User talk:Shrike/Archives/2012/June

An apology

It seems like you owe me an apology. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, Shrike!

I believe that you are seriously miss-interpreting the concept of WP:OR if you believe that the phrase “directly related to the topic of the article” contains a blanket ban on any and all material or sources not containing the relevant key words found in the article’s title. As far as I understand it has nothing to do with that.

Original Research is about advancing ideas that are not covered in reliable sources. Or combining two different sources creating a new idea that neither source propose. Full stop.

Original Research does not put restrictions on the material used in the article - ideas or sources - to the words contained in the title of that article. For example an article about the battle of Stalingrad could well contain whole sections comparing the casualty ratios, tactics used, outcome or significance of Stalingrad to that of any other WWII battle such as that of El-Alamein. Sometimes an edit would add material that is irrelevant to the topic of an article and should be removed for that reason. But that is something else and not WP:OR.

You have systematically deleted well-sourced material from a number of articles about the 2006 Lebanon war, mostly on the grounds of violating WP:OR. Accusing me of simultaneously contravening several Wikipedia policies at once, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR in a single edit, as you did recently, does not enhance your credibility.

I have actively resisted your deletions since I believe them to be wrong-headed. Your latest contribution to Hezbollah Nature Reserves was really a personal new low for you. Just because the HRW source didn’t use the IDF slang term (OK, my fault, I named the article) for the Hezbollah bunker system in South Lebanon you argued that it must be deleted.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1967 War

Out of interest, just wondering where you got the "constant" from in your recent edit[1], or is it just your own personal opinion on the matter. Dlv999 (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed this thank you for pointing it out.--Shrike (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Hi Shrike, thanks for helping out at the resource exchange, I've used papers I obtained there on several good and featured articles. It looks like there was a mixup on my latest request though, you provided the same paper on placoderms as the previous user got [2][3] Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

Hi Shrike, there is currently a discussion at WP:RSN, that you might be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleaase reply

To my comment that your revert is improper on the 'Bride is beautiful' page. Since you cited WP:V I presume you have Afsai's paper, hence my request that you ascertain where in that paper Afsai says what the unsourced text states. If that is not forthcoming, then the sentence must either be removed as WP:OR, or rephrased with 'allegedly', as I originally wrote.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Time

That's great, thanks. Zero^talk 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I was attempting to remove the in-appropriate template, apparently Huggle didn't see someone else reverting the vandalism first. Much much apologies :-(

<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for that article, Shrike. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Shrike (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If...

...you want to build a stronger case in your SPI report (just in case the CU results are inconclusive which is always a possibility) I suggest you look at the similarities between the edit summaries. I think there are a significant number of overlaps. Also, I'm curious why you didn't file an SPI about the case we discussed. It's not a criticism, I'm genuinely interested to know whether there is something that makes it perhaps more difficult for you to file some reports than others. Please feel free to respond via email rather than here. I deliberately didn't file a report because I wanted to see if anyone else would and I was interested to see how the editor interacted with other editors/edit wars. They have crossed over into disruption now so I left a note at ANI. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Elsevier

Thanks for the link. Would you consider leaving it up until I have confirmation that the primary editor of the page (who requested it) has downloaded it? It should be sometime in the next 12-24 hours. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Its will be there for one day.Also you can download it by yourself and upload it again to zoho.--Shrike (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that should be enough time. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrike- Beginners questions

Nice to meet you and thanks for the help offer:

I would love to know what is the best way to influence articles (besided editing it)? For example, if I see a subjective and false article, how can I ask to delete it or change its content?- Should I use the talks pages or is there any other way?

Best!

Scotty

(ScottyNolan (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

Hi Shrike

Thank You! Eat memory (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Hi SHrike. I created a new article for Uzi Yairi, and someone recommended that the inroduction be improved. Can yousuggest some edits thatwoudl improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eat memory (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Thank you, again! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"find source that directly related to the topic"

When I was in school, which admittedly was a long time ago, we were taught that the topic should be introduced at the beginning of a paragraph. The beginning of the paragraph to which my contribution was appended was "The ownership of the land that makes up Shilo is disputed." It seems to me that my contribution is directly "on topic".

It is the quote by Yossi Beilin that is off-topic. If you read, the entire interview from which his remark was lifted, you will see that the topic being addressed was "what it is like to live surrounded by people who want them to leave". The interview was conducted by Bob Abeshouse, qualified news correspondent and Al Jazeera English producer. He introduced Mr Beilin's remark with the comment that the then current Israeli government is committed to the settlements survival, but Mr Beilin, an opposition leader, sees them as a "festering wound". Although it is disguised in the lifted quote, you can tell from the full article that what made Shilo relevant in the Abeshouse interview, was not anything special about it's geography or political significance, but the fact that the American-Israelis Abeshouse chose to interview for the piece, identified as David Rubin, Lisa Rubin, Era Rapaport, and Mark (Shilo security chief), all live in Shilo. It is quite clear that Mr Beilin, a well-known critic of the entire settlement enterprise, was being asked to say something contrary to what the Shilo residents had said.

Whoever chose to selectively extract Beilin's quote from the interview, presumably also decided not to quote the other former government minister participating in the interview who said "That the children of Israel that return to the land of Israel will be removed by a Jewish government...can you imagine some nonsense...some tragic scenerio like this? Never. Never".

79.177.191.14 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) PrettyMountain

I will answer you today I hope--Shrike (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Hi Shrike,

It's past time your efforts at the resource exchange have been acknowledged. I'd like to award you the 6th Diligent Librarian Barnstar ever to be awarded to a Wikipedian. GabrielF (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) By providing high-quality academic sources, you have helped raise the quality of Wikipedia articles across a broad range of topics.