User talk:Relata refero

Most recent activity: מסמך נקדי, Papa II, Kulwant Roy.

RSS Article

You have just reverted my edits on RSS. I had removed the POV and un referenced claims to make the article more balanced. Can you specify your reasons on the discussion page. Let us work together to make this article more informative and less POV.Sindhian (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hekmatyar and attacks on women's faces

There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for this Dear Relata refero, can you tell us more about the references to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and attacks on women, i.e. where you found them? Is it from a subscription database, or available to the general public? sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

Are you still GA reviewing this article? This article has been placed on hold for almost a month. miranda 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC help request

Hi Relata, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Relata refero, this kind of commentary is not helpful.[1] If you believe that the Muhammad al-Durrah article is in poor shape, then please edit it into better shape, or make constructive suggestions on the talkpage. But just complaining about "conspiracy theorists" is not going to help improve the article. Also, this comment was personally targeted at another editor,[2] and again has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. Please try to adopt a more constructive and civil tone at the talkpage. I am not saying stay away, but I am saying that I think you can be much more effective, if you actually make specific suggestions, such as "This needs to be removed" or "This isn't a reliable source" or "I think this section needs to be expanded". Or even better, just go ahead and edit the article. As long as you stick to the Conditions for editing, you are welcome to make direct changes. --Elonka 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is directly helpful: it excludes the possibility that an artificial consensus can be claimed, of the sort that was claimed earlier.

I have already made it clear that your unilaterally imposed conditions for editing are absolutely inappropriate for this particular venue and this sort of problem, and they have led to a deterioration in quality. If you at the point where you are putting the phrase "conspiracy theories" in scare quotes and objecting to the use of the term, may I say that perhaps you too need to take a step back? It is clear your intervention has been unhelpful.

If you think this is either uncivil or unrelated to the editing of the article, you have an absurdly broad definition of the former and narrow definition of the latter.

Thank you for your permission to edit the article. I would rather stay away till mechanisms are in place that reduce rather than promote fringe-iness, thanks, as I believe I have already made amply clear. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to simply avoid the article for a certain period of time, that is totally your call. However, if you resume with uncivil commentary that is not directly focused towards constructive changes to the article, be aware that you could risk being placed under further restrictions, including a possible ban from the talkpage. For now, I again encourage and invite you to participate, both at the talkpage, and/or by editing the article. The choice is really yours: (1) Open participation in a civil and constructive manner; (2) Stay away; or (3) Be formally notified of ArbCom sanctions, with possible further restrictions being placed on your participation. --Elonka 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka, the choice is yours, and you've made quite the wrong one. Given the attitude you display above, and the somewhat strange reading of my participation, I think you should be left to "mediate" between SPAs. Once again: your participation and your inappropriately designed "editing restrictions" are directly responsible for the article getting worse. I suggest you back away. Keeping uninvolved editors from trimming nationalist fringe-cruft from articles is exactly the opposite of what the ArbCom sanctions you are threatening to misapply are supposed to do. Ask Moreschi for tips. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the next time you wish to wander over to accuse me of incivility, please frame it with reference to Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility so I am certain what you mean, and you are certain that you are getting it right. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I could be reading this thread completely wrong, but it looks like you are threatening Relata (and in a threatening tone) with sanctions over incivility when the posts you're referencing don't evidence any incivility. What am I missing? This doesn't appear to be the best way to promote neutrality in article writing. (Relata, I really stopped by to ask if you can add an update at RCC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is uncivil.[3] I would also point out that standard practice on Wikipedia is to comment on the content, not on the contributors. This particular article, Muhammad al-Durrah, within the topic area of the Palestinian-Israeli disputes, has been severely disrupted over the last several months, and multiple requests were made for an uninvolved administrator to help de-escalate the situation. I have taken on that task, and as part of it, I placed Conditions for editing on the talkpage. Over the last week, the dispute has calmed way down, and most of the editors on that page are having no trouble complying with the editing restrictions. Any editors that do not comply, or act in any way which I feel is trying to "stir things up" rather than "calm things down", may be asked to leave the page. If Relata wishes to abide by the editing restrictions and participate in a civil and constructive manner, then Relata is welcome to continue participating. If not, then Relata is going to be asked to leave. --Elonka 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see in that diff only comment on content, so you must be reading something I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Elonka, I don't believe you're listening to what I say, which is a bad sign. Please note I "left the page" the moment I realised that your restrictions were inappropriately designed, which I explained at length at the time, giving reasons arising from my considerable experience with fringe and conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. If the page has quietened down, that's because most of the people concerned about the fringe aspects have, in fact, left as I have. I'm not sure congratulations are really in order. Again, attempting to topic-ban the uninvolved editors and treating the SPAs with tenderness is not what ArbCom had in mind when administrators were given this power. And saying the article is worse is not, and I hope never will be, considered uncivil.

I believe this discussion is closed. Any future posts to Talk:Durrah while these counter-productive restrictions are in force will be, as before, only to register objections to the state of the article if required, in order that the previous claim of artificial consensus is not repeated. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration - my topic ban was in response to my removal of this extremely obvious BLP violation, a highly POV statement which is sourced to a pirate copy of an undated video clip uploaded and subtitled by an unknown person on a video sharing website. As you know WP:BLP mandates that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The same policy mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" - and by extension the same would apply to a 0RR imposed by another administrator. So as you can see, I've been quite literally topic-banned for upholding WP:BLP. This is not a very satisfactory situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, your page ban (not a topic ban) had nothing to do with BLP, it had to do with edit-warring. You were repeatedly reverting other editors. I told you to stop, you didn't, so you were page-banned for a week. Please stop misrepresenting things, it is not an encouraging sign. --Elonka 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, it was a page ban; but may I offer a correction of my own? The ban was for thirty days, not a week (you're thinking of the talk page, not the article). Also, please see your own talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral formulations at RSS article

Hi. I've witnessed quite a lot at wikipedia, but i think the following passage at the RSS article would qualify for the Wikipedia NPOV Awards; "RSS objects to the fact that Communist parties like CPI(M) and other minority political fronts are controlled by other countries and are therefore inherently subversive and treacherous." :) --Soman (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

who am I

Hello, dear sock, you've been found out once again: this time, Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) is acting the part of Sherlock. dab (𒁳) 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Award this account a barnstar too while your at it. Trips (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, dear puppetmaster, how come I didn't get a barnstar? I'm hurt.

Nambiar, try not to make an ass of yourself, please. Its patently obvious that dab and I have different specialisations. And Rudra and I have spent ages disagreeing over this and that. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't use all three accounts to force an edit or point of view. Trips (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Dissent from Darwin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WLU (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One more revert to Dissent and you'll be reported for a three revert violation and I'm sure you are aware that that is a blockable offense. Several contributors have reverted your changes, and you are the only editor who is in danger of breaking the 3RR, suggesting that there is no consensus for your changes. Please discuss on the talk page. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Templating the regulars is an absolutely brilliant idea! Thanks for your constructive contribution to the conversation. Have a nice day! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't like you left him a lot of choice, since you refuse to explain your edits. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? Or perhaps he didn't care to wait? As you didn't, either? Its the pile-on aspect of ID articles that really concerns me. The constant edit conflicts are murder on my elderly Firefox.--Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)How does the article violate WP:LEAD? Where was it "extensively criticised"? Please make your case on the talk page - your cryptic edit summaries are not helpful. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The "It" is the petition. I think there are ample sources indicating it was extensively criticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comments at the talkpage, please, where I am sure I will contribute extensively if it actually looks like I'm making a difference. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's quicker than manual typing; one would expect regulars to not need 3RR warnings, hence my assumption that you were not familiar, hence the impersonal warning. WLU (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulty reasoning on several grounds. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As you like. I've given you something more personal instead. WLU (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, thanks. A vast improvement, and don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata. My problem with the article now is that there are few notable critiques and those there are are ludicrously overused. Barbara Forrest is clearly a notable critic, but a brief para making one point (Forrest and Branch "Wedging Creationism") is referred to five times in the article. Brian Alters is also fine, but all we have from him is a brief comment at second hand in a newsletter to 99.9% of scientists believing in evolution. He didn't do a survey and mean 99.9% rather than 99.8%. He meant "all, as near as dammit". Stephen Jay Gould must be turning in his grave if he can see that some WP editors are confusing this sort of rant with a defence of science. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M)

hi. have a look at the CPI(M) article. Hkelkar seems to have a new fan, who is readding the Hkelkar edits of jan 08. --Soman (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Relata, there's a request now for statements on the talk page - see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. Given your previous useful comments on this issue, I'm sure a statement from you would be both useful and appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Hunger

Hi, you participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. Most of the editors that participated in the recent polls were invited to participate in the most recent, but as far as I can see you were not. Your opinion should still be heard. The editor who opened the new poll said this to the other participants. "This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk)". Regards Wotapalaver (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. The poll closed 36 hours ago. The result was move to Great Famine (Ireland). I posted friendly notice to everybody who took part in this poll (you didn't) on June 18, but Wotapalaver apparently "didn't have time" to pass it on until just now. Confused? I sure am! Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

• What do you think of the recent changes by User:Sindhian there? Seems to be a lot of politically motivated deletion. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also it will be good if you watchlist the article Durga Vahini‎. I am afraid of this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sindhian has vandalized the page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not to pursue this but you make your own conclusions

Thanks for your compliments. I expressed my opinion on the matter elsewhere and I won't waste time to rewrite it here. The wildest thing here is that I did not even back Kuban over whose revert war Folantin got his block but he was pissed of so much that he switched the direction and unleashed an attack on me of the intensity I have not seen for a long time and it rages still. [4] [5]

The record of my only past interaction with Folantin can be found here. Please read this thread and the thread that follows and make up your own mind.

I am not inclined to pursue anything with Folantin at this point since he seems too off-rails now to pursue any reasonable discussion. I still do not know what is Moreschi's problem after this since he chose not to respond, back himself up or apologize. They threaten an ArbCom. I wish them luck in that. Thank you again and sorry for your being pulled into this. I usually ignore such obvious nonsense but Folantin's campaign was so massive that he managed to somewhat pierce my thick skin.If you'd rather not comment, feel free to do so. --Irpen 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, this is rather sad. As I said, I've seen all of you trying at various points, and in difficult places, to enforce our core policies judiciously and carefully, so this blow-up is particularly pointless. Well, Moreschi has a temper, and I'm sure he regrets whatever he said now, regardless. If an ArbCom case is filed, I'm sure he'll try and present everything fairly. I will keep an eye on it as well, don't worry. (And one that focuses only on editors rather than the entire attitude surrounding the articles will, in my opinion, fall into the same trap that has plagued so many ineffective ArbComs on the subject.) It will be a bit of a pain, but I'm sure that Moreschi will revisit his assumptions once he's actually looked into the issue. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Moreschi's assumptions and opinions interest me very little. Firstly, after his cowardly talking nonsense behind my back at the secret forum and refusal to either apologize on stand up to it like a man, I have very little regard to this person (you may disagree with my feeling very firmly about that but it is very difficult to judge this from outside not being the one insulted so deeply.) Additionally, since he does not edit anywhere near I edit (I never met him in article's space, not sure what he does) and he is not that active in crucial wiki-political matters to concern me either, I frankly do not care much. If he wants to make peace for his own reasons or because he feels awkward for what he said, the ball is in his court.

As for Folantin, this is a different story. I had exactly one interaction with him previously, and it was in the History of Russia FAR. I think it was a reasonable discussion. After that I noticed him at Moreschi's talk (that I watch listed probably because of Moreschi's run for ArbCom) making outright insulting remarks about Miyokan. What bothered me was that he did not just accuse Miyokan in POV-pushing. I have no doubt that Miyokan is a stronly pro-Russian editor with biases that are clear from his edits. What I found unacceptable was that Folantin baselessly accused Miyokan in xenophobia. You may have noticed a lot of recent bru-ha-ha about editors accusing other editors in racism over a White Pride thing. Personally, I share the view that White Pride stuff is racist and should be kept off wikipedia. But if you followed the discussions, you saw how strongly this community feels about casting the accusations of hate views, even if such accusations are justified. Nationalist or not, Miyokan never made any edits that would allow to accuse him of being a xenophobe. And when I saw this conversation behind his back when Folantin throws this stuff on him and Moreschi not reprimanding him, I said right there that this is not an appropriate conversation.

Now, there is this new incident which was initially simply about edit-warring.Folantin edit warred with Kuban kazak and the admin who handled the conflict chose to block them both over 3RR. I said it on record that there were better ways to handle this than blocks since both editors discussed at the talk rather than rabidly reverting each other. So, protection and warning to editors to take it to talk would have been the best action. But, as I also said, both tripped a 3RR wire and blocking of them both was clearly within policy. I also said that even ublocking Folantin but not unblocking Kuban was within the discretion of the admin who made these choices. Anyway, here is what I said. Compare it to Folantin's response as well as the rest of the thread, as well as his undeterred campaign continued to the multitude of other pages. I really don't understand these calls that say that we "both" should do this and not do that. I was neither involved nor supported his opponent. --Irpen 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How the sorry saga began. It all goes back to the History of Russia FA Review when I made the following two observations, which I think are quite obvious and unobjectionable ones regarding a general article on Russian history[6] (and somewhat humorous in the case of Ivan the Terrible's "reforming the morals of the clergy"). However, they aroused the wrath of an Ivan the Terrible fan called Ben-Velvel. Much toing and froing ensued editing the article until I had enough of his Ivan fanboy and anti-Polish obsessions and his penchant for using 19th century sources in Russian [7] as references. As you can see, Irpen then defended him and the use of said sources and it's all been downhill between us from there. --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous, Folantin. But I welcome anyone to actually click at your links and see for themselves. --Irpen 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I welcome that too from any impartial observer. --Folantin (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"What I found unacceptable was that Folantin baselessly accused Miyokan in xenophobia". This was after Miyokan had accused me of being a Georgian for raising some objections to his Russia FA [8]. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, he called you a Georgian. I think invoking ethnic aspersions of any kind is bad taste even when not using ethnic slurs. He was wrong in both your not being a Georgian and (even if you were) invoking the subject of ethnicities in the first place. But where is xenophobia in that? He called you a Georgian. You called me a Russian. You went even further as to unleashed an attack on a whole bunch of Russian editors. Should I have called you a xenophobe, Folantin? You really make yourself look ridiculous in this whole matter and even more so in your self-righteous rage. --Irpen 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW

Well, after reading all of this, and the discussions lying behind them, and looking around at the history, I admit to groaning a bit more. I'm not posting this at WP:DRAMA (though I might link it), but I'd say its worthwhile to just put it down anyway.

Here's the problem:

To the content first, since unfortunately I prefer discussions about dead tyrants to living editors: That there was a bit of UNDUEing is almost certainly correct- Ivan IV is AFAIK closely associated in most texts with the oprichnina (didn't he sulk somewhere till he received "requests" to form it?). The "clergy's morals" bit, well, I see Folantin's point. However, it is a matter of record that Ivan did in fact curtail the judicial powers of monasteries, as well as their material possessions - which were much grumbled-about at the time. There are parallels with the attitude of that other bloodthirsty "reformer", (and Ivan's near-contemporary) Henry VIII. When one thinks about how impossible it would be to summarise H8's attitude to the church in one sentence, one sees the source of the problem. Of course, the additional complication is that official Soviet/Russian history - and mainstream small-m marxist historians in the rest of the world - would see a lot of his policies as zakonomernyi in the case of the former, and as driven by underlying economo-historical forces in the case of the latter, where another set of historians would strongly disagree.

About Soloviev etc., I think I agree with Folantin that he should be avoided as far as possible. I would imagine that Irpen agrees as well, actually: I see his argument as more nuanced than merely saying that 19th C historians are acceptable, but that in some cases we can quote them cautiously, as we would primary sources per WP:PSTS. I'd also say I. is right in that overstating Mikoyan's POV-pushing as xenophobia is dangerous; if someone complained about it to me, Folantin, I'd have been pissed as hell too, but I'd have avoided the argument if poss., and tried to imagine the complainant was doing it to defuse the situation. (Perhaps better done off-wiki, but I don't hold with that in general.) Conversely, there are a bunch of people from various EE countries that'd love to be nasty all over "other countries'" WP articles, but that in itself doesn't mean they're xenophobes; national supremacism is milder than that.

Chechnya is tougher. I would probably have gone with being very surprised that it was not mentioned. However, it is certainly true that people writing from within a culture tend to have different perspectives on the level of due weight about these things, because of the greater variety of information to which they are exposed. In this case I would ask for some form of careful studying of other brief sketches of post-Soviet Russian history: what weightage do they provide? (I'd suggest to anyone interested that they look at the manner in which User:Fowler&fowler handles these problems.) Alternatively, the method I usually use is to ask for references that actually themselves discuss the weight of issue X. The very centrality or marginality of Chechnya in discourse about Russia will have been discussed in RSes.

About FAs, I am afraid I have come around to Folantin's views that on larger subjects they are written by "enthusiasts" and inevitably have problems. FAs on more "targeted" subjects, such as most of Cla68's, are not subject to this problem. (Nor is crushing by elephant, which remains my favourite.)

About the latest case, I really do think that Folantin over-reacted. F, if you read Irpen's original contribution to the discussion when you're cooler, you'll hopefully see what I mean. (You would probably have not reacted the way you did if you knew Irpen's history with the blocking admin at the beginning either, which I'd judge was the real reason he commented.) OTOH, Irpen, this is a classic case where perhaps you needn't have commented, as, whatever you said, Folantin wouldn't have been able to assume good faith given s/he already believes that you tend to provide material comfort to POV-pushers - something I know would offend you, as it is behaviour that you and I have discussed in the past, and that we have agreed that lies at the root of flareups in ethnic hotspots on WP.

I'm not going to claim that its all personalities and you two (and CM) are unlikely to disagree about actual content about several things. (I think I can put my finger on why, incidentally - and its nothing to do with ethnicities - but that's a story for another day. I personally would split the difference on those issues, if it helps.) What is needed is for both of you to either assume good faith, or to accept someone else's judgment that you're both pretty decent editors who should just be studiously careful around each other. Assuming the worst of faith about each of you for a moment (not that I think any of what I am about to say is based on correct premises, but it might help): Irpen, there are many people more powerful and several times more likely to badmouth you randomly than Folantin or CM; Folantin, there are many worse enablers of POV-pushers than Irpen.

Finally, CM, if you're reading this: open an ArbCom if you wish, but one focused on "pro-Russian" editors alone would be ridiculous. I have been dragged into EE issues perhaps five times from various noticeboards (aside from the one article where, insh'allah, I will outlast the wild-eyed POV-pushers if I have to live to be a hundred and log on from my deathbed) and if my personal, uninvolved opinion is worth anything, its not a problem limited to one lot. (The central created narratives of the 21st century are those of historical victimhood, after all.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It took me a long time for me to finally lose my rag with Irpen but I could find no other reason for his support for those two particular editors (BV and Miyokan). Sorry. As I said: "Actually the more I think about this, the more I'm riled at you, Irpen. I used to have respect for you as an editor but now I see exactly why ArbCom pulled you up for violation of AGF. I attempt to maintain a modicum of neutrality and I get attacked in xenophobic terms by two Russian nationalist editors who are hardly the jewels in Wikipedia's crown. You naturally jump to the defence of your compatriots (or fellow Russophones). This is another problem with the nationalist gang warfare round here: even the half-decent editors will stick up for the rotten apples if they're on the right side". I think that's a fair observation of Wikipedia reality. He also materialised on Moreschi's talk page out of nowhere to defend Miyokan (after the latter had accused me of being a "Georgian" - read the rest of the link for the implications), which was rather odd. This is why I wondered why he had turned up at ANI yesterday.--Folantin (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be sticking my nose everywhere lately.

It seems to me like a question of sensibilities and sensitivities. I think Folantin has clarified by now that he's not saying that birds of a feather sticking together is a mob. He's not blaming Irpen for recognizing the E. European rivalries and looking out for the Russian editors who are getting clobbered. That's good, because everyone needs a defender, even the worst of us, and everyone needs a friend, even the least pleasant of us.

In a sourcing fight (surprise), Folantin was irrationally attacked. Irpen didn't work to ameliorate that situation, and it looked like he was turning a blind eye, that he was excusing a thug. Then, though, Folantin said that a Russophile was xenophobic, and Irpen took that as a grave insult. Both of these "insults" are questions of culture and psychology, I think. Because there are Russians who are xenophobes (neo-Stalinists and neo-Nazis), Irpen thought that was the worst, and because Folantin was being scholarly and dispassionate, he thought being accused of being some petty nationalist mouthpiece was an attack on intellect, impartiality, and good sense.

Both have a right to feel offended.

The thing is, you guys are on the same side and taking shots at one another. It would be impossible for Folantin to know all the good Irpen has done in trying to dull the knives of the Russophiliac gang, nor to have noted all the places he has called them out for their pettiness. It would be impossible for Irpen to have known all the insults Folantin has endured for taking a stance, and a legitimate one, on a clear point, nor how really aggravating it is, nor how easy it is to see all those who do not speak in one's defense as speaking in one's attack.

I can't say "walk away, both, please." Instead, I would rather recommend that the two of you correspond more. I feel that both of you are in agreement in objectives, both want NPOV articles, both despise these little fights. I would suggest that both of you ignore this bit (get the rag back) and just plain talk to each other about other things more.

That's it for my avuncular sermon. Geogre (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace offer

I'm certainly prepared to bury the hatchet with Irpen. I can't promise never to disagree with him again intellectually, but I am quite happy to take this off the personal level. Let's wipe the slate clean as far as mutual accusations of bad faith go. One of the keys to solving the problems which have led us here today is to remove the "bad apple" editors more efficiently. I note that user "Log in Log out", who was insistently calling for my head, has now been banned as a sock puppet of the notorious User:M.V.E.i.. So some good has come of this. I also note that Irpen removed said user's anti-Ukrainian rant as "trolling" [9]. All credit it to him for that. And I've just remembered one occasion when Irpen and I (and Moreschi) were in perfect agreement [10] ;). --Folantin. (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've withdrawn my remarks about you (I'm addressing Irpen here, of course) on ANI and my talk page. If you find any that I've missed please tell me and I will remove them. --Folantin (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You have my gratitude, Folantin. I'm sure that Irpen feels the same way about the future. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In related news

The same admin who blocked me for 3RR has just done the same to Dbachmann [11] (48 hours!). --Folantin (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. He's unblocked. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's been the subject of so many bad blocks by now, I fear he's used to it... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. As I've said elsewhere we can probably "cut the admin a bit of slack because apparently s/he's the only one who regularly bothers with 3RR. It's another system failure. Where are most of the other admins hiding?" --Folantin (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW I'm a "he" in case you were wondering. Nom de plume from the title character of this book. My life isn't so glum though! Although on Wiki, I sometimes agree with his observation "he realised... the sterility of all enthusiasm and all effort". --Folantin (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a terrible lunch today, so I understand how Jean F. feels.... The interesting thing about wiki is that something where you are edited mercilessly is in some senses meant to be a futile effort. That's what I tell myself regularly, at any rate, when some carefully parsed sentence is hacked in two, or a perfectly proportioned article suddenly sprouts an enormous "Recent Controversies" section. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's quite right. At some times of the day in particular, AN3 is even more deserted than normal. A few months ago, I made a systematic study of it and found that an enormous fraction of reports were dealt with by a small number of overworked admins. I even thanked one, and s/he was worryingly grateful - it seems a literally thankless task. And on the other hand, there's evidence at a (I think still current) ArbCom case that there are those with the sysop bit who use AN3 only to rapidly respond to complaints filed by ideological allies. Not cricket. I guess the answer to "where are the other admins hiding" is that they're waiting to be called in by their friends.... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi Relata refero,

You gave me some advise (which didn't really apply at the time) back here [12], specifically you said "Wikipedia welcomes those who announce their affiliations and open it up for discussion, but in future I would suggest you exercise some caution in adding your own site as a reference." I replied pointing out that an extremly small number of the links to the site I run were put there by me, in fact most were put there by well known wikipedia editors and were entirely noncontrovertial for over 2 years.

Anyway, it's now been suggested that I go and discuss and then reinstate the links to my site that were mass deleted in a bit of vandalism by one user. This is going to take me significant time (based on the discussion, including points you raised, they should never have been deleted), but more significantly... this will mean I now AM the one adding the links. Exactly what you recommended against. What do you think about this? Is this OK? Do they really need to be addressed edit by edit? Time has lapsed while I tried to deal with this, so revert or roll back isn't an option. The discussion I've been having with another admin about it is here: [13]

Just really after your thoughts before doing anything as you made a lot of sense before.

Oboler (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at my talk page

First of all, I very much appreciate them. Second of all, I'm wondering if you might be able to expand, in the interests of my own edification, on your "one or two minor quibbles". If you'd rather never discuss anything related to the Allegations of Apartheid article again, of course, that is also very understandable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I tried

[14] Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanations

In addition to explain to me why I will be blocked, please explain why you have consistently removed anything I have edited into the Nehru page. Nehu was not a classical liberal, and his poor economic policy was not properly accounted to due to the lack of comparability and metrics. As a relatively good English student, I also fail to see the bad grammar. Where is this edit explanation I am prompted for each time you revert me. Trips (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also explain on what grounds were my edits to history of Hinduism worthy of being reverted. Trips (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit inserted material into a living bio that was not supported by a reliable source. Continuing to do so risks being blocked under the WP:BLP policy. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning - article history of hinduism

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Bognador

Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PR^talk 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Hello Relato refero. I just happened to see some of your edits to article:Zakir Naik (after having unknowingly deleted/edited some of them myself). Some of the points raised (like the usage of honorifics, Arabic etc. for example) seem viable to me, and I feel they do need some consideration. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar

Hi Relata, are you sure about the Hindu chauvinist label? The BJP, which is a prominent part of the Sangh Parivar, has governed India (the world's most populous democracy and all that) several times, most recently from 1998 to 2004 or thereabouts; and while the BJP is certainly nationalist, and perhaps accurately described as "Hindu fundamentalist", I am not entirely comfortable with the "chauvinist" label from an NPOV point of view. For example, I very much doubt that this would be the average characterisation of the Sangh Parivar within the Indian media, which is of some relevance here, given that WP:EN is also the Indian WP. Any thoughts? Jayen466 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very "quick and dirty" Google Scholar analysis:

• "Sangh Parivar" nationalist: 768 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" fundamentalist: 378 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" "Hindu fundamentalist": 64 matches
• "Sangh Parivar" chauvinist: 60 matches

Cheers, Jayen466 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hindu nationalist" is also OK; I think that we can go with the various parallel descriptions in the lead: "It has been variously described by academics as Hindu nationalist, Hindu fundamentalist and Hindu chauvinist", for example. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go along those lines, see what you think. Cheers, Jayen466 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tulip mania

I thought this might be of interest to you. Yes, it could use some rewriting, but all the content I think is needed is there, maybe too much. Maybe some balance from somebody who knows a bit about econ is needed. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

Hello, reading the talk-page on NSS, I see that you back in February suggested that the article had too few reliable academic sources, and too much dependence on financial journalism. To me that seems to be a correct observation. You also wrote that you were going to rewrite the article "shortly",..but it doesn´t look as if you got around to that? The article is in a rather poor state, would you like to make a second attempt? I hope the urge of certain admins to block anybody who touches it is gone, and that we can "lure" some more regular editors from the Business and Economics sections to the page. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Relata refero, nothing has been pointed out on FRINGE that is actionable or a violation of NPOV policy. Discussion has taken place. The majority of editors (7 at last count) stated this was not an issue with FRINGE. Consensus was achieved that this is not FRINGE. His argument was to remove the entire economics section, which would clearly violate NPOV on the other side. I only left the tag due to my NPOV objections to the suggestions. At this time, there is no specific NPOV policy issue and no action to take. If you have an issue, please state the specific issue that is in violation of NPOV policy and we can work through it (which doesn't need the tag mind you... it states it as a last resort on the page). The article has been heavily reviewed by many experienced editors (several from outside the country). I find that the issues brought up are mainly due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy or a lack of understanding of the research. Although I don't see the topic or the area as fringe, let me state that FRINGE (see Parity of sources) nor WP:V require peer-review material (although much of this was published at the universities for peer-review). Morphh ^(talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that I took several actions in regard to the discussed points (focusing on the main areas of contention). However, there is only so much that can be done while maintaining policy. Morphh ^(talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

BJP

Hi, I am seriously thinking about trimming the controversies section in the aforementioned article. I invite you join the discussion.--GRRRRRRR................ (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna

I need some serious help at the Ramakrishna article. Two editors have decided that the scholarship of the last 40 years should be rejected in favor of one hundred year-old sources that the Ramakrishna religious organization finds more amenable. Please see my contributions. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)