User talk:NickCT/Archive III

WP:AE report

I'm somewhat confused by your recent comments at User talk:Sandstein. To give you some background:

• User talk:PhilKnight#Editing restrictions - I hope this shows I don't have a secret agenda to sanction Nableezy.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement#Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict - and I hope this explains why I thought asking Sandstein for his thoughts was legitimate.

PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey PK,

Look. I'm not accusing you of having a secret agenda. In general I've found your dealings on AE to be relatively fair and reasoned; however, I can't really say the same of Sandstein. If you review the past dozen or so I/P disputes he's been involved in, he generally falls quite strongly on the I side of the debate, with a few token P motions when the case is blatantly one sided (see his dealings with User:Mbz). I don't imagine this has escaped your notice. You seem to be an umpire questioning a rabid fan about whether a pitch was a strike or a ball.

Anyways, I was a little upset initially b/c I misread your comments to say you were supporting a year long topic block. Rereading it I see you said topic block till "the end of the year". This still seems a little heavy handed and undue, but less disturbing.

Frankly, I'm now convinced what nableezy did was a 1RR violation; however, I did have to read through policy closely to come to that conclusion. I find it a little tough to swallow when Sandstein says "This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience", b/c I consider myself a somewhat experienced editor, and it wasn't clear to me. I think nableezy deserves perhaps a warning, and at worst a token v. short term topic ban.

Regardless, the AE discussion has fizzled making this discussion pointless. Thanks at least for following up on my comments. NickCT (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding whether or not there was a 1RR violation, I think it's a borderline case, and some admin discretion is allowable. Otherwise, I'm concerned about the general deterioration in editing, and suspect that if admins don't take action, we're going to end up with a third ArbCom case, and very possibly more indefinite bans. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Phil. I hate to sound like a cynic, but I think the level of debate surrounding I/P debates on WP could be described as permanently deteriorated. NickCT (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:ABDmay2005.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:ABDmay2005.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Impressed

I'm impressed with the thinking and reasoning demonstrated by your posts in the discussions (most about Ann Taylor) at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). I too have been involved in countless naming discussions and totally agree common name is primal. The problem is that some people go along with that until the point where disambiguation is necessary. At that point they're all too willing to throw common name out the window, but convention and policy still require the title to convey the common name, and usually the clearest way to do that is to add the disambiguation information with parenthesis, or maybe separated by a comma. The problem with doing it with a comma is that then the title might incorrectly convey that the disambiguation information is part of the name. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if you could drop me a note when discussions involving these issues are occurring, I would appreciate it. Assuming you too would like to know of such discussions, you might be interested in the current discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Neighborhoods_of_US_cities and Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Consistency. Please let me know whether this is a good assumption. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "drop me a note" I will let you know Born2cycle.

Re "you too would like to know" - Yeah, these are interesting discussions. Unfortunately I'm not up to diving into the fray at the moment. I'll review it when I get a chance. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing

I would be most grateful if you would help balance this article with references to assassiation, and in particular the way that the term is used to avoid the ban on assassiantion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, Nick. Check out the post this I.P. from England left on my talk page. Greg L (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Greg - You appear to be censoring my comments on your talk page. Additionally, I don't find your edit summaries particularly WP:CIVIL. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I censored your comment. It’s my talk page and the rules could not possibly be clearer that I have the freedom to delete and add content as I choose. It wouldn’t be polite for me to describe what I thought of your post there but my deletion of it speaks volumes. You are perfectly free to stand on your soap box here and say what you please; you are guaranteed that I won’t presume to dictate what may and may not appear on your talk page. Feel free to delete this post if you wish. And please remember to read edit summaries; mine was clear enough, I shouldn’t have had to repeat it. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're more than entitled to choose what appears on your talk page. That doesn't mean it was polite or necessary to delete my comments. What did I say that you felt constituted soap boxing? NickCT (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I've responded to a comment of yours, I would appreciate if you could look over my respone. Justin talk 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Justin talk 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Park51

Your RFC was not neutrally stated. In fact it misrepresented the issue which is why I added my comment where I did. It is essential that people called to he section from the RFC see why your RFC is misleading. That is why I placed it where it was and it IS NOT YOUR RIGHT to move my comment to a place where others might not read it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hauskalainen - Generally we don't edit RfCs once they are started. You are free to comment in the section below. Additionally, if you do not feel the RfC is neutrally stated, let me know and we can work on changing it together!

As you've probably realized by now, I've started and ANI over this incident. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My action was justified. You did not open a discussion about the RFC before raising it and your statement that "the editors who previously opposed inclusion seem to be doing so for POV reasons" is a travesty of the truth. We gave very clear reasons why we felt it was inappropriate even though there are reliable sources, including the developers themselves that have used the term "Muslim community center". That is why I was enraged. I see now re-reading that the lede was written neutrally but then again it did not reflect the issues as we had discussed them. It was your own comment which followed your personally defined lede in to the RFC that really enraged me. That is why I felt I had to place my comment where I did. It is not really for you to define the RFC on your own when the issue is much more complicated than you presented it. You should at least have pointed the people responding to the RFC to the section where we had those arguments. Your actions were, in my opinion, highly offensive and misleading. Let's cool it and agree the wording of RFCs in future.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok.... Well I understand if you mistook my "inclusion seem to be doing so for POV reasons" comment as being part of the wording of the RfC. It was not intended to be, and your right in that putting that comment in the RfC lede would not have been appropriate. It seems this was a misunderstanding. Perhaps you will now move your comments out of the lede of the RfC and restore my comments as a show of good faith?

"It is not really for you to define the RFC" - Note that I actually asked others to launch the RfC a couple times. As no one did, I took the initiative. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Courtesy notification --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(chuckle) Tit-for-tag notifications? Childish much Hauskalainen? NickCT (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Contribution team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.

If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is a human edit (not a bot). I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and the Wikipedia Contributions Team has a lot of commonality in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at drosenthal@wikimedia.org with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP: good idea

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nominations

I probably should have told you this - given you left the message on my talk page - but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors was nominated a few days ago. Along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers. As suspected, they're all being driven into "no consensus" territory. Bulldog123 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Obviously all of these should be deleted for the same reason. It's interesting to note that we may get several different results (see [1], [2], [3]). Probably a Keep, No Consensus, and delete? Anyways, thanks for your efforts here. These kinds of shenanigans have to be done away with. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been through AfDs like that before, and always like clockwork, the same users come and !vote keep, acquiring whatever rationale is appropriate at the moment. I want to point this out on the list. Is there another wiki took that can trace a user's voting history? Bulldog123 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands talk page?

I'm not sure what you were trying to do at Talk:Senkaku Islands, but it looks like you unintentionally reverted back to a version of the talk page from about a month ago, "losing" all of the current discussion. I undid your revision, although I don't know if I took out something you meant to add. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My fault. Accidentally tried to edit a historic version of the page. NickCT (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Well thanks. I am interested. Little curious though what your motivation is to point this out to me. Obviously you know I'm skeptical of religious/ethnic categorization, and you on other hand like going around stamping "Jew" on every BLP you can find seem to be fairly active in ascribing "Jewish" ethnicity to a number of BLPs. What's the catch here? This seems like contra canvassing. NickCT (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Epee, I want to respond to this comment here. I would be for the deletion of most those lists you mention with a few exceptions.

I think the "relevant to notability" clause from WP:BLPCAT justifies some categories like List of Muslim writers and poets. If a Muslim writer/poet produces literature that focuses on Islam, it seems relevant and justified to label them as a "Muslim writer/poet".

I don't think though that being "Jewish" can ever be relevant to the fact that you are a Nobel Laureate (with perhaps a rare exception for literature); hence, I dislike the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Similarly, I find it hard to understand how being Muslim could be relevant to being a scientist; hence I dislike the List of Muslim scientists.

Another issue here is that I've found a significant amount of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing over applying the "Jewish" label to BLPs. This is perhaps why I'm more focus on the current set of AfDs. Does the some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing occur on the Muslim lists? If you see any examples, please point them out and I will jump into the battle there. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. As I thought might be the case, a deletion effort of such a Muslim AfD has in fact followed on the heels of last week's deletion effort vis-a-vis the Jewish list AfDs. So, I guess my question was not as hypothetical as I had hoped it would be.

As to the battleground issue, IMHO that is not a rationale for deletion. If it were, we would delete all I/P articles, as well as those of the most recent U.S. Presidents, and the article on abortion. As to blp:cat, considerations differ with lists, as they have footnotes and text, and shades of gray can be better addressed therein than in cats, IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Epee - Just a quick note to mention that I wasn't suggesting WP:BATTLEGROUNDing is grounds for deletion. I was saying the WP:BATTLEGROUNDing on some of the Jewish lists is what caught my attention and led me to think about whether the lists should exist at all. I'm glad that the Muslim lists are getting the same treatment. I'd ask for you to point to the page for me, but given some of the recent ruckus about canvassing, I won't. Best, NickCT (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahah -- misunderstood. Probably because that is a reason that others have suggested as a basis for deleting the lists. Your answer makes sense, of course. Yes -- I'll take your advice on that. I, btw, in the event that you were wondering, thought the list notable, for similar reasons as those expressed at the AfD at which we expressed contrary views..--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow Epee. Forgive me for saying this, but your attitude seems to have improved significantly. A couple months ago I couldn't have imagined you saying "Your answer makes sense" or "Yes -- I'll take your advice". Perhaps the blocks and wrangling has worked for the better?

You'd better watch out..... If you keep up like this I might actually enjoy having you drop by my talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The blocks and wrangling have only made me feel better over issues that might be impacted by only POV (in my subjective view), vs. conversations that might be impacted by not only POV but perhaps also dishonesty and certain difficulties in understanding. So unless it is due to that, or the nature of our conversation, I don't think there is much to it from my vantage point. That's not of course to dismiss your observation's possible accuracy. I shall do my best, however, to not encourage you to like my visits, as visits of any kind (especially to those with views that are opposite what mine are, I've learned) might be construed by some to be inappropriate. I left Roland a note, btw -- when the effort to mislead took place, he took it upon himself to clarify matters vis-a-vis our conversation, which I thought was quite nice of him and quite commendable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking over some of the other examples you provided; Muslim doctors looks sorta weird, and should probably be renamed to Practitioners of Islamic Medicine. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I differ with your characterization of me, and would kindly request that you redact it.

Rereading my comments, they do seem unnecessarily harsh and potentially uncivil. They are consequently struck. If you feel that is insufficient, feel free to delete them entirely. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the rest of your initial entry, I'm happy to answer. Inasmuch as concerns about canvassing were raised at the related ongoing AfDs, I thought it fairest to address them by leaving neutral notices for all editors who had responded at only some of the AfDs, of the existence of the AfDs. That allows those who have participated in previous discussions on the closely related topics to be kept informed--whatever their opinions of the issue may be. It also addresses the possibility raised by the charge that some people are aware of the related AfDs and others are not.

Will get back to you on your other helpful comments later, but wanted to address the first one as soon as I could. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, reading User talk:DGG#Deletions of Jewish lists might prove interesting. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Muslim list

FYI -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim actors has (unfortunately, to my mind) led to the deletion of the list of Muslim actors.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, I didn't participate in the discussion, but I can't say I disagree with it. I'm guessing that it would be pretty rare that an actor's being Muslim would be "relevant to their notability". Obviously there might be exceptions that would prove the rule (i.e. actors who played in primarily religious pieces).

Hey Epeefleche, as a quick thought experiment, can you tell me whether you'd be for or against a List of Actors over six feet tall, and why? NickCT (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was in agreement with you (though you of course didn't have the benefit of the text and sources that were in the article that focused on the intersection. As to your thought experiment -- this is the key. Do RSs cover the intersection? Is each part of the intersection notable? If the answer is yes, for. If not, no. In your example, actors is a notable group but "people over six feet tall" is not. And, without spending time checking, I would guess that similarly there is not RS focus on the intersection -- a stark contrast with the Muslim actors intersection, which has RSs speaking about it and an entire association devoted to it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Granted "Judiasm and acting" is likely a more notable intersection than "Actors over six feet tall".

I think I was asking a slightly different question though, which was "When is it worth noting that a person is (over six feet tall/of a particular race/of a particular religion)?". Your answer seems to be that it's always or almost always worth noting race/religion/descent. This concept makes me a little uneasy. Basically you would have WP serve as a tool to categorize and separate peoples in a manner similar to what the Belgians did in Rwanda or, if you'll forgive a tired, clichéd, hyperbolic and possibly offensive analogy, the Nazis in Germany. I maintain that categorizing by ethnic/religious/sexual orientation is a dirty affair that best be done very conservatively.

Regardless, I think this debate is largely going reflect one's personal POV regarding race/religion/orientation etc. There we may simply have to agree to disagree.....

I'm disappointed the talk about changing WP:BLPCAT has died down. I really liked the "relevant to notability" language that got proposed. That seemed like a clear standard to apply. The answer to "why not Actors over 6 feet tall?" would be "Well, it's almost never relevant to an actor's notability that they are over six feet tall", as it is usually not relevant that a notable doctor is muslim or a notable actor is jewish.

When I am less involved in real life I think I'm going to head back to WP:BLPCAT to see if I can restart this debate.

Thanks for the food for thought. I'll look forward to talking about this further as a policy discussion on BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for putting the talkback on my page - I had stopped watching that talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tecumseh

Hello, Nick. I’ve seen you’ve reverted some editions of the article Tecumseh, and so I’ve decided to apply to you for a further question. An anonym has added the phrase “but yet known” in this sentence: "Tecumseh's exact place and date of birth are unknown but yet known and all accounts of his early life are based on a memoir dictated by his older brother years after Tecumseh's death". As far as I can understand English, it might not mean anything and therefore be another act of vandalism, but I’m not quite sure. Would you be so kind as to check this matter yourself? Thank you very much! Jeanambr (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey - Yeah... Doesn't make any sense. Fixed it. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too! Jeanambr (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, Nick, you know I meant to look at the canvassing policy before posting the Talkback tag on SlimVirgin's Talk page, but then I forgot. Then, when I saw your edit summary, I blanched, thinking maybe I violated it. Obviously, when I looked at what you wrote, I saw you were joking. I also don't believe I violated the policy, although Wikipedia editors get real touchy about these things, not to mention the fact that there are major differences of opinion about what a particular policy means or how it intersects with the myriad of other Wikipedia policies. Sigh.

While I'm here and we're on the subject of policies, is there a policy on an article or Talk page FAQ? I know you want to add one, but I haven't seen anything that explains when they should (or shouldn't) be used. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was joking. I think if someone has been actively engaged in a conversation, putting a talkback on their page asking them to come back to the conversation couldn't be considered canvassing. But then, I haven't read the policy throughly.

re "is there a policy on an article or Talk page FAQ" - Great question. Answer is; I'm not sure. You'd think there should be. I checked the two most logical places to look (i.e. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Template:FAQ) and came up empty handed. Perhaps we should pose this question to someone more experienced? NickCT (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortuately, she came back but not to respond to the issue I wanted her to. Oh, well. If you want to ask someone else about any policy on the issue, feel free. At the moment, I'm kind of tired generally and a little of Wikipedia. By the way, you don't need to leave Talkback templates on my Talk page to let me know you've responded here. I always watch a Talk page on which I post a message. Thoughtful of you, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood Bbb23. We've all felt a little tired of WP at some point or another. Don't go though. WP could use a few more editors who aren't solely interested in their own opinions.

You could of course consider a Wikipedia:Wikibreak. NickCT (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Geller

Hi, as an interested party, could you no hurry no worry, join in the talkpage discussion to try to get some consensus as tro what best to resolve this dispute, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss, or what? Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I want to discuss, but I'm not Speedy Gonzales. Give me a sec will ya!? NickCT (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I have had a good look at the cites you have added to support your addition and to be honest, they are very weak op eds and imo don't actually support the addition, as its a BLP and your addition is a claim that she seems to strongly deny, please explain, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2 - As I just noted on the talk page, this topic was discussed previously, and a range of citations were offered. Suggest we contain further discussion to the article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but previous consensus does not alter the fact that I have investigated your disputed addition and the cites you have added to support your addition do not imo support your claim? that has nothing to do with any previous consensus? Would you either, add a citation that actually supports your addition or remove it, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I have removed your addition it is imo uncited and unattributed in the presented addition, and imo was a BLP violation. please present any additional desired similar additions on the talkpage please, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your investigation doesn't trump the previous investigation on which consensus was based. I suggest we stick with the consensus version until such point that we agree on new language. Furthermore, I re-suggest we contain this discussion to the article talk page. NickCT (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion rules

Remember that anyone can remove a proposed deletion tag. If they do, you need to send the article to AfD, not revert the tag removal. Prodego ^talk 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Woops. Apologies. I thought the tag was to indicate that the article was in AfD. Thanks for letting me know. I'll refresh my memory as to the appropriate procedure. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. AfD tags are {{afd1}} (for the article), {{afd2}} (for the AfD subpage), and {{afd3}} (for the AfD list for today). Which is something I also forgot. Cheers, Prodego ^talk 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To both of you: thanks for fixing formats -I don´t propose AFD often, so I´m not very knowledgeable about it. Thanks again, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 

edit warring at Abiogenic petroleum origin

See Template:uw-3rr, I assume that you already know the rules about edit warring. I also warned Beefman. Stop reverting every time you reply in the talk page, you aren't even giving him time to reply. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Geller

I don't see any clear consensus for your addition - and as you will see, your addition immediately started attracting objections and reverts affecting the articles stability. I reverted back to the stable version - I suggest you just take it off your watchlist if you are unable to stop wanting to label her with weak and opinionated claims. You surly realize that inserting one sides POV in the lede of a living person will do nothing apart from bring the other side to balance the article back up, clearly you have an opinion about this living person and want the article to reflect that, but when you insert that into the article the other side just come to balance the article back up - that is disruptive to the article, disruptive to the wikipedia. This is why we need to write in an uninvolved manner about such divisive people - Many people support the park51 mosque and so want to denigrate Geller - we should be above that - the lede that is there is fine, npov and does not try to hang either sides label on her, which is what we are here to do - I don't know your position, I can only look at your edit history, if you are involved or opinionated about her then don't edit the article is the best option. Off2riorob (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob - Off2, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye here. My position, as I've stated over-and-over is that a HUGE HUGE slew of high-quality, mainstream RSs have identified this woman as being anti-Muslim. It's not like I'm only reflecting opinions offered in Media Matters or some other liberal outlet. How many RSs do I have to supply before you accept that maybe this "POV" I'm putting into the lead is widely held and notable? Frankly, I thought the language we'd arrived at was a good compromise. We weren't making an explicit statement. We were simply noting the huge amount of content out there that espoused this view point.

I don't think consensus was obvious on the talk page, but I think a clear majority of editor supported my opinion. Obviously you won't accept that, and so we move further down WP:DR..... NickCT (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Is instability from a likely sock really instability? NickCT (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this guy. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Miesianiacal is basically a single-issue wikipedia user. Under a variety of names (he used to edit as G2bambino and other similar names) he's basically made it his mission to insist on awkward phraseology about commonwealth realms in every article where Elizabeth II is mentioned. Hyper-legalism is the watchword here, and my sense is that the basic motive is some sort of idea that this serves the cause of Canadian monarchism. I don't think it has much to do with glorifying Elizabeth II as ruler of the whole world. It has more to do with the idea that, in Mies's mind, if Elizabeth II is viewed as mostly British, that somehow means Canaa isn't truly independent, and he believes that the cause of Canadian monarchy requires the propagation of the idea that Elizabeth II is just as much Canadian as British. (See Talk:Time Person of the Year for some particularly ridiculous discussion on this point...)

Debating with him is an endless black hole; I mostly continue to do so in the hope that other people coming across the debates will realize how bankrupt his arguments are and provide more support for a sensible policy in this regard. It doesn't seem to work.

I'm not sure I really understand the mindset of the non-Miesianiacal people whose support is necessary to insure the continuation of his desired goals for articles. Some of these people, I think, basically don't know much about the issue and find Miesianiacal's arguments superficially convincing - he's the one making seemingly simple arguments about fairness and equality, while we are making somewhat harder to follow arguments about using basic common sense and judgment. But really, I don't get it either. There's so much nonsense in the "support current votes" that it's hard to know where to start. There's complete non sequiturs:

The Crowns were created equally to each other, so each realm must be represented equally.

There's complete failure to even engage with the issue:

I imagine this is a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

. There's completely false statements about history:

Can you point to another case (apart from her predecessors) where a monarch reigns in not one but 16 countries? This is historically unprecedented.

There's tendentious google searches:

And, additionally, a Google search for "queen elizabeth ii united kingdom" gives less results than one for "queen elizabeth ii australia" or "queen elizabeth ii canada".

There is demanding sources for blatantly obvious facts:

To state that the Queen spends more time in the UK - and then that makes her more Queen of the UK (And therefore the only realm worthy of mention) is a POV, even if that is fact (BTW where is the source on this please?)

I really don't know what to make of it. Virtually all of the arguments are full of straw men, saying that because we say that it is more important that Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK, that means that we are saying that she is somehow "more" queen of the UK. All of the arguments also seem to take for granted that wikipedia articles are completely incapable not just of making judgment calls as to what to summarize and what to lay out explicitly, but that we are not even allowed to follow the model of what reliable sources summarize and lay out explicitly. It's all special pleading, and for a cause that I don't think even really exists outside of Wikipedia. The whole thing has been, intermittently, one of the great banes of my wikipedia existence for several years now, and it doesn't show any signs of improvement, if this discussion is any guide. john k (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR on Park51

You are edit warring on Park51, and you know all about 3RR so I have a mind to report you without a waring but take this as a warning anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever read WP:HOUND? Seriously Off2. Go away.

Please don't make empty threats. If you want to report me, go ahead and do so. NickCT (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not an empty threat, believe me. You have had your warning, you have four reverts there, stop your warring. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignored... NickCT (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignore whatever you want but I will add your warring at Park51 to the Geller discussion, such connected editing is clearly relevant. Off2riorob (talk)

Ignored... NickCT (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - 3RRNB

Here I reported your editing at Park51 to the edit warring noticeboard, thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NickCT_reported_by_User:Off2riorob_.28Result:_.29 Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Image

The image is non-free (that has never been in dispute) and so must appear alongside critical commentary. There is no real way to build consensus - but if you want to try to do so I'd be happy to comment. I think it would have to be on [{WT:NFCC]] because this is a policy issue and we can't really overrule it at article level. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite the exact policy and wording that supports "so must appear alongside critical commentary"? NickCT (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting we are using NFCC to remove an image because we think it violates WP:MUG is unfair and demonstrably untrue! I can only speak for me but the image has multiple serious problems; I was just addressing the immediate/most problematic one. Have a little good faith :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was talking about ActiveB more than you. But dude, you have yet to tell me how you support "so must appear alongside critical commentary". Can you point to exactly what language in WP:NFCC supports that statement? NickCT (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to snap - but still, best not to ascribe motives unless the rationale is totally invalid :D r.e. the NFCC; I thought I had demonstrated that apologies; you have to provide a valid "Fair Use Rationale" to use the image. The fair use in this case is to highlight critical commentary. You have to use the image in the way specified as fair use, not doing so is not fair use :) Hence it must appear next to the critical commentary that the fair use rationale is discussing (as a community we generally require fairly specific FUR). I did pre-empt the deletion discussion closing which was a a bit of a mistake but I assumed that because Sandstein had added critical commentary we were paving the way to make this change), but I think it is clear that "to visually identify the subject" is invalid FUR in a BLP article. BTW if you want to get more detail on the policy the editors at WT:NFCC or WT:NFC are usually pretty helpful and experienced in how we treat NFC. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Beginning to see your rationale. But can you point for me to the policy that says "an image used to highlight critical commentary" must exist next to that critical commentary?

And no hard feelings by the way. Frankly, I think WP:MUG would probably be a legitimate reason to do away with this image. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I guess WP:COMMONSENSE :) I agree, it is not explicitly said anywhere that the image must be used in the way detailed in its fair use criteria; but, honestly, I think that is because it is supposed to be obvious. I guess it could be possible to interpret the phrase "to highlight critical commentary" in different ways but not, I feel, to the extent that the image could be placed anywhere in the article. And, besides, NFCC #10 asks for clear and specific FUR so if there is ambiguity I guess policy asks us to be more specific. At least; that is how I have been lead to understand the policies based on other editors (and I agree with it). --Errant ^(chat!) 18:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well look. Typically I'm against WP:NFCC deletion arguments. And I think you were a little aggressive in moving the image without some kind of consensus; on the other hand, I'm not overly familiar with copyright issue, so I'm going to back-off this conversation for now. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough (Fair use enough?). Point taken about the suddeness of the move and the inadequate epxplanation. Cheers --Errant ^(chat!) 18:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've cleared two backlogs at two different noticeboards this evening and at both I've bumped into you involved in two separate edit wars. I'm sure you know the rules, so I want patronise you by templating you, but allow me to advise you that getting into edit wars is unwise and usually unnecessary. Sometimes it's better to leave the "wrong version" while things are discussed on the talk apge rather than escalating things by repeated reverting. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to remind you that you don't have to cross the bright line to get a block, but hopefully that won't be necessary. Just... try to avoid getting into a third edit war in one day. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mitchell. Thanks for the warning. If you look at the merits of cases though you might note that there were mitigating circumstances. I think I only contributed one revert to that second edit war you're referring to. Then I reported the war to get the page protected. Does that really make me a participant in the war? Regardless, thanks for all the hard work keeping up with RfPP and EWarring. NickCT (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

If someone is quoted directly here, is this considered a source by Wikipedia standards? Thanks. Can you kindly elaborate?

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0182.htm Unitrin (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

@Unitrin - Sorry. A little confused. You want to use this as a source for the Al Durrah article? If so, I suggest you go to Talk:Al Durrah and discuss there. You might also mention what fact you want to use "israelinsider" to reference. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As explained to you already, the main issues here are WP:BLPCAT, WP:OC#CATGRS, WP:EGRS, and really just WP:BLP in general, which frowns on (among other things) yellow badging people. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayg - Are we discussing the Pamela Geller article here? NickCT (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Esther Schapira. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Esther Schapira. She did two documentaries on a subject related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she stated that she's Jewish herself, it's properly sourced, there's no controversy.Unitrin (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Little confused why you are consulting me. I'm only vaguely familiar with Al Durrah. @Unitrin, are you trying to use the source to state that she is Jewish? If not, what are you trying to draw from the source? NickCT (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)