User talk:Phorion

Comments on user talk pages
Hi. I notice you appended a comment to my dispute resolution notification on a certain user's talk page that appears to be addressed to me rather than to him.

First, to talk to me, comment on my user talk page, not someone else I happen to have talked to. Apart from anything else, I'm more likely to see it.

Second, there's no need to tell people what we all already know. I know you are aware that I have seen the DRN thread, and I certainly cannot see the need to inform Biruitorol yet again which links he deleted. Telling people what they already know, especially with accusations like 'abusive', is an excellent way to inflame tempers and prevent anyone coming to an agreement.

Third, I will take this opportunity to remind you that the nationality of any user is not in any way relevant to this content dispute. CarrieVS (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

-

= I thank you for the post. The public motivation of "Biruitorul" for his acts is very important. The unjustified removal of a relevant link is an abuse, a form of vandalism.--Phorion (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you might say about motivation, another user's nationality is absolutely not important, and such remarks could be construed as racist. That is not acceptable. (There's also no particular need to put people's names in inverted commas.)

It is also not vandalism just because he disagrees, and I have honestly not seen anything to suggest that it is.

The only question here is whether the sources provided are reliable, and if they are not then Biruitorol was perfectly justified to remove the content. If they are, or if you can find other, reliable sources, then the content probably did not ought to have been removed, but it is still not necessarily vandalism. People make mistakes, and a bad edit is often an honest mistake rather than vandalism. The rule is, we assume good faith, meaning that unless we have real evidence that something was meant maliciously, we act as though we believe it was an honest mistake.

If this subject is discussed on the article's talk page, and if you participate, then it is both unhelpful and against Wikipedia's policy to simply keep repeating unfounded accusations of abuse and vandalism, or of such things as anti-Semitism. Nor is it helpful to get off topic. You should discuss the content in question, keep calm, and whatever any other editor might say, don't rise to it.

Sometimes that can be hard, but if you keep a cool head it makes it easier for others to do the same, and if you escalate so will he.

I'm not suggesting it's all on your head; I've dispensed two trouts today.

One final thing, can I repeat my question about the IP users in the discussion? Are either or both of them you? This isn't asked because it's wrong to discuss as an IP, but just to know who said what. CarrieVS (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

- The image & text with the trout and your unfounded accusations are offensive, against Wikipedia's policy. "Actori incumbit onus probandi."--Phorion (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The trout is not intended to be offensive, merely humorous, and 'trouting' is not against Wikipedia's policy - see here. If you found it offensive, please be assured that the intention was the opposite.
 * Please explain exactly what in my comment you consider to be an unfounded accusation, what you consider offensive, and what policy(s) you feel I have broken.
 * Please could you explain what you mean by "Actori incumbit onus probandi"? I do not speak Romanian, and an online translation tool give a nonsensical answer. Please do not quote text at me in Romanian if you want me to understand.

---


 * 3.) "Actori incumbit onus probandi" is an adage in Latin (NB - not in Romanian!) and a legal principle: "The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff". I'm not Romanian.
 * 2.) Unfounded accusations: "One final thing, can I repeat my question about the IP users in the discussion? Are either or both of them you? This isn't asked because it's wrong to discuss as an IP, but just to know who said what. "
 * 1.) "If you found it offensive, please be assured that the intention was the opposite." - thank you.--Phorion (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. I said Romanian because when I put it into a translation tool under 'detect language' it detected it as Romanian. I suppose that explains why the answer was nonsensical. I don't speak Latin either. I am not familiar with the Latin adage, but I am with the principle. However I don't understand why it is relevant here.
 * 2. That was not an unfounded accusation, it was a question. As I was at pains to point out, it is no problem if it is, I just want to know who said what, so it is not an accusation of anything.
 * As for being unfounded, the comments by the IP users are in similar tone and style to yours, and relate to the same sources as you wished to use, and as this account is very new it is perfectly reasonable that you may have been editing as an IP user previously; as a result, I thought it might be you, and asked you whether that was the case.
 * CarrieVS (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---
 * 2. I'm sorry, but your conclusions / your insinuations are completely wrong.--Phorion (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a conclusion, or an insinuation, or an accusation. It is a question. I did not say the IP user(s) are you, I only asked whether they were. And if it is the case that they are, it is not a problem or anything to be upset or embarrassed about. Editors are perfectly welcome to edit as IP users. Please will you answer the question. A simple 'yes', 'no', or 'one of them' will suffice. CarrieVS (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

--- The problem is: why Biruitorul wiped several times and unmotivated (Nota Bene!) the link < http://www.voxnovus.com/composer/Liana_Alexandra.htm> - given that: A collateral question: why Biruitorul avoid participate in this discussion?
 * No! - the problem is not me, I just noticed an anomaly!
 * 1. Vox Novus is a prestigious American composers organization;
 * 2. Liana Alexandra was a notable member of Vox Novus;
 * 3. the link is the official page (Nota Bene!) Liana Alexandra at Vox Novus; this official page was written after her death by Vox Novus;
 * 4. this page shows the basic scientific and objective data of her creation.

Thank you.--Phorion (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a little confused. This is not a discussion of whether those links should be in the article or not, that discussion should take place on talk:Liana Alexandra. (Also please quit it with the Latin. It doesn't make your points any more valid and most users don't speak Latin.)
 * I have not said you are a problem, I have explicitly said it is not a problem. I asked a specific question: are either or both of the two IP users involved in this discussion you? Please could you answer this question with a simple 'yes', 'no' or 'one of them'. CarrieVS (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---
 * "You seem to be a little confused." - Unfortunately, new offensive ...
 * I already answered. I do not like the repeatability and the anachronistic totalitarian questioning method. I recommend you read "The European Convention of Human Rights" - Article 6: . Goodbye.--Phorion (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I give in. All I was doing was trying to help. Goodbye.CarrieVS (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request of Liana Alexandra
Hello Phorion,

I declined your request for semi-protection for the page at the noticeboard. Semi-protection does not help in a content dispute between two editors. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's protection policies. If you have questions, just post on my talk page. Cheers, Airplaneman   ✈  00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Your personal attacks against User:Biruitorul, in connection with your edit-warring, are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask the Wikipedia community to solve the case

 * From this moment I will not interfere. I ask the Wikipedia community to solve the case. I have every confidence in the democratic spirit and fairness of the Wikipedia community.--Phorion (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I assume that you will cry foul if our "democratic fairness" does not work in your favor. Airplaneman   ✈  08:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence in the democratic spirit and in the fairness of the Wikipedia community.--Phorion (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)