User talk:Richwales/Archives/2013-12

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Langdell
So, what do I do next when he turns up again? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone (an IP or an account) starts acting disruptively on an article or a topic area — whether by defying/ignoring consensus, repeatedly refusing to respect core policies such as NOR or RS, or through some sort of incivility — you should bring up the matter at a suitable place such as WP:RSN, WP:NORN, or WP:ANI. And I would recommend not dwelling on the issue of whether or not this is  (or a sock of Langdell); the Langdell account hasn't been active in years and is not under any current block, so IMO it really doesn't matter whether a current disruptive editor is this particular person or not.  The only point I was making by closing down your SPI report was that this didn't appear to be a case of sockpuppetry per the definition in WP:SOCK; I wasn't objecting to the general idea that this IP user might be acting disruptively.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oaky, though I do think that it does matter who he is or was. All accounts show a history of disruptive editing; combined, it's a lot. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that!
I didn't mean to edit your AC questions page. Not quite sure how that happened! 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It happens to the best of us.  I figured you had made a mistake and was about to revert your change, but you beat me to it.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet again
Hello Rich. The Armenian wikipedians are again disrupting the Georgian alphabet article and pushing their nationalistic propagandist agenda now by putting the picture of their national hero who they claim created the Georgian script. The origin section of the article written by the user Susuman is also gets violated. I want to ask you to protect this article for long-time period as I doubt it will never get settled as I see soon it will be another field of edit wars so again please do take whatever action you think is appropriate to protect Wiki from further disruption. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I consider myself to be too heavily involved with the debate on this article to impose any further administrative remedies on my own. In an effort to make the historical section appear more balanced, I added a drawing of Pharnavaz I just now (so that it includes pictures of both Mesrop and Pharnavaz).  I consider adding a second picture in this way to be better than taking the Mashtots picture out.  If you really want admins to protect the article or sanction edit warriors, please go back to WP:ANI and make a request; however, I would recommend you not do this, because I really don't think you're likely to find any admin willing to suppress the Mesrop Mashtots material and present only the Pharnavaz account.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Enough is said about all claims in the origins section made by the user Susuman and all claims are presented there. What is unacceptable is the presence of the pictures. I want the origins section to be clean and without those images but the historical inscriptions only in it. Please monitor the article and protect it from further disruption with inserting the images whether it's Masrop or Pharnavaz. Thier place in the article is already mentioned mentioned there and as for the images they should not be presented in the article. Jaqeli (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What is unacceptable is Jaqeli's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and his attempts to WP:OWN the article. You are in an active stage of an edit war. Hablabar (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify what you meant by "You are in an active stage of an edit war"? Are you saying that I (Richwales) am actively waging (or helping to wage) an edit war at this article?  Are you saying that Jaqeli is edit-warring and that I am somewhat to blame for not actively stopping him?  Are you simply pointing out that an edit war is going on?  Or are you saying something else?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * All refers to Jaqeli's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and his attempts to WP:OWN the article, and avoiding dialogue. Hablabar (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

More problems at the Jung Myung Seok article
Per [ this comment] which I made on November 2, I have moved this discussion to the article's talk page. I once again request that discussions of this sort should take place there, and not on individual editors' talk pages, in order that as much material as possible will be gathered together in one place for the benefit of other people who may get involved with this article in future. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

MR wales I am posting here because the talk page does not bring any good fruit to light. Sam sailor has reverted to a version of the article that quotes anonymous sources which you addressed previously. Furthermore sam sailor has suggested that macauthor and I be banned because we only contribute to the jung myung seok article. Please help as I understand Sam sailor and shii are admins and seem to throw around more weight than I.MrTownCar (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis
is reverting all my edits on the Georgia (country) and History of Georgia (country) articles and is trying to own the article and dismisses all my edits. Please do everything possible to protect the article from further disruption from this user. Jaqeli (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a look at this issue within the next 6 - 12 hours and see what I think may be the best thing to do. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've commented on both your talk page and Chipmunkdavis's talk page. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you be willing . ..
. . . to take a look at a run of recent edit summaries at Bentley Speed Six? They might be candidates for revdel as they seem quite repellant. (Particularly for the editor being subjected to the harassment/baiting.) I've had interaction with the baiting user in the past and would prefer not to repeat it. Summaries with links:

"Gotcha!" 

"Its so easy to lead the dogger on. Here's the right image, waiting on her next 'edit'"

"What's that smell?" 

Also relevant:

I appreciate the timing of this request is not brilliant. But if you have a moment to spare. ..

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I do agree that these edit summaries are inappropriate and appear to constitute personal attacks, I really can't see them rising to the level of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" which would be necessary in order to justify revision-deletion. As for the evident long-standing pattern of personal attacks, you (or someone else who is more familiar with this ongoing situation than I am) might want to consider reporting it at WP:ANI.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I understand, thanks for responding. Writegeist (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer
—Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas Rich! :) Wish you all the best! :) Jaqeli (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

follow up on JMS
Mr wales I was not certain if you are watching the JMS talk page hence quick post here. Sam sailor didnt respond to your last post on the JMS talk page and I did not get a sense of the next step moving forward regarding anonymous sources making contentious statements. Beyond this I thought that groups that are specifically against JMS (see quote from anti JMS group member kim jin ho quoted in citation 32) were not acceptable as sources as this would constitute original research or violate NPOV. Kindly advise.MrTownCar (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion, the usability of an anonymous claim depends primarily on the general reliability of the news sources which are reporting the anonymous statements. As I said in a comment on December 18, there may very probably be legitimate reasons why opponents of JMS would prefer anonymity — the fact that an individual (alleged victim, witness, lawyer, etc.) has not been identified by name does not necessarily mean their claims are lies or were made up.  So, for example, if "Nocut News" is a reputable mainstream news provider, stories from Nocut News would generally be allowable here — but if Nocut News is a sensationalist supermarket tabloid (comparable to English-language scandal rags such as the National Enquirer), then its material probably doesn't belong here.


 * The fact that material is from "groups that are specifically against JMS" does not automatically render that material unacceptable as a source — any more than material from pro-JMS groups would automatically be unacceptable. Such material (from either side of the controversy) must be evaluated for reliability on its own merits.  The NPOV policy does not mean that each individual source must, all by itself, be neutral — rather, NPOV means that the entire article, taken as a whole, needs to fairly report all the mainstream views on a controversial subject.  And the "no original research" policy isn't an issue here — NOR is designed to prevent you, me, or other Wikipedia contributors from constructing material on our own (as opposed to finding third-party sources and reporting what they are saying).


 * Regarding footnote #32 (I assume you're talking here about the Nocut News story "Jung Myung-Seok orders terror on JMS defectors"), I am not currently in any position to evaluate this source, because the quoted excerpt is in Korean and there is no English translation. Since you speak Korean (right?), I believe it would be very helpful if you could do an English translation of this quoted excerpt.  If you would prefer to have a native speaker of English review your translation before it goes into the article, I would be happy to help with this.  Similarly for the Korean-language quotes in footnotes #31 and #33.  Since there are clearly people working on this article who speak Korean, I hope you will understand that I am not going to be impressed by anyone's trying to say that a Korean-language source is not acceptable because an English translation is not included.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr wales As the article stands right now 40 References exist and all have negative slant regarding JMS.  Not one single source has a positive slant regarding JMS.  There are contentious statements made by anonymous lawyers, anonymous victim and an open member (Mr jin-ho kim) of an anti JMS group.  In good faith I cant see how this type of material and entire article, taken as a whole holds up to NPOV guidelines. The two most sensational statements in the article  about the 10 women being held and 1,000 women previously held are made by an anti jms person and an anonymous source. This is consistent with national enquirer standards.   Furthering the point about NPOV, Macauthor quoted an article written in Civil Government by moon il seok and put the references on his contribution.  It was reverted by harzotoh9 because he/she thought they were directly sourced from JMS, they were not.  Thereafter epicgenius reverted harizotoh9.  Macauthor added more material only to have all of the material rolled back by sam sailor.  When material with an alternate point of view is introduced it gets reverted on a basis that seems unjustified.  I am working on translating the entire Civil Government article from scratch and will post as soon as I am done.MrTownCar (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your frustration, but there really isn't much I can do here. If you have source material which you believe is suitable for use in the article, I would advise you to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN) and get outside opinions there regarding the appropriateness of your material.  If your material gets favourable responses at WP:RSN, then you will be in a much better position if other people continue to object to its inclusion in the article.  Similarly, if you believe that some of the existing material in the article is not in fact reliably sourced, you should bring up those specific pieces of material at WP:RSN — and if there is a strong outside consensus that that stuff doesn't meet our requirements, there would be a much more solid case for taking it out and keeping it out.


 * I must caution you, however, that if it's not possible to find pro-JMS material which meets Wikipedia's reliable source standards — and/or if a neutral consensus is that anti-JMS material which you are objecting to really is acceptable — then the article could end up being heavily slanted against JMS and would still be acceptable per the NPOV policy, because NPOV requires us to properly represent all positions taken in reliable mainstream sources, while giving at most a cursory mention (if even that) of material deemed to be of unreliable fringe nature. If what this really means is that the mainstream media outlets are firmly and hopelessly prejudiced against JMS, there isn't anything Wikipedia can do about that; we are absolutely not allowed to engage in investigative reporting here, and any persistent efforts to force material into this article that doesn't meet our requirements (or to force out material which does satisfy our policies) will almost certainly be seen as disruptive and will be responded to accordingly.


 * You also need to be aware that my patience with this matter is wearing very thin. I have explained the above policies, and have advised you regarding how to deal with the matters at issue here, more than once, and I am getting the feeling that we are going around and around on a merry-go-round without really getting anywhere.  Please read (or re-read) the essay on the subject of "civil POV pushing" (WP:PUSH), and be aware that this long-standing issue has been getting more and more exposure in the past year or so; you really, really do not want experienced Wikipedia people (including the Arbitration Committee) to come to the conclusion that your activities on this topic could reasonably fall into this category.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your input and I have taken the steps you have suggested but to little avail on the RSN in the past. I am new at this  (about 1 year) and am trying to learn the whole process and contribute to the article fairly by the rules.  You are the only admin and contributor who has remained impartial through my time with this article. You are the only person who has independent input about the Civil Government publication  that no other admin or rollbacker will take the time to investigate.  I will include it as a source in the article and post it on the RSN hoping to garner independent feedback.  Feel free to put your input on the RSN once I post there after the translation is completed.MrTownCar (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind sentiments. If you do decide to add potentially controversial new material to the article before first getting opinions from the RSN, I would strongly recommend that you include a note in your edit summary, indicating that you are asking for feedback at the RSN.  Even then, you might still get objections from some editors who will think you ought to wait and have people discuss your proposed new material at the RSN first, before trying to add it to the article.  If someone does remove your new material right away, absolutely do not jump into an edit war by insisting on adding your new material back in; if you do this, you will almost certainly end up being blocked for edit warring, and I will not be able to do anything to help you.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * point duly noted. I was thinking of translating the article and posting on my talk page or the article talk page and simultaneoulsy posting on the RSN,  wait a bit see what feedback I get and then posting some excerpts in the JMS article.MrTownCar (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
For keeping a cool head, remaining neutral and setting me straight repeatedly on the JMS page. CheersMrTownCar (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)