User talk:Strothra/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disruption of the project

I have prediously taken point with your current AfD drive nominating several articles all related to conspiracism, notably Jeff Rense, What Really Happened, Prisonplanet.com, Dissident Voice and Infowars.com. Today I discovered that in the case of the latter, Infowars.com, you actually nominated the article for deletion less than three weeks after it was previously nominated and subsequently deemed worthy of keeping. This is disturbing and could put into question your neutrality and unbiased position in the Wikipedia project. I must admonish you not disrupt the work of the project by bringing on arbitrary AfD processes in this manner. __meco 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation has been noted but completely out of line. With the particular case of Infowars, I was at fault for renominating that so soon. I saw the article and thought that it needed to be nominated and when I put it up for AfD noticed that it had already been nominated (see article's edit hist.) then nominated it a second time without viewing the hist of the first nom. Once again, I have stated my reasons for nominated. None of the nominations have anything to do with political views of any sort but are based on the merits of the articles themselves. --Strothra 13:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That I accept unquestioningly. As for my accusation it has been worded with the requisite disclaimer which means I am ready to believe that you have acted completely in good faith and that any appearance to the contrary is simply the result of unfortunate circumstances in combination with a measure of inattentiveness. __meco 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that. I submitted a few AfD's for deletion that day of multiple topics. The case there which may make it seem as if there was a measure of bias was that those articles were all linked together and I noticed a trend of articles while browsing which did not meet my personal standards which are the primarily the citation and the establishment of notability within the article as a result of cited, verifiable, and reliable research. --Strothra 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad form

It's often seen as bad form to dig into the contributions of someone with whom you are in dispute. Some people consider it Wikipedia:Wikistalking. Just a friendly note that may head off future conflict. Cheers. Guettarda 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was attempting to gauge the user's experience on Wikipedia due to the seeming lack thereof and clicked on some of their recent contribs when I noticed that two of the articles needed tagging. There's nothing against the Wikistalking policy regarding that. The "dispute" I had with that user was over and I left a note on that user's talk to that effect. Please see WP:AGF. Your concerns are noted and appreciated. --Strothra 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I wasn't assuming anything, in either direction. But some people do, and it can lead to additional conflict and animosity. Even the best intentions can be read wrongly, especially when people are already upset. It's far better to err on the side of caution because things like this have led to conflicts and accusations of Wikistalking in the past - not because it is Wikistalking, but because things like that have been taken as Wikistalking. Sorry if my comment wasn't clear enough. It's just an area why over-correcting tends to be useful. It isn't the same as looking through the edits of a vandal or POV-pusher to make sure they haven't made the same error on multiple pages. Guettarda 13:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I appreciate you pointing that out and will be more cautious. I do, however, feel that I was being "cautious" in this situation as I only tagged two articles which had been recently edited by the user. The tags were legit requests for improvement and not AfD tags, etc. Regardless, your advice is helpful for future events. Thanks. --Strothra 13:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From Smith03 Hello instead of removing my edit on User Naconkatri page could you have moved it to his talk page as I stated in my message his aol range block prevented me from writing it on his talk page or perhaps you could make my addition. I would not ask except because of our gun ho attitude around here about range blocks it causes problems for the aol users like myself. thank you 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dave Weinberger

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I'm removing the prod tag from the Dave Weinberger article. I've attempted to explain my reasoning on the talk page of the article, although I'm a little short on time tonight, so there probably isn't much there you don't already know. I'll be glad to discuss it further if you'd like. I'm not exactly an expert on this guy, but I feel certain he meets notability standards. ScottW 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: [1]

I just call 'em as I see 'em. --Takeel 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you may want to consider taking down your wikibreak templates. --Takeel 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah! I know! I really am trying to take a wikibreak though! It's really difficult. --Strothra 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

65.138.70.143 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

IP users should never be indefinitely blocked (with the exception of open proxies), as per WP:BLOCK. Also, I didn't actually block him, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked him; I just tagged the template on his usertalk page. Usually, only accounts that are created for vandalism-only purposes can be indef-blocked, but IP users generally aren't indef. blocked. Thanks, Andy _t 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for the info. I noticed that it wasn't you afterward and left a msg on his talk page as well. --Strothra 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

Hello Strothra, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

That's interesting - how so? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You went to NYU before going to Fordham for Law, no? Although you're going to be a lawyer, I didn't hold that against you ;). I went to NYU for a while and studied there before I transferred to Virginia to complete the degree for reasons I'm not going to go into here. Your background is also Russian as is my mother's side. It all appealed to me. But, of course, your edits were what most influenced my support. --Strothra 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IFD and NSD

Please note that recent images that you have tagged with IFD tags already had NSD tags on them. I'm assuming you had a dispute with the NSD tags so you should have removed those before listing them in IFD. The NSD's will expire tomorrow and the images should be deleted when that happens unless those tags are removed. You should probably go ahead and remove them since you went through the process of listing for IFD. I don't personally feel like any discussion was required but if you feel that they should be kept then please do remove the NSD tags. Perhaps you just didn't notice the NSD tag. --Strothra 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above comment only applies to your addition of Image:MammyInBlue.jpg to IFD when it was already tagged with a NSD tag. --Strothra 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; thanks for pointing that out. I'll strike it from the images for deletion page. joturn e r 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --Strothra 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFDs

As you yourself said, AFDs are discussions not votes. Don't remove the discussion, it isn't visible to people who see the page as a transinclusion on the main AFD page. Guettarda 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice to remove discusion which is not related to the article. For instance, if we're just talking about whether the nom is in bad faith or not, that's not relevant to the article placed up for deletion. --Strothra 01:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel the need to hound good editors out of the project, but you seem to be succeeding. I hope you enjoy your victory. Guettarda 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Read his talk page; I told him he should stay. I'm not apologizing for putting articles up for deletion which clearly do not establish notability simply because of sympathy. Some of the orgs he is associated with are notable but that does not make all people associated with them notable themself. I take no responsiblity for his decision to leave. He took my AfD submissions as personal attacks rather than attempting to improve the articles so that they met the standards of verifiability. That was his own choice, not mine. --Strothra 13:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So you say one thing and do another. You harrassed a good user out of Wikipedia. Saying "don't go" after hounding a person out of the project is adding insult to injury. Lay off the --------. Even if, as you claim, you didn't know what you were doing initially, you can't use that excuse more than once. So what's next - drive everyone non-white out of the project? Guettarda 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I didn't know what I was doing. I noticed a trend of the Rocketboom related articles being poorly cited and using unverifiable info as supporting material (ie blogs). I have stated this already. I subsequently put them up for AfD. I said that he should stay because he would be agood editor if he gained a certain level of standards for articles. These levels of standards already exist. He should attempt to create and add to articles in a manner which is verifiable and supported with good sources. This is the standard for all articles. You're attempting to turn this into a race thing now? Funny thing when you have no idea about my own background. Look, if you wish to continue in this manner then I suggest you open up an arbitration hearing. Otherwise, I have nothing to do with you on this subject any longer. --Strothra 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy)

Hi; Could I ask that you specifically identify, or remove, what needs to be verified? I would not object to removal of a lot of text if it's necessary. If it's basically the whole article, would it be useful to propose it for deletion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be AfD'd eventhough I'm against most conspiracy cruft. It is, however, something which many people have speculated about and could very well be an article if properly cited. But, yes, most of the article does need citations. I'm a little wary of removing a lot of info from it right now because the claims which need to be cited are many. I think it needs the cite tag for a while and if no additions are made then begin removing text. The first seven sections, for instance, contain many claims which are not verified. The claims themselves do not need to be verified. What needs to be verified is that someone is actually making those claims. As is, it's violating WP:NOR. --Strothra 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I'll see about adding footnotes pointing to the works cited in Conspiracist literature, and to Barkun's book. Feel free to help out with that, or to add citations of your own. I'd say in a week or ten days you should remove anything you see that's uncited. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll assume you've done so and take the tag down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll try to work on adding cites as well. I'm a little busy in real life right now but will make the effort to do so. --Strothra 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Don't you think it's about enough yet? Guettarda 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I had forgotten all about you. I'm working on editing articles right now and am currently trying to decide on how to create an intro with a user so I don't have time to get into a discussion with you again. Read my archived discussion where I said that I'm done with you on this topic. I'm not wikistalking anyone. --Strothra 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, can you cite info about the abuse of those templates in Wiki policy because I would really like to know that. Uncited unverified info is uncited unverified info. Please see WP:NOR. --Strothra 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Please desist. You are abusing your editing privileges in order to harrass other users. ----------------------. Guettarda 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up that article by requesting the addition of citations. Here, I'll even take it to the admin notice board. I would really like you to cite policy for my own information. For an admin, you really don't seem concerned about informing editors but threatening them. --Strothra 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are carrying out a systemic campaign against another user in retaliation for his complaint about your AFD noms. That is crystal clear. It is --------------------- behaviour. You are abusing the system to further your campaign of harrassment. I have warned you about your behaviour repeatedly. Do not force me to take further action. Guettarda 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I have consistently denied this and I'd like to see your proof - more readily, I'd like to see this brought about to formal mediation. --Strothra 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you never answered my question about citing your policies. --Strothra 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Having read Strothra's AN/I post, I thought I'd offer my thoughts to each of you (I'm appending this to each of your talk pages). I don't have any information or opinion, I should say, apropos of the wikistalking, about which you'll need to consult others. With respect to the article tagging, though, herewith are my two cents.

I think Guettarda's reverts reflect a general consensus toward the proposition that {{fact}} in specific and {{verify}} in general ought only to be used where there is some question as to factual accuracy raised by editors (were {{fact}} to be applied to every substantial, uncited fact in every article, the citation needed superscript would, I imagine, overwhelm article text). Notwithstanding that, Strothra's tagging appears relevant to the ongoing AfD; in order that notability should be established, minimal sourcing is usually necessary. I think, then, that each editor is correct here, but that you're simply discussing different scenarios. Guettarda apprehends, accurately, that oftentimes editors will add copious {{fact}} tags to articles with the subjects or principal editors of which they disagree, disrupting the project to prove a point, whilst Strothra applies the tags so that information important to the AfD might be borne out. Strothra is correct that a literal reading of WP:V might require that every sentence in an article be sourced (or at least be verifiable passim in a work given in the "References" section), but I'm not certain that it will ever be practical for us to achieve complete sourcing for every statement in every article; in the absence of some meta-rule, tagging exorbitantly for less-than-encyclopedic purposes is bad, whilst tagging either because of legitimate factual disputes or because an article that asserts notability doesn't provide any citations toward the proposition of notability is alright. Each of you seems to be acting in good faith, and it appears that each of you assumed good faith for a while here; perhaps a reassumption is in order. Just my humble opinion, of course....Joe 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to resume WP:AGF as long as the other user ceases using hostile remarks and inflammatory language. I agree that it would be improbable to cite each line but I feel that at least a link in the External Links section leading to that information would work wonders for the article. I am simply trying to edit an article which seems that it may survive my AfD. If it is to exist, I might as well work to improve it in the best way that I can. Seeking help for sources is one way to do that. Meanwhile, I will edit all articles which I have an interest in and will not be chased away from them due to wild accusations with no proof. I am greatly appreciative of you bringing a neutral third party view to this matter. Thank you. --Strothra 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

FYI -- and in response to comments made by yourself and another editor -- I boiled down the section of this article (see my most recent edit). The article had previously obscured that, as you point out, his remarks were translated accurately.--Mantanmoreland 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a good edit, thanks! --Strothra 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Strothra. Incidentally your comments in the talk page today were on the mark. Note that the same issue was raised on my talk page by Jayjg, and on his talk page by me. Yes, I believe action is necessary. Someone with greater experience then me in Wiki procedures should take appropriate action.--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

US Aid

He posted again. I don't want to be in danger of 3rr as I've already reverted him before, so perhaps you should. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No that was blatant violation of WP 3RR. He should now be reported and banned. --Strothra 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Tewfik^Talk 18:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). I believe we must warn 1st, so I will do that. Perhaps revert again, and if he/she still reverts, we will report? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk

He didn't seem like a new user to me so I went ahead and reported it - I believe I filled the form out correctly. I would be violating 3RR, I believe, if I reverted again and so would you. I guess we'll let the admins decide. --Strothra 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't fill it out correctly. I don't know how to do diffs and the help page really didn't help me much. --Strothra 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. In the future, it would be easier if you responded on my Talk. That way I would be immediately notified. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Strothra 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik is right - he's only been here since July 1[2]. You should warn him ({{3RR}}) - I would also suggest that you ask him to self-revert (which negates the problem). I doubt anyone will block him without having been warned.

As for doing diffs - you have added diffs, you just need to include the date/time stamp (make sure they're UTC - easiest way to do that is the change your prefs temporarily so that it shows everything in UTC). Just change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=65395931 16:49, 23 July 2006] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=65395931]. Make sure you include the first version to which he is reverting (or document each version to which he is reverting if there are reverts to multiple versions. Yeah, it's a huge nusiance. As for more reverts - on something as prominent as this, I'm sure someone else will jump in sooner or later, in the event he doesn't self-revert. Guettarda 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate note

On a side note, would you mind taking a look at what I wrote at the bottom of the article's talk and giving me some feedback there? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the moral support :-)

It's not really the trolling per se, but rather that I've lost out on so much editing as a result of dif-pulling and argument presentation. PS, Fight has violated the 24 hour block on reversions at least once, though comments lead me to believe more times, I haven't had time to check the difs beyond this yet. And he listed me for 3RR. Its like a war of attrition, wearing me down. Tewfik^Talk 03:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's getting really annoying. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if there's an arbcom opened for him in the near future. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time anymore to be on WP much less pursue justice in these matters. --Strothra 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Storyville

Thanks for your input on Storyville. IIRC the city government sited the situation as being a port city as key in the need for the Storyville legislation, but perhaps we should take such easy explanations with a grain of salt. I havn't read the article you site. (BTW, Al Rose was a friend, and he had a number of interesting stories about stories his research turned up which were considered a bit too explicit to include in the book in the 1970s.) See Talk:Storyville concerning the info about San Francisco "cribs" you added-- It is interesting stuff that I think belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, but seems a bit tangential for a detailed discussion on the New Orleans district. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm citing a book by Ruth Rosen, a distinguished historian and journalist at the University of California - Berkeley. Other cities such as Denver, Chicago, and Kansas City had notoriously large brothel areas and yet did not have such an internationalized persona as New Orleans. For instance, Chicago's red-light district was actually larger and more frequented. Thus an international character to a city does not lead to prostitution. --Strothra 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pearl Edit

I'm wondering why the following parts of his life were removed:

"Daniel Pearl was born in Princeton, New Jersey, and grew up in Encino in Los Angeles, California where he attended Portola Middle School and Birmingham High School. His father, Judea Pearl, is a professor at UCLA. His mother, an Iraqi Jew, is named Ruth. Danny, as he was known throughout his life, attended Stanford University from 1981 to 1985, where he stood out as a communication major with Phi Beta Kappa honors and co-founded a student newspaper called the Stanford Commentary. Pearl graduated Stanford with a B.A. in Communications, after which he spent a summer as a Pulliam Fellow intern at the Indianapolis Star and a winter bussing tables as a ski bum in Idaho. Following a trip to the then-Soviet Union, China, and Europe, he joined the North Adams Transcript and the Berkshire Eagle in Western Massachusetts, then moved on to the San Francisco Business Times."

/AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.106.204 (talk • contribs).

I don't know why you are contacting me about this. I was not the one to remove this information. --Strothra 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WHere did you move the anti-African discussion to?

Funny how you cut it with your comment. Please make sure the disussion ends up on teh anti-African page. Thank you---Halaqah 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

Vandal warning removed. Petros471 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-African

you said anti-African would never be used by a crediable scholar Molefi Asante uses it? havent you heard of him? Do you know he is one of the most published African American academics? and since when is "popularity" a criterion for validity? If they are more Jewish Scholars than African ones then by default it would be in greater usage. When the phrase anti-Semitic was first used I dont think it was automatically widespread, words emerge and rise to dominance gradually, wikipedia is progressive and accurate not an antique out of date source of information (this is why many people can edit it to keep it on point)--Halaqah 10:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He is one scholar out of many. Scholars of African-American history and culture are a dime a dozen and can be found at any university. Just because one uses it, does not make it widespread.--Strothra 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay but it does give it more validity than you give it, u treat it like a joke from my imagination. But if anti-Semitic is valid and anti-this is valid it seems unfair that anti-African isnt. I will look for more who use the term, but he is just one. and all the rest are in the ref section--Halaqah 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim that you just made up the term. It's usage, however, is minimal in mainstream culture and academia. You can only find sporadic uses of the term, and none of the uses are consistent. --Strothra 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

and i deleted your comments because it makes the page unclear, debates should happen on the actual page anti-African not where people are voting. Imagine if i responded and then someone else did, would people be free to vote on the deletion?---Halaqah 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not wiki policy. AfD is a debate process all debates relating to the AfD should be in the AfD disucssion page. --Strothra 21:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Hey, thanks for taking the time to post on my talk page, however... I've been an active editor on the Wikipedia for more than a year now so I'm unsure as to why you felt the need to post what you did. Any particular reason? --The Way 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I saw your talk page and it looked blank and there was no archive so I just assumed. --Strothra 06:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rense 2nd Nom

It's not an attempt to stack votes, it's an attempt to establish historical context with factual information. Look at another second and third XfD's, linking to previous discussions is relevant and put at the top for the sake of convenience. If you want to reformat your first comment into a nomination header (check other AfD's) with reasons at the top of the article, put my text below that. Thanks. *Sparkhead 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits are consistent with other AfD's. No 2nd nomination I have ever discussed have had a note which points to the last one and makes commentary on the AfD at the same time. --Strothra 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been in the ones I've been in. Feel free to check my contributions in Wikipedia space for 2nd/3rd nomination discussions. Look at the text I put there. What part do you consider commentary and not factual ? *Sparkhead 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All that is neccesary is to point out that the article has been nominated before and then link to it. Not who it was nominated by, what the reasons were, and what the result was. Obviously the previous result would have been against deletion. The whole idea of pointing out that extra info implies a certain maliciousness. --Strothra 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how posting factual history can be considered malicious. I see you've changed your format slightly closer to a standard AfD header, I'll place my text below that. That satisfactory? *Sparkhead 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure--Strothra 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD West African Type

Oh, I fully agree with you. When I said that it 'may have enyclopedic value' I, quite frankly, meant that it could if it met the four criteria I laid out, one of which was that it needed to be a common term within this particular 'field' of pseudoscience. I, of course, fully believe that the term is NOT common and was wholly invented by the author and that the whole article is a load of crap; original research being peddled by a racist. I was just being nice; I have no expectations that anyone will find anything that can make the article encyclopedic. I figured that if I adopted the tone I did, it might help quiet the people pushing for keeping the article until the article gets deleted. --The Way 04:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. First, thanks for the work on this AfD. In other AfD's I have seen editors accused of vote spamming, is there a policy on that? I have brought this West African Type AfD to the attention of several editors with whom I have had interactions in the past, as I think they would be interested in this topic. That doesn't contravene any policy does it? Any guidance on this would be welcome. Cheers. L0b0t 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful, I've seen editors be blocked for it. The line is vague and that's what makes it problematic yet it's impossible to define spamming/vote stacking in concrete terms so it needs to be vague. I don't, personally, think that there's any harm in bringing an AfD to the attention of editors who consistently edit in the same topic category. I would assume that's up to interpretation to the admin who sees whatever action you're taking. I'm not an admin myself so I may not be the best person to ask. Thanks for your help with this AfD. --Strothra 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've seen editors get all bent out of shape when others call attention to AfD's but without telling others how would anyone know about it. I'm pretty much of the opinion that more eyeballs on a discussion is always better and I would hate to see the AfD process get hijacked by a small number of editors who do nothing but vote on AfD's. Cheers. L0b0t 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the remarks you made at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type making fun of the "medical progress in your side of the world", and "I blame the many years of Soviet opression (sic) and control. Don't worry, you'll catch up." is harmful to the discussion, and might insult eastern Europeans who otherwise agree with you. As this is at the borderline of personal attacks itself, it might not surprise you when it's followed by personal attacks back at you.

Now, don't misinterpret me, I don't disagree with your arguments, I just think it might be helpful to the project if we try (however often we fail, myself included) to remain civil and polite. Delta Tango • Talk 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree I made that one slip - I haven't since nor do I intend to again (Although I would like to assert that what I said was a factual claim although my "tone" may easily be interpreted in a patronizing manner. The actual meaning of my words, however, were not incorrect or harmful.) Thanks for reading the whole discussion though. --Strothra 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect that you took my comments in such a good manner. Even though I have no authority or right to judge in this matter, I find that you've now given a satisfactory response. Thanks for your understanding, and happy editing! Delta Tango • Talk 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Thanks for taking the time to report vandals to AIV. When adding a vandal to the list, please add to the bottom not the top of the list. When warning a vandal using a template, remember to substitute the template - thanks much~ KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry about that. --Strothra 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff protection

Hi, I just put this edit on the talk page but wanted to be sure you saw it. "Sarah and CJCurrie; you have both been involved in editing the article for months. If it needs protection it is better protocol to contact one of the many other administrators to review the edits and do the protection. I see no real justification at all for this protection especially as it is protected in a position favourable to CJCurrie's pov." Please keep an eye on it because imo Sarah and CJCurrie both have similar and active pov concerning the Ignatieff aricle and they should not be protecting it. Ottawaman 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Ignatieff protection by Sarah

This full protection she just did [3] is also not necessary,imo. Also, she has edited the Ignatieff article and discussion page herself quite a bit as you can see here [4]. I have asked her to simply find a non-involved admin to do any protections but I am quite annoyed she pretended to be disinterested when she did the full protection. In addition she seems to have blocked 6 or 7 editors from the Toronto area over the past few days. Ottawaman 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Shall we discuss this article or not?Nwe 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider your edits to be in good faith since you have a bad edit history of edit wars, a particularly negative thing since you are a new editor. I do not discuss articles with editors who make it nearly impossible to abide by WP:AGF. Personal opinions and interpretations must be removed from edits in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Language such as "Lebanon suffered" is a violation of pov and "suffered" is a weasel word, see WP:AWW, further it is passive voice and thus grammatically incorrect. Although I feel no need to explain myself to you, I will tell you that I am not editing the article out of political motivation, but to make edits comply with Wiki standards and guidelines. Also note that you are in violation of concensus by restoring edits which the other editors have clearly denoted as POV. --Strothra 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wondered if the "suffered from" phrase was over the top, if you'll check my last edit you'll see that I'm trying to compromise. I won't lie to you I do enjoy making political edits, but the edits I make are always in my view for the betterment of wikipedia and always intended to comply with WP:NPOV. Feel free to correct my grammer if you want, but at the very least you should have the courtesy to explain what problem you have with the rest of my edits and consider the points I make on the talk page.Nwe 15:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Strothra doesn't can't defend the edits he's making.Nwe 15:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on removing warnings

I found the page for the discussion on removing warning messages: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and its talk page. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning removal

Hi Strothra! In response, no, users are not allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages (especially when that message currently applies to them). The actual policy/page escapes me at the moment, but this is generally the rule. In the future, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S: For future reference, you don't usually need an administrator's attention in matters like this, regular editors like me can help, unless it requires administrator-only actions to be taken.

Israel Lebanon conflict

Strothra, could you take a look at that disputed paragraph again? I have reported Nwe for violation of 3RR, but I can't undo the edit myself because I've got 3 reverts now. Specifically, I don't buy the two sources he included to try to keep the edit. The first is a travel guide that shouldn't be considered a relevant source for purposes of a contentious political discussion; the second is a perfectly legitimate source, but I have read it and don't find anything there to directly support the claim that Nwe is making, his protests notwithstanding. Please note that I don't dispute that Palestinians lost their homes in the aftermath of the 1948 war, and I don't dispute that Palestinian militants attack Israel from southern Lebanon. However, to link these two facts together in a cause-effect chain is the original research I have been complaining about. What do you think? I brought this here to your page because I noted that your last edit left this claim in place whereas your previous edits (like mine) had removed it. Dasondas 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that LonelyPlanet is just notable enough to maintain credibility as a source. If it were a blog or someother non-commercial website then I would say differently. I do agree, however, that there are probably better sources for the same info and perhaps more info. As for the other source, I haven't had the time to look at that. I'll have to let someone else edit that portion. Thanks for asking though. I'll keep my eye on it though when I have time. --Strothra 03:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/User_talk%7EStrothra_Archive_3_8e96.html"

Category: User talk archives