards to LiteralKa and Murdox. I've listed the evidence below, in order of the points at AVOIDCOI:

1. Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

   Both Murdox and LiteralKa, despite being the President and the "Public Relations/Wikipedia Editing" head (his words, not mine) respectively, have not avoided editing the GNAA article. In fact, Murdox edits almost nothing except the article and closely related topics. This is despite it being their organisation.

   LiteralKa's edits are based almost entirely around GNAA and related topics, including the articles which share the GNAA initials and are considered to be 'competitors' by the GNAA: [1] [2] [3]. Murdox has more edits to ANI and the GNAA article than he does his own user page and talk page combined. Of the few non-GNAA edits, [4] is a prime example.

   I have exercised great caution in editing the GNAA article precisely because I didn't want to violate WP:COI and face this sort of administrative review. I can't talk for other users, ESPECIALLY LiteralKa, but I've specifically endeavoured to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:COPYVIO. The only thing I could probably done differently was declare my possible COI (which, admittedly, I felt didn't matter as long as my edits were non-controversial but I see enough of a stink has been kicked up over it that it would've been prudent to announce more openly then the fact that I was listed as the President on the actual GNAA page). Furthermore, I feel that you're assuming bad faith on that edit to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I felt that a source to a Grazia article, Heat, or one of those Best Dressed lists would've been prudent in that page (which was practically swimming in unsourced info at the time). Murdox (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Chase, for the hundredth time: I have significantly decreased the amount of editing I do to the GNAA page since it has become an article. You continue to conveniently "forget" this. LiteralKa (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Can you quantify this? Quigley (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes hello. Could you please explain the emphasis? I personally tend to view people with more than 10% non-mainspace edits as Wikipedia’s equivalent of the ailment known as bloggers, so I would think that having few edits to one's user page and talk page combined is actually a good thing, don’t you think? Sam Hocevar (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Avoid advocating deletion of articles related to your competitors at deletion discussions

   As above, and as mentioned on ANI. Both editors have been involved in the deletion discussions - or have nominated for deletion - almost all of the articles listed at GNAA (disambiguation).

   If you read my contribution history you'll see that's a straight up lie. Murdox (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I wouldn't call any of those competitors. One is a technique and the other is an organization of questionable notability. I noticed them because they shared the same acronym, and even if they didn't, I would still have put them up for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Using disambiguation to bury or "dilute" an article is not unheard of on Wikipedia (cf. Allegations of apartheid), and under different circumstances, people would be sympathetic to your cause. I think it's obvious to people, who by and large only type "GNAA" to find one specific organization, that the other "GNAA" articles are of no or questionable notability, and this was proven by Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry's merge result. Someone would have nominated those articles for deletion eventually (I myself was considering it); it was a mistake to do it yourself. Quigley (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization from other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

   I don't see this as a great problem in the situation, but if you wish, I am sure can find examples. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I've never done this either. Murdox (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

   I already feel that they've breached the COI guideline by editing the article and removing COI tags, as well as entering into content disputes with other users. For example, an argument with uninvolved editor PeterC over whether or not GNAA is a 'corporation', going through 1, 2, 3 reverts in 24 hours. Then again, this time arguing with Prodego 1, 2, 3. When a COI tag was applied, he removed it with the edit summary "major contributor" my ass. 90% of my edits are cleanup.. When I re-added the tag with the edit summary, I would also like this article just to be checked for a COI - it's not a personal thing, but it looks like it's written by the group themselves., LiteralKa removed it with the summar rm as per WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6) - which is unusual, as WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits doesn't mention removing COI tags. Another problematic edit is this, where LiteralKa removes text, judging it to be 'POV' - when in fact, he's removing text critical of GNAA, and in any case he should not be making judgements on what is and is not POV when he has such a massive conflict of interest himself. A few other fun diffs are adding inappropriate categories, non-free logos. The details at [5] show that, in fact, LiteralKa edits the article more than anyone else. Appropriate for the head of PR? I think not. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, "they". I'm sure LiteralKa is going to see this and defend himself separately for these edits and by all means he should because none of those edits are mine. I'm trying quite hard to assume good faith but I'm tired of repeating time after time that I haven't violated WP:COI in any way other than having a COI. Murdox (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I have given a reason for all of my edits (example). LiteralKa (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

notices

Would appreciate if you'd stop spamming my discussion page with those. Also, I've initiated a discussion in the article before you. Kuebie (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Today was the second time ever that I posted on your talk page, and we posted at the same time. Quigley (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Haven't seen you around in a while - how are things?

I also like the pun at the top of your talk page - I initially mistook the picture for a leek though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to extricate myself from the non-article namespaces since the opening of this quagmire, and to the extent that I've done it I've found it to be very rewarding. I am glad that there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel for your problems with the Vatican. New suggestions for wordplay will be considered for feature on this page. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Which articles prompted that case? (Oh god, is it yet another forum in the "santorum" fiasco?)

I'm afraid I'm not too clever but if I come up with any wordplay I will let you know. Were the chives your idea or someone else's? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chives were my idea, as far as I know. Few people seem to know what the scope of that case is, although santorum spawned it. Lately there seems to be a rather disgusting subtext to the consistently one-sided application of BLP policy: from santorum, to M. Bachmann, to certain actors. I don't often dip my toes into that topic area due to the zealotry, but I appreciate those who do. Quigley (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Bachmann

Hello Quigley,

An IP editor inserted this into the Michelle Bachmann article, in a section purporting to describe her views:

"Other effects of the byproduct of nature such as gravity is still unknown. When humans fall from a great height due to the affect of gravity, it is still uncertain if it is harmful." The same editor made a total of five similar edits, all clearly intended to mock, parody or falsify Bachmann's views on science.

I called these edits a "BLP violation" but you wrote that is a "real stretch" and called the edits "just personal commentary added by a user elaborating on Bachmann's views." Later, you said "you don't have to frame removal of personal commentary as 'BLP violation'."

Let me make it clear that I am not a supporter of Michelle Bachmann. I still feel obligated, as should all editors, to keep her biography free of such garbage. I disagree with your characterization of this set of edits as "personal commentary". This is an editor repeatedly and deliberately trying to insert patently false information into a BLP, through edits structured in such a way that a credulous person might possibly believe these false statements. That is among the worst varieties of vandalism, and I am convinced that it is a BLP violation.

Your thoughts? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I only commented on one particular edit in a non-administrative capacity for the purpose of an AN3 report. I really don't have interest or involvement in that topic area, so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. If you want people to affirm your conviction that some silly vandalism is a BLP violation, then BLPN is for you. My reading of the punctuation, context, and contents of that edit is different than yours, such that I don't think that there is a serious risk of Bachmann's views being conflated with the user's. However, I agreed that it should have been reverted, and it was—there's no further need for discussion. I appreciate your efforts to maintain Michelle Bachmann's biography. Quigley (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying, but please note that there were five similar but varying edits by the same IP. Reading them all plus the IP's talk page shows that these were not the IP user's own views, but rather an overt attempt to falsify Bachmann's views, perhaps for satirical reasons. With that point made, I agree there is no further need for discussion, and wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC

I need help filing an RFC. the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements say something about "Minimum requirements"DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What about them? Can you find diffs that demonstrate those minimum requirements? If not, you should pursue other forms of dispute resolution [in those forms specified by RfC minimum requirements], and file the RfC later. Quigley (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

the thing i'm unsure about is that the dispute about the user is his general contribution pattern, does that mean i can take any diffs from his talk page where other users complain about a certain bias, and submit it as part of the "minimum requirement"?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I've seen some people collect a laundry list of complaints and diffs, presenting it to the user's talk page as part of a "general contribution pattern", but doing that looks more like an antagonistic formality than a genuine attempt at dispute resolution. Quigley (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

4,000 Years of History in China?

Hi Quigley;

In the midst of all the heated discussion at China, I hesitated to make a fuss about the lede, but I wonder if you had a special thought in the "4,000 years" part of your revert which was entirely reasonable otherwise. The BBC site in the first note mentions 4,000 years of "culture," not history, and the second note, which is not a strong one to have for the leadoff note, is careful to distinguish the two.

Another problem is that the figure "4,000" looks precise but in fact can't be. The article and the linked articles mention 10,000 years, you can find other places which say 5,000, and still other authorities question whether it's "China" when you go back that far anyway. Others point out that it doesn't make sense to call "pre-history" part of "history." It's a mess! So would you consider just zapping that part of it and not getting into numbers?

All the best in any case. ch (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the 4,000 number in particular, but my preference would be to have some number, appropriately qualified, so that the superlative doesn't look weaselly. Quigley (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is not the place for either academic quibbling or for positive endorsement of the idea that anything that ever happened within present day borders was "Chinese." And the lede is probably also not the place to point out that in fact the history was not unbroken, only to leave out an unqualified assertion that it was. Something like China's "history and culture stretch thousands of years..."

Obviously I will explain any changes to the lede on the China Talk Page. ch (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 1, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help

As always, your assistance will be appreciated here. They simply do not know...(to be continued elsewhere) —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Human rights in Singapore

Hi Quigley, thanks for your notice in the article: Human rights in Singapore [6]. Wikipedia does not hide information. In this respect in my opinion Human rights in Burma deserves here a link. I add it in the top, ok? I expect the pro-democracy movement to prefer the word Burma. Therefore I chose it according to the source of information. Quigley, if you want to discuss the issue, please use page: Talk:Human rights in Singapore. Watti Renew (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)