User talk:Penwhale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're writing me a comment about an RfAr request or case, click here. I do move comments around when I see fit.

Archive info:
/Archive1 Start - Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 July 1 2005 - July 23 2006
/Archive3 July 24 2006 - Feb 25 2007
/Archive4 March 2007
/Archive5 April - July 2007
/Archive6 August - September 2007
/Archive7 October - November 2007

1 WP:RfAr related
2 Other stuff

[edit] WP:RfAr related

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/

Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) the motion to dismiss at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Proposed decision passes 5-1 and the case should be closed. Could you take a look and see if the case needs closing. Thanks. Eluchil404 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are others that are interested in helping out at the WP:AC/CN, so I'm waiting to see whether anyone is interested in taking it. (It's pretty simple for a test closure.) I will do it tomorrow if no new guy does it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles done

All spammed except VK, which you said you'd do. Daniel 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troubles Arbcom

This Arbcom has barely closed and the Irish team are already stalking at least me, and the Irish Admin Brownhairedgirl is already threatening me with Warnings (see my talk Page) even though I have deliberately steered clear of them all according to the ArbCom's decision. As she was one of the "involved admins" in The Troubles Arbcom I feel I must protest. Could you direct me? Thanks. David Lauder 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the talk pages of an article generally isn't used to discuss about the subject itself. Just as the fact that I don't like Britney Spears' recent actions, I don't go to her talk page and bash her about it. You were discussing your dislike of Common Era on the talk page. I can see that you feel offended, but you still need to keep a cool head. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article, if it can be shown that the subject is valid. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't so much objecting to the article but the manner in which it had been fabricated and, moreso, to its use in articles across Wikipedia when almost the entire world, (with the exception of China), whatever their religion, has to use the Christian calendar because the West uses it. Many Marxist lectureres in our universities insist upon using the Common Era, for obvious reasons. So its a little more than "I don't like it". It is truth versus garbage. My understanding is that if you have something to say about an article you do it on the Talk Page. If that is not the case, where do you comment? But that is not my reason for coming to you and I would be very grateful if you could address not the Common era issue but my complaint and request about people stalking me. Or was the ArbCom meaningless, as several have emailed me to say. Thanks. David Lauder 08:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to speak of the content, not really the subject -- for example, saying that a paragraph needs to be re-written is okay; bashing the subject of CE is unacceptable. About stalking, I need a little time to analyze. Seeing that I'm a student, I might not be the best person to look into this (though I can certainly try) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to several pages on WP on traditional subjects and I was horrified to see that anno Domini had been replaced by this Common era meaningless nonsence, and upon clicking on that link it took me to that page, where I left my feelings on the matter. I can't really say anything further on that matter, and past experience has shown me that attempting to debate or even discuss certain issues on WP is pointless. There simply are not enough 'old-fashioned' people like me about to make up the 'consensus'. But that was not the issue I brought to you. I just felt that the ArbCom had stipulated that the admins who played a role in that should not be following me around waiting to pounce. That is what has happened. It is not a question of BHG attempting to justify herself. Thanks anyway. David Lauder 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they changed it without a good reasoning, bring it up somewhere (I'm not sure where). See the Sea of Japan naming dispute (which is worse than AD/CE dispute at the moment). I'm sorry that I am unable to give you a good example. I can look into the matter during my free time, but like I mentioned before, student = not a lot of free time. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Ante lan ^talk 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AA2

I merged the 2 sections and moved it up here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify? VartanM (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you couldn't be placed under restriction for reverts unless you are outright uncivil? There isn't a single Armenian veteran editor who's not on this restriction while recently user Aynabend was pulled out from it and user Parishan is still free to revert war. Accusing me of vandalising pages (there's being uncivil). [1] Or this: not only bursting with OR but resulting from your inability to pay attention to the information you are being presented with. I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over. [2]

At least Vartan is discussing his edits, nice job, admins completely ignored the way Atabek has been baiting VartanM to exhaustion to have him then on restriction or the way Parishan has been revert warring with Aynabend's help. These two (Parishan and Aynabend) had very little to say until recently to begin with, if ever justifying their edits beyond two lines. And guess what? This isen't even enough, we have Adil reincarnating into another user to give a hand without restriction without anything at all. We have three users without restriction reverting all the while the other side is entirely under restriction and we also have Atabek constantly provoking. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, uncivil edit comments, as well as behavior issues, lead to the warning. When you respond to a move quoting "Please stop this nonsense. There is no "Turkics" in English, leave it alone in the world" with this, that's downright disruptive and uncivil. I cannot judge on the Adil sockpuppet issue since I'm not a CU and I prefer those who are more experienced to research. I'm merely reinforcing the ArbCom ruling (and yes, I was the clerk on the case, so you can stop pointing fingers at me.) If you haven't realized, Atabek is also under restriction. I placed VartanM under A-A 2 restriction because of that article alone; if you have other issues to bring up, you need to bring them to my attention, seeing that I don't know which pages are being warred over. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats uncivil about this? "Fair enough, then this article will be about Azerbaijanis not Turkic people". Note that the word Azerbaijanis was not placed in quotation marks, it was my failed attempt to make it look bold. VartanM (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't like something, so you went ahead and removed a huge section of the article without reasonably explaining on the talk page. I consider that an assumption on the bad side and uncivil. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That something was added by another Armenian editor which included renaming of an article. Let me bring you an example. This would be same scenario if I were to add information about Urartian's into the Armenians in Turkey article. The material I removed made no sense to be there with that title. VartanM (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is a minefield; you know better than dive into it. I'm not understanding your behavior except that the article is nowhere near stable; you're at the center and your edit comments made it that much worse. I got an opinion from someone else when I went to give the restriction and they agreed with me.

I'll give you this, though: the other side has been escalating it (but short of being uncivil for me to restrict them). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that someone at the same rank as this. Also your claim that the other side was short of uncivil is not correct.

"I had asked you, prompty and politely, in a standard and coherent variety of the English language, which both of you seem to be conversant in"

"I think my message was clear enough for you"

"Your inattentiveness is wasting both of our time."

"I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over."

"Eupator's statement "a significant population of Tatars (related to modern Azerbaijani)" is preposterous."

User:Parishan on Azeris in Armenia article. You don't see incivility there, but you do when I say that the article should correspond with what it covers? VartanM (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen him making statements like this, claiming that people of certain ethnicity have bazaar mentality: [3] Grandmaster (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the result of Atabek comparing NK to NAZI's. How civil was that? VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Grandmaster stalked me to here, and I consider his above comment harassment. VartanM (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to post on other people's talk pages? If I stalked you, so did Eupator just before me. Grandmaster (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you try to turn my talk page into a battleground... Be nice, play nice. Get along, or you won't have dessert. >.> - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to battle with anyone, and I want dessert :) Grandmaster (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time either[4]. VartanM (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your explanation on what is incivil about "Fair enough, then this article will be about Azerbaijanis not Turkic people". VartanM (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting. VartanM (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your action with that edit is very immature/uncivil. You don't like how the discussion is going and then does a massive removal edit. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that it was a self-revert, which in turn was a revert to Atabek right? [5] and there is nothing incivil about saying that if the title of the article is Azerbaijanis in Armenia then the material about Turkic tribes that was added by Eupator as he was expending the article can't be there. The whole thing started when Parishan decided to claim all of the different Turkic tribes as Azeris and his still freely edit warring. I don't know who you talked or what kind of backroom deals were made, but you're actions are completely unjustified. VartanM (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This page, like I mentioned before, is too unstable. I'm extremely tempted to protect and make sure people gain consensus. (Too bad that A-A 2 remedy doesn't allow us to place article on probation, or I would've done that instead.) There were no deals; I only asked another admin to go over the page history and see who (if any) was to be restricted. I'll look into this a little more (when I can; it is the new year's as you know), but pointed attacks and false accusations won't be tolerated. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictions

Aynabend, Baku87, Andranikpasha and I were removed from restriction per this. Incidentally the same applies in my case again. VartanM (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then ask for another clarification. I'll abide by whatever input other gives. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dacy69

I'm not even gonna count on how many articles. "there is no such thing as Artsakh except armenian name of Azerbaijani region. It is clear attempt to legitimaze illegal entity" See here VartanM (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dacy is on restriction last time I looked...? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. VartanM (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parishan

Is anything going to be done about Parishans repeated removal of sourced material?[6], [7], [8]. He has no problem using the same sources in this article[9]. VartanM (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering how Parishan reformed since the last arbitration case. See evidence here, here, here and little bit here and here. I don't see how retaliations like adding Azeri terms to 18 articles because one Armenian term has been added to a single article, or retaliations such as adding a large section on antisemitism to the History of Jews in Armenia, as a retaliation of Andranikpasha adding in the Jews in Azerbaijan, ironically he deleted Andranikpashas addition after he retaliated with the similar.

If you check the evidences provided, Parishan has a long history of such retaliations, he has a long history of edit warring, reverts without justifications, a long history of wiki searching the term Armenian and by adding Azerbaijani terms to articles that don't have anything to do with Azerbaijan. He also has a history of creating non notable articles, where in some cases the sole source isn't even in English and references used only in Azerbaijani.

Didn't Moreschi created any precedent by having both Andranikpasha and Ehud_Lesar under restriction for a period of six month? Given Parishan's long history of revert warring and wikiretaliation, not to say his POV pushing (check the evidences above), would it be too much to place him on such a restriction? VartanM (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask him, as he was the one that restricted them. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know that I, Fedayee, Tigran etc. don't have this diplomatic tone which could indoctrinate admins, neither the persistence of Atabek or Grandmaster in reporting every single dot. I keep wondering, is there anyway that such comments: This article is absolute comedy of POV and needs editing either by third party hand (of non-Iranian, non-Azerbaijani and definately of non-Armenian origins) [10] could qualify as incivil from a user who was only recently been removed from the restriction? Just reminding you all the noise my comment did on the enforcement page which later resulted with me being restricted. And about his reply to Ali, who found the comment plain racist. :I am saying that because I see what of emotional postings are made here and what kind of behind the scenes collabiration is going out there. [11]. Pushing Armenian editors away and then failing to assume good faith. Not that it's the first time happening, but still, would this bit at least qualify as unconstructive or incivil? Did he not have a history of edit warring also? Doesn't he have more than enough warnings, also the fact that he was only recently removed from the restriction?

I wonder what kind of language Grandmaster and Atabek use when reporting others, that doesn't work in similar circumstances when I or Fedayee report.VartanM (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was not removal of a sourced material. The source does not contain this information. The claim of me adding Azerbaijani terms where they do not belong is not true. The only example Fedayee thought of was the Names of Jerusalem article where he was proved using double-standards (attacking only the presence of the Azeri name and overlooking the "historical irrelevance" of others, such as Persian, Urdu and Hindi) at least twice: here and here. As for the creation of non-notable articles, I believe I have made it clear that I am more than willing to discuss the notability of subjects in any of the articles I have created. How acceptable is it to accuse me of something that is based on a mere presupposition and has not even been discussed, examined or assessed?

You seem to be mentioning retaliation. First of all, don't you think Andranikpasha's edit on Azerbaijani Jews was retaliation for Ehud Lesar's edit on History of the Jews in Armenia in the first place? The time difference between the two edits is less than one day. As for me, I could not possibly "retaliate", as the information had already been in the article, and all I did was expand it. Parishan (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the name dropping and bad faith assumptions by VartanM are ever gonna stop? Why does he bring up my and Atabek's name every time he reports someone and why he keeps assuming bad faith with regard to other people and admins' motives? Is this some sort of an attempt to form a guilt complex with them to make them be more sympathetic to Vartan's reports? Just look at the last thread at AE, which became a total mess because of constant baseless accusations of myself and other people of various irrelevant things. Vartan was warned to stop it: [12], but continues making bad faith assumptions here on your talk page. I see no end to this. If it is OK for someone to ignore WP:AGF, why would anyone else be adhering to it? Grandmaster (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Would I be wrong to suggest that AA case be the first one reviewed? VartanM (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Parishan, the claim indeed is true and you are actually not saying the truth, the evidence above gives examples of dozens of articles, not one. And your claim of double standards was being brought which you failed to address convincingly. The Azeri term is the Turkic term; Jerusalem’s foreign names are there for a reason. All Persian, Urdu and Hindi qualify as such because they are relevant and present in several historic documents, maps and manuscripts influencing other languages words for the place. There is no proper Azeri distinct term for the place, it is the official Islamic term and the variants are either Turkish or Persian. We can write Jerusalem in Zulu language too, it doesn’t mean it has any historic or notable value. The evidence above documents that the edit happened in a period when you have found various articles where Armenian terms were present and added Azeri terms when it was not relevant. It was explained to you that the Armenian term for Jerusalem was present because there is an Armenian Quarter in Old Jerusalem and there are manuscripts dating back to a millennium and a half. As for the notability, if you’d have taken the time to read others concerns, you will actually remember one example, in which it was asked to you to provide another source while you were stuck to one article in Azerbaijani admitting to have nothing else. You’ve been contributing here for a very significant period of time and should have by now known what qualifies as notable. According to your standards, any college teacher would qualify. We have enough problems here to have to go through your articles’ creation and bring the notability issue.

Also, Parishan, don’t you think that your consistent justifications questioning that it was retaliation are a little bit old? Are you trying to insult our intelligence? You’ve retaliated on various circumstances on various cases and this was brought to you on many occasions. Do you feel the need to have your memory refreshed? You deleted Andranikpasha and expended the other article, much like you have added the entry of Armenia in the anti-Semitism article in the past as retaliation, or worked on a NAZI person as retaliation to Vartan’s point which you misinterpreted. Or when you retaliated to one article where an Armenian term was added by adding Azeri term in a dozen articles. This was all I had to say about the issue and if you won’t come clean and admit any wrongdoings then you are in no position to talk about any other contributor’s misbehaving. - Fedayee (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, with regards to Names of Jerusalem the claim that only languages with "scripture value" were to be added is original research. The article says none of that. There are also no references to "historic documents, maps and manuscripts" for Persian, nor for Urdu, nor for Hindi. Moreover, most of the names there (including Persian, Urdu and Hindi) are derivatives of one another, so there is nothing wrong with the fact that the Azeri name is identical to the general Islamic one. Yet you chose to attack the Azeri name only and were not troubled with any other of those whose addition seems to follow similar logic (I have never questioned the addition of the Armenian name, I have said this to you once, so please avoid pinning this on me in the future). Second of all, what I did then was simply follow multilingual list-type articles merely adding what should have been added. Armenian was not the only language there, and I have not removed or distorted a single reference to any language, including Armenian. How is this a "phobia" or how does this qualify as violation of any of Wikipedia's rules? The only phobia I see is in your attempts to rid Wikipedia of references to Azeris and Azerbaijan, as seen in the above example, as well as on a number of other occasions (what you recently presented as criticism of my contributions to Wikipedia was based on the fact that my articles are centered around Azerbaijan - this is simply beyond outrageous).

The time with being "stuck to one article in Azerbaijani admitting to have nothing else" had nothing to do with notability. The article was dedicated to a notable Azerbaijani film director. The issue of the discussion was linked to one small detail in the person's biography, specifically to the reasons why his family moved from one city to another when he was a child. It was not important in light of his career in cinematography. I admitted to the fact that my source was the only one that contained information that detailed. I never said it was the only source that mentioned this person. If you believe you "have enough problems here" to go through my articles to back up your claims about their notability, please avoid criticising my contributions to Wikipedia in that regard. No one likes being arbitrarily thrown things at.

I did not "delete Andranikpasha and expended the other article." My expansion of the existing information (within the proper timeframe with respect to Ehud Lesar's edit and not just out of nowhere) was done at the time Andranikpasha's edits were present and seen in the Azerbaijani Jews article.

My edit in Ferenc Szálasi also had nothing to do with VartanM. You don't seem to be following the corresponding discussions very carefully. The issue around that edit was that MarshallBagramyan accused me of assuming bad faith for adding information on the person's Armenian background without mentioning his other origins. To which I responded that my source (a neutral one) contained information only on this person's Armenian roots. Parishan (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. [13]. Persian [14], [15]. During the Persian period, Jerusalem has fallen under the Persian power with a Persian governor. It does qualify as Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. Urdu [16], [17]. Urdu represents the most prominent Hindi influenced, nearly exclusive Muslim language. One can not remove it as it falls under: Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The same for Hindi, there are various old documents and maps which are in Hindi, and therefore qualify their name there.

I also don’t understand whats your point for the Armenian term. Your logic of I am not questioning the Armenian term, you are questioning Azeri does not make sense. The old Jerusalem has four quarters, Moslem, Jewish, Christian AND Armenian Quarter. [18] The Armenians have their distinct religion, and this quarter is its distinct holly place, for example search Persian AND Jerusalem on google books, or Jerusalem and other things, and you will also find works covering the Armenians. The Azeri religion falls under the Persian religion, that word for Jerusalem can not qualify as: Over the millennia, there have been many names of Jerusalem in many different languages. The Jews have seventy (70) different names for Jerusalem. There was no distinct Azeri language before the invention of the alphabet in the 1930s. And the Azeri word is only a modern transcription of an existing word in the modern Azeri alphabet. When someone looks at those different languages, the Azeri will strike them as what the hell, as if it was some sculpture language or something.

The criticism about your contributions are not as how you describe, the criticism of your contribution is that you create articles with the main objective to have the word Azeri there. You add the Azeri term in every article there is an Armenian term without a valid reason. Your justifications are unconvincing for any neutral editor. The example provided by Fedayee is just one example, and you deny that it does not qualify as notable.

Let’s for example google Huseyn Seyidzadeh [19]. 62 hits, but what is interesting is that it is actually 25 hits and that Hit 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 are from Wikipedia, either other sites indexing Wikipedia pages or its own search engine etc. 18/25 or 72% of the few hits on the person are on google search engine because Parishan created the article. Lets see the rest. Hit 3 and 4 are from an Azeri site, and those hits only contain a list of directors, not on him. Hit 9 is irrelevant so is 10. 15 is an Azeri website, and contain a list, strangely resembling to the one worked by Parishan here on Wikipedia. When removing the irrelevant hits (9 and 10), it makes 18/23 (78%) being on google because Parishan added it on Wikipedia. Parishan claims that only for that specific information did he not have an English reference, but on English on google, there seem to be nothing other than a list. It provides 0 hits on google books or any search engines for several databases including IMDB.

The same could be said about several other articles created by Parishan, many of which cover periods preceding when the Turkic population was called Azeri, adding the term Azerbaijani, or a disproportion for people born in Yerevan, Nakhichevan etc., placing them as Azerbaijani, or on occasions using the opportunity to relate to some massacres which those people escaped from.

From what I gather from Parishan's contributions he's obviously POV pushing, this is not simply an accusation, as there are evidences provided during the last arbitration. And that he continues and finds nothing wrong in what he is doing, would only be viewed as he will be continuing creating non notable articles, will continue adding Azeri terms where they do not fit and retaliate as he always does[20]. VartanM (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vartan, when Jerusalem was part of the ancient Persian Empire, the Persian language did not have the words Qods, Beit-e Moghaddas or Masjid-e Aqsa. Those are pure Arabic in origin and came into the Persian language after the Islamic invasion. Hence you are still yet to prove to me why the Azeri name should not be there. Please refrain from OR such as There was no distinct Azeri language before the invention of the alphabet in the 1930s. This is where Iranica comes in handy: "A written, classical Azeri literature began after the Mongol invasion, and developed strongly in the 10th/16th century after the Safavid dynasty established its dominance in Iran".

The fact that the name of the personality appears on English-language Azerbaijani websites or non-English-language websites does not mean the person is not notable. Where in Wikipedia does it say that only Western sources published in English constitute assertion of notability for an article? It is particularly odd to expect that for a representative of Soviet culture which was not a target research topic to English-speaking Western researchers for obvious political reasons. Anyway, try searching under the Russified spelling 'Gusein Seidzade', as well in Azeri ('Hüseyn Seyidzadə') and in Russian ('Гусейн Сеидзаде'). I am sure you will end up with more than enough results.

I have already presented you with enough neutral scholarly sources that equated the Turkic-speaking population of the Caucasus prior to 1920 to Azeris, on Talk:Azeris in Armenia. Based on them, it is acceptable to apply the term Azeri to the people I apply it to. Please prove me wrong, otherwise I would appreciate if you avoid further OR on the issue of 'What is Azeri?'. You have not gathered a thing from my contributions that will serve as something of a back-up to your otherwise baseless accusations accompanied with 'special-effect' tags such as "as he always does" (followed only by one diff), "long history of xyz" (followed by nothing), "continuing creating non notable articles" (as if I ever have done or been proved to), and so on. Parishan (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste anymore of ~~Pinwale's~~ Penwhale's talkspace. I just want to say that unfortunately I'm not surprised. Comparing Persian with Azeri, when Jersalem had already been part of Persia, or comparing it with Urdu or Hindi. As amazing as it is, no one beside Parishan had even though of adding a modern Azeri term, and accusing me of OR, for something which was shown to him by several users and documented as a scholarly consensus. The Iranica quote has already been addressed. As for your notability test, claiming English language publications doesn't show notability. I guess some teacher in Rwanda giving fourth year med school courses and having published three unknown articles could have his article on Wikipedia under the claim that while nothing could be found in English about him, it can in Tuti language. Down with the notability tests.VartanM (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gives you more credibility when you can actually spell my user name, maybe :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This means that you actually read all of the above :) I wanted to ask you, what does your name mean? Is it a combination of two words as in you write a lot? VartanM (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually... It's not what you think it is. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have to kill me if you tell me? VartanM (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" assumption? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but know this, one day I will figure it out. :) VartanM (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aynabend

VartanM, that quote you brought up there is mine and have nothing to to with Grandmaster or Parishan. You have taken it out of context and it relates to Azerbaijani issues/cartoon contreversy in Iran and therefore, I did not see any logical link of this issue/article to wikipedia users of Armenian origin. But most of all, I consider users of Iranian and Azerbaijani (which myself belongs too) origin biased in this particular issue too and suggested the use of sources produced/written only by third party. Thanks for understanding and please do not be hurt by notes. It is not directed to any nation or ethnicity and serves to distinct natural ethnic/kinship bias from true academics. --Aynabend (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aynabend, the quote, is yours[21][22], and I brought it up to admin's attention because its disruptive, incivil and a violation of WP:AGF. The last time I checked this was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and articles were not restricted to a certain group of users because of their ethnicity. VartanM (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you did not originally mention that it was mine and referenced it as that of Parishan, which I think is not coming from good faith. I wanted to correct this misinterpretation both in terms of authorship and context. You are free to think and make conclusions however you like, I have already expressed my position on this matter. --Aynabend (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And where do you see Parishan's name?[23]. Your comments were and are wrong in so many levels that I don't see how Penwhale didn't take any action against it. You really ought to start minding the WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:BATTLE and WP:EQ to name a few. VartanM (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not acting because I've been relatively busy... Not to mention that my talk page is being turned into a battleground. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist comments like this are in no way helping the situation. This article is absolute comedy of POV and needs editing either by third party hand (of non-Iranian, non-Azerbaijani and definately of non-Armenian origins) [24]. And then instead of apologizing, he says that he sees nothing wrong and I get blamed for reporting him. May I remind you that you found this incivil [25]. VartanM (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AA2-Civility

Hi, Penwhale. I realized that the User:Babakexorramdin is one of the involved parties of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The results of the arbitaration committee's decision was posted to his talk page on 28 August 2007. So, he's aware of the proposed decision and the enforcements. However, this user does not seem to take the ArbCom decision into consideration in his edits and comments. Actually, this user was also warned by Alex for civiliy on 17 November 2007. Recently, I posted a message to Alex's talk page about the latest incivility on 2 February 2008. Since Alex Bakharev is not available at the moment, i decided to post this message to you too. Regards. E104421 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other stuff

[edit] Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected WP:SPOILER

Hi. You protected WP:SPOILER for 2 weeks. Why? From November 25 to December 7, there were no edits to the page. I have been discussing changes on the talk page. I added {{disputedtag}} and other editors claimed it's guideline status was not disputed[26][27]. Another editor added the {{disputedtag}} and another editor claimed it's guideline status was not disputed[28]. I added the {{underdiscussion}} tag and another editor claimed the guideline was not under discussion[29]. The {{underdiscussion}} tag was then re-added to the page.[30] I have been discussing proposed changes to the guideline on the guideline's talk page. The current version of the guideline does not have consensus. On September 13, 2007, Kusma proposed a new version here. Around 3 1/2 hours later, Kusma rewrote the guideline. The current version of the guideline differs little from what Kusma wrote on September 13, 2007.[31] I have been making proposals on the talk page but certain admins have just been editing the guideline page and reverting any changes to it. The edit-warring on that page has been going on since May 15, 2007[32], after an admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that all spoiler policies be "nuked."[33] and another admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that people remove Template:Spoiler from every article.[34] I don't think editing of the guideline should only be limited to admins, since a previous mediation case named multiple admins and a request for arbitration was made naming multiple admins. Edit-warring by admins is the problem. The current guideline does not have consensus. Could you change the page protection to a shorter period of time? If you think the page should be protected for 2 weeks, could you replace the page with just the {{underdiscussion}} template? Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the matter of revert warring-- it was brought up at RFPP. Since some of the reverts were by admins... I think that consensus takes time to change, so 2 weeks sounds alright for me to build consensus. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If some of the revert warring was by admins, how is the situation improved by making it so only admins can edit it? --Pixelface (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be abuse of admin tools if they continue doing it. (i.e. more scrutiny when it's full-protected) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KABC-TV/RPP

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Petrino

Please lift the protection from Bobby Petrino; by the time you protected it, the dispute had been resolved (negated by the ongoing events) and the full protection request had been revoked by the requester (who was over-reactive in asking for it in the first place). Thanks, AUTiger » talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming 3rr

Could you explain exactly what "gaming the 3rr" means especially in contrast to the behaviour of SqueakBox in this case, so I can learn to behave as properly as he (given that he wasn't blocked)? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When I issued the block he hasn't reverted you (i.e. your 4th revert was the newest version). Gaming 3RR in this case means that you do 4 reverts just outside a 24 hour window (say my 1st revert was noon on Monday and I revert a 4th time at 12:01pm on Tuesday; technically isn't 3RR, but that's called gaming the system). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But I was 3.5 hours outside the window, not just one minute. And SqueakBox did a 4th revert about 9 hours outside the window. Is that the difference between gaming and not gaming? Or would you say he could have been blocked too? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the 3rr rule is there is to prevent edit-warring, so, yes, he could've been blocked too if I noticed it (which unfortunately I didn't). At this point, though, since it's been a day and a half since his 4th revert, in addition to the fact that the article was full-protected, it does not make any sense to block him at this point. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy with Bramlet if he would make edits other than to revert me and generally to take an interest in articles other than those of members of the wikipedia foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in.--Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season, Henry! - Alice^✉

[edit] List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

user:Andranikpasha is insisting on removing sources. What should I do? -- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think user:Andranikpasha could be a sockpuppet given how many had been circling around over Armenia-Azerbaijan related rfars. -- Cat ^chi? 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not good at researching these type of stuff. Sockpuppet claims is one thing I don't touch since I'm not good at reading patterns. Regarding ATMG, Picaroon (a fellow ArbCom Clerk) has spoken on that talk page, so I defer you to him while I reserve my opinions. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What? no warning for calling other users sockpuppets? but Fedayee gets a 24 hour block! Where he actually has a page full of evidence to support his claim. VartanM (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't deal with sockpuppet claims, since I'm not good at analyzing edit patterns. The one time I dealt with a sockpuppet claim, it was a stern warning; however, there are other admins active at that page, so you should confer with them. User:Picaroon for example. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop it please, gentlemen. This has been/is being dealt with elsewhere, no point bringing it here. Thanks. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that White Cat spammed every possible noticeboard and admin talkpage with this? I'll stop it when someone does something to stop him from deleting Armenian genocide pictures and pushing Turkish propaganda sites as reliable sources. VartanM (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a trout

The idea of getting slapped with this is horrible indeed. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist

Hi. I received an e-mail from User:ScienceApologist indicating that he was having a software malfunction that prevented him from getting error conflict messages, and wasn't intentionally misusing the unblock template. I believe him, and in any event protecting a blocked user's talkpage is always a last resort, so I urge you to lift the page protection. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't been online today. Based on the explanation I received, I'm going to go ahead and lift the protection. I hope this is okay; let me know if there are any questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

... and it looks like someone else already did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ACE2008

I see you deleted the 2008 page. I'm not going to disagree with you, but when you determine the appropriate time, please remember to undelete instead of recreating. Please keep in mind that the page was created this early to improve collaboration, since many users objected to decisions made merely 1 to 2 months before they started. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Ok. But users were adamant about more and earlier notices to work on the page. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a sure connection, which means I won't log on for some time. Could you watch the page for me, just in case? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

April sounds great. I'll give you a knock once it comes around. :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added those to my watch list. (I'm also an arbitration clerk, so I will notice.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I must disagree

...with your statement.[35] In my tradition, a martyr is someone who dies for his or her beliefs without harming anyone else. Some new term probably ought to get invented for instances such as this one, but I regard martyr as not only loaded in this context but deeply disrespectful of actual martyrs. Durova^Charge! 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like you, I can't come up w/ a good term. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova/Recusal. Durova^Charge! 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly passionate/dispassionate about it, though... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highways injunction

What are you doing? Injunctions only take 4 net votes to pass, and may be passed 24 hours after the first vote, not the fourth vote. Thatcher 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, the injunctions say "same majority" as other items. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently my memory needs to be jogged. (That or I can't read.)... But why is injunction on a different passing scheme than motions... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani Jews

During our discussion, I proved most of the facts presented by Andranikpasha as being irrelevant or insignificant, to which he never replied. I argued that the facts presented are exaggerated, and his refusal to clarify some of the claims was an example of bad faith. Finally I discovered a source that fully supported my rationale and judging from the fact that it came directly from an Israeli official, I decided it was fair to use it instead of what Andranikpasha presented. Parishan (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only saying the fact that you removed 1 piece of information 3 times without explaining why other than the fact that you have an Israeli official standpoint. That's not acceptable-- RS is RS, and you haven't proved the irrelevancy of the UN refuge source. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I only removed it twice. This was removal of a different piece of information, as what was in the provided source did not contain any of what was in the edit. Andranikpasha's later edits contained facts presented in a exaggerated way. Each of the sources that deal with the issue, including the UN refuge source, mention first and foremost that Anti-Semitism is close to being non-existant in Azerbaijan. Yet in his edit, statements from controversial figures and isolated incidents from 10 to 15 years ago, some of them barely falling under the definition of Anti-Semitism, were puffed up to make them look like an ongoing current issue taking place almost at a government level. I made it all clear in my discussion with Andranikpasha, and I saw no objection on his part for 10 days. Parishan (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adult-child sex editing dispute

As your assistance has previously been provided when the editing got hot at Adult-child sex, I was wondering if you could take another look, as there seems to be the same push to delete the article's content & replace the article with a redirect without a demonstrated consensus to do so. I'm not asking you to make a decision about the content of the dispute, just to look at whether the article should be left intact while the discussion plays itself out. It's been PROD'd, RfD'd, AfD'd, DRV'd, etc. This article may yet set a record for going through every administrative process we have. :-) Thanks for any help you can provide. --SSB ohio 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I make out there are 7 people agreeing with the good faith edits of a relatively new user, User:Jack-A-Roe's merging the article with child sexual abuse, with no disagreement. Then Ssbohio comes along and ignores that, refuses to post on the talk page and reverts. This looks like disruption to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough that you troll me on my own talk page, Squeak. Your accusations are patently false, and I ask you to withdraw them. --SSB ohio 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

|Please stop accusing me of lying, Steve. This is a gross breach of basic civility and I would ask you to stop (again). Everytime somebody disagrees with you re ACS I have to put up with hours of your hysterical and abusive attacks, please desist and remember that I did not redirect the article or suggest it was redirected, it was all done by other people. Your trying to play the victim with me looks like game playing in order to get your way re the ACS article. Personally I find it highly offensive and your accusation that I am lying do not ddeserve any response whatsoever. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I just noticed this response. To clarify: You claimed that I ignored the 7 agreeing people, which isn't true. You claimed I refused to post on the talk page, again not true. You claimed I engaged in disruption, also not true (by definition). Given these untruths, what term would you have me use, other than the one I chose? Also, can we conclude this discussion on my talkpage (or yours)? --SSBohio 17:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adult-child sex moved to adult-older teen sex

Much like the story of Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, since you touched the article, I thought I'd ask you to evaluate the recent move of the article to adult-older teen sex. I've been through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for the move. Would I be out of line to move it back pending the development of a consensus to move? Would you be willing to look at the situation and make an objective determination, something I (an involved party) am not in a position to do? Thanks, SSBohio 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can say it wasn't done in good faith. And it appears there are just too many editors who don't want the article to remain as was for it to do so. You can't move it back without an admin intervention, SS, as it won't take. I would suggest it is a bad idea that clearly wouldn't resolve anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, I could just as easily say that it can't remain under the current title for the same reason. If it can't be moved back, then it shouldn't have been able to move out. What happened? I don't say it wasn't done in good faith, only that it was done with no demonstrated consensus. Carrying forward your logic, I would suggest that the move already made was a bad idea that clearly wouldn't resolve anything. --SSBohio 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about technical reasons. If you have a problem with the technical set-up of wikipedia you should address it at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). Right now in terms of technical limitations moving was not an issue but as soon as the brand new (in terms of edit history) redirect was then modified moving back became impossible. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you have a problem with the requirement that consensus for controversial page moves needs to exist, then go rewrite the applicable policy and see if your edits are accepted by the community. That kind of sniping comment gets us nowhere, Squeak. The move can still be reverted, but now by an admin rather than an ordinary editor. Moving back was made impossible, which served to cement a page move for which no consensus was demonstrated. Doing so poisons the well as far as consensus-building is concerned, since it forces acceptance of non-consensus changes to the article. I may as well find some title I like and move the article again, except I wouldn't do that without consensus. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you post at WP:RM, SS, and let us know on the talk page if you do. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I post at WP:RM? I'm not requesting a move. I was requesting that a move made without consensus be undone. It would mean a lot to me if you could take the time to respond to the rest of my comment, however, not just the part that you could interpret obtusely. Thanks, SSBohio 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, I found the target name a little confusing. (Adult-adolescence sex or something would avoid the currently awkward title methinks?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolescents sounds better. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's under consideration with discussion currently in progress; suggested titles so far have been "Adult-teen sex" or "Adult-adolescent sex". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is also in progress about reversing this pagemove and putting the article back at adult-child sex. ~~It's odd that that option wasn't included.~~ --SSBohio 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

" It's odd that that option wasn't included." That's because I was only replying about the awkwardness of the current title, not about the content dispute. There is enough tension on this topic, there's no need for you to looks for suspicious manipulation at every simple phrase. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for suspicious manipulation was not my intent, and I've stricken that comment. However, it makes sense to me to present all options for renaming the article, including renaming it back to its original name. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Penwhale, your assistance would indeed be greatly appreciated. No consensus was gathered for renaming the article, and there wasn't even time provided for other involved editors to respond. In fact, now that others have had the opportunity to look at the page move and the reasons provided for it, there's clearly no consensus, and it's evident that more people are against this course of action than for it. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, this course of action (with variations) has been taken three times by various editors opposed to the existence of the adult-child sex article, all since November. First, there was the RfD, AfD, DrV process, which found no consensus to delete or merge. Then, there was the merger (same one no consensus was found for previously), which was reversed after a straw poll demonstrated no consensus to delete or merge and weak consensus to keep. Now, there's been a page move, again without demonstrated consensus. Talk page conversation, especially after this move, demonstrates the lack of consensus for the move. Putting things back the way they were respects the consensus that has been demonstrated and allows conversation to continue toward some collaborative way forward. Leaving things as they are does more to reward abuse of process than to advance the encyclopedia. --SSBohio 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo wrote: "it's evident that more people are against this course of action than for it." and SSB wrote about "consensus that has been demonstrated" --- Both are not accurate. There are several editors posting on both sides of the debate, in varying numbers from day to day, not even approaching consensus. I counted at least 8 editors in favor of the page move a couple days ago; I haven't counted the others recently but a while ago there were around 5 I think (that's just a guess and I am not claiming a meticulous count). It's not enough of a difference to show a dependable result. This will probably need an RFC or some similar procedure to find out the consensus of the wider community, rather than leaving this as an argument between small numbers of polarized editors. It might be good to publicize the question at the many wikiprojects that would overlap this subject area, such as psychology, medicine, law, sociology, education and some others, maybe the village pump. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack, you haven't been willing to identify the 8 editors, either here or when you've made that claim on the talk page. I've looked and I haven't found 8 editors whose consensus prior to the page move was that the page be moved. Consensus did not exist for the page move, however well-intended it was. Whatever else happens, the nonconsensus page move must be reversed. Fait accompli is not consensus-building, and not respectful of fellow editors. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jack, and this strikes at the heart of the conflict. 4 different editors have tried to incoprorate 3 different changes and the same people have come back saying "no" but without offewring any form of addressing these issues that won't go away. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When editors want to make radical changes, there needs to be a demonstrated consensus in favor of those changes. The only consensus that's been generated so far has been to keep the article (and a thin one at that), not to merge, rename, or delete it. The radical alterations you want are not mere changes; in one case, it involves destroying the article entirely, and, in another, it involves changing the name of the article and using that to facilitate the removal of large amounts of content. Consensus for these radical moves has not been demonstrated. Therefore, while discussion is ongoing, such activities do not benefit consensus-building whatsoever. --SSBohio 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi Penwhale,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freya

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/22/npregnant122.xml

I immediately thought of you. ;) -- Cat ^chi? 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] block on yourbackup

I am requesting a plea to the block that was placed upon me i have made a mistake on security matters by sharing my account i am going to change the password and tell my friend about his idiotic behavior thank you. again i am deeply sorry in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbackup (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.