User talk:Margana

Better understanding WP:NPOV and WP:V
There is a general misunderstanding of late as to the true intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V. To state a "fact" (or, if you prefer, a "generally held belief") which is supported by virtually all sources and contradicted by few if any, it is not appropriate to slap a "" tag on, just for one's jollies. "Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents." One DOES NOT have to provide a source for such a statement!!! There is where y'all are a little unclear about the rules here. To even attempt to name "one source" for the above comment about Lincoln is ridiculous. If, instead, you know of a source that contradicts it, it is your onus to find one. Perhaps you also disagree that Lincoln was the 16th president. If you think he was the 15th or 17th, go prove it. Slapping  here and there might be enjoyable to you, but that is not the appropriate response to accepted fact. This clarification is intended not towards any one editor in particularly, but clearly it has become a trend, and a very immature one. Best, LorenzoPerosi1898 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this in relation to? Margana 01:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for your disruption of the Jimmy Wales article as per the discussion on WP:AN. The length of the block is set at 3 months, but will be reviewed by administrators and may change in length. It would be wise to avoid violating WP:BLP in the future, as this is likely your last non-indefinite block given your history. Regards, RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC) --unblock|Rogue absurdity; my "disruption" consisted in reverting wholesale removal of a section which two users falsely claimed was a BLP issue, while three disagreed. I challenge anyone to specify a BLP violation in the section.--
 * The BLP violations that this user was reinserting are discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales. I requested that the user provide solid secondary sources before reinserting, but the user ignored me, and kept inserting self-sourcing primary sources. Another editor did rewrite the section, and did indeed provide the requested solid secondary sourcing, keeping the primary sources as further verification of the secondaries. This user could have saved themself a three month block by spending the time and energy doing a few minutes of research, rather than being a disruptive pain. I oppose this unblock request, as this user, considering their history, will only end up being blocked again. - Crockspot 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bald-faced lies. As Talk:Jimmy Wales shows, I didn't "ignore" Crockspot but repeatedly explained to him (as did others) why there is no BLP violation; he nevertheless ignored those arguments and kept removing an entire section from the article. I'm OK with the rewrite, incidentally (though it wasn't necessary), so if Crockspot leaves the section alone as it is now, there won't be a problem. Margana 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you have not read WP:BLP, or you would have done what Dragons lair did, and found reliable secondary sources. I am satisfied with his edit to the section. Had you simply done what he did, you would not now be blocked. BTW, DL claims that his edit took care of any BLP issues, so obviously you are misrepresenting the number of people who claim there was no BLP violation at all. Enjoy your time out. Crockspot 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was based on reliable sources all the time. Dragon just added double and triple sources beyond the necessary, to just make even clearer what he said in the first place, that there is no BLP issue. He just gave you a face-saving way out. Had I done what he did, you'd have reverted me just the same. On the other hand, had he done what I did (restore the section unchanged), you wouldn't have reverted him (líke Satori Son has explicitly said on his talk page). The difference is simple: Dragon's an admin, which means you can't easily get him blocked, and you might easily get blocked yourself if you edit-war with him. So, I'm satisfied the section survives, your best efforts to kill it notwithstanding. Margana 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was not even aware that Dragon was an admin until you just told me. He was behaving civilly, and wisely, and you were not. WP:BLP requires that ALL negative information be solidly sourced by reliable secondary sources. You're simply wrong about your assessment on just about everything that has transpired. Do you even know what a secondary source is? I doubt it. You need to RTFM while you are on block. Perhaps if you do, you will be a positive editor on Wikipedia when it expires, instead of a disruption. Crockspot 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Way to go accusing me of being incivil while being incivil yourself. As frustrated as you must be that you couldn't get that information deleted, your sniping here won't achieve anything. Margana 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When in a hole, the number one rule is: stop digging. The above unblock request might have warrented consideration, but the childish he-said-she-but-he-said-but-she-said bickering above put me off doing it. Since the block was largely for this type of stupid editing, I seen no reason to throw you a ladder now. And I don't care about what she or he said or when they said it or why or any other type of bickering argument you'd like to make here. You've been asked to stop bickering arguments of all types and can't even manage it to get unblocked. So now you need to go away and come back, sans the bickering instinct, when the block expires. Thanks. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words: Don't bother defending yourself, whatever you say (except perhaps "I'm sorry! I sinned! All hail Jimbo!") will be deemed "bickering." Very clever. Of course, if I hadn't called Crockspot on his bald-faced lies, you would simply have adopted his arguments in order to refuse the unblock, since my lack of reply would have been an implicit confirmation of those lies. Since you have put yourself firmly outside of reason, I'm now replying to you not for your benefit but for the record: The block was not for "bickering" but for my restoration of well-sourced material to an article which Crockspot removed on patently false (and unsupported) BLP claims (thus de facto committing vandalism). I have been fully vindicated by the fact that the material is right now in the article, with entirely trivial modifications. Crockspot realized he couldn't win this and keep the material out, so he now pretends to be satisfied with Dragon's rewrite, which is materially identical with the previous version. I can't help to point out the mindboggling statement of Redvers when, after he refuses to unblock me, he explains this by saying that I "can't even manage it to get unblocked". That's like saying "I'm stealing your wallet as a punishment for your being so bad in holding on to your things. See, even your wallet now got stolen!" Obviously there's nothing one can do to "get unblocked" here except to put the notice up and hope one of the 5% or so non-corrupted admins will see it first. Slim chance, of course. And to say nothing here about the question where admins even have the authority to issue any blocks of such extent except for vandalism, without either an Arbcom decision or community consensus. This level of rogue admin perfidy puts any fascist justice system to shame. But that's what unlimited terms combined with lack of accountability does. That creates the wrong incentive for adminship to begin with and attracts the very worst elements, and even the few honest ones who get through tend to get corrupted with power, and those who remain honest and who don't subscribe to the admin omertà of ignoring their fellow admins' misdeeds are almost the only ones who ever get desysopped (see Everyking). Leaving you to cope with your own conscience, Margana 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1960.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 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 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) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1960.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 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 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) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales
Re this edit summary: I have no doubt that this has been discussed to death, and it would be nice to find a way to end quickly the current discussion and edit war. Note that the talk page section I directed you to already has 4 links to discussions in the 4 most recent talk page archives. Would you please tell me where exactly in the talk archives is the discussion which you feel supports your edit? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just read all of it. Do you seriously think any of the "arguments" you're making hasn't been made before? Trust me, they have, and you're wasting everyone's time. Margana (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed over much of the talk archives on the subject. I didn't see anywhere where anyone suggested adding a sentence to the 2nd paragraph of the article to summarize the "role of Wikipedia creators" section of the article.  Could you tell me which talk archive it's in? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re your edit: please join in the talk page discussion at Talk:Jimmy Wales. Perhaps you can suggest a better wording of the sentence to summarize the section of the article? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with summarizing it, but that's not what you did. It can be mentioned that he claims to be sole founder, but that has no bearing on the fact that he is co-founder, which should be stated unambiguously. Margana (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)