![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Tl;dr. You have graduated from disruptive editing to serial sock puppetry. The only way you can be allowed to edit again is to request unblocking from your original account. Favonian ( talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How can an edit be vandalism if the information provided is correct, verifiable, and to insult Wikipedia, a provided fact by simply looking at Wikipedia. On the Mad Max entry it is clearly stated that the movie was not filmed in New South Wales, Australia. It was filmed in Victoria. When viewing information concerning Stockton Beach it is claimed by "AussieLegend" that Mad Max was filmed in New South Wales. Why is it a Wikipedia volunteer can ban a member of the public who does not have the technical ability to edit to the standards of Wikipedia. It's not vandalism if I try to correct information that can be sourced from Wikipedia. A human being who wishes to improve the knowledge of others would have simply checked the information for themselves and entered the correct information on the contributors behalf. Seems we have a case of discrimination concerning people who cannot understand the rules and methods of Wikipedia. On the issue of Tin City, another subject provided in connection with Stockton Beach, there is no factual records concerning this settlement. Anybody can go to the National Archives of Australia website and search military/government records that will not provide any reference to a military base on Stockton Beach. Therefore Tin City could not have been demolished for the creation of a military base. If you take the time to do some research though you will find written records concerning the demolition of a depression/unemployment camp at Newcastle, South of Stockton Beach, that was demolished for a military camp and has newspaper, government verifiable sources that has been used in books printed on the subject of the depression era. Tin City only became public record, through newspaper records, about 10 or so years back when a the proposal for a National Park threatened to evict the residents There are not even 11 shacks there today but about 5. Check Google Earth. If you think correcting the number of shacks might be trivial why is it I cannot state that the Sygna, a wreck on Stockton Beach, was actually re floated twice in reference to the stern. By including the fact that the stern section was in fact sunk by the salvage company it clearly indicates that the Sygna wreck, viewed today, was not a result of nature but of the greed of the Unions and their members. The tug and salvage companies clearly wanted to recover the stern section after it's refloating but the union members withdrew their services. This information can be found in online newspapers. It's up to you as a member of Wikipedia to assist the public in providing facts rather than attitudes of volunteers that play god by choosing what is relevant to "his web site" that carries the Wikipedia name. There appears to be a huge conflict of interest as the information I am trying to edit has been provided by Aussielegend. It appears he does not want to allow any information to be included that is not his own. I really have no concern as to the future of Wikipedia but you should acknowledge the simple fact that without good costumer service and a product that comes with a "warranty" you have no customers. What you currently have is a "customer" who has the involuntary ability to sign up to use Wikipedia and the simply enter a simple "virus" that will block the general public from editing from that computer. The virus is as follows... Type in "Mad Max was not filmed at Stockton Beach." Aussielegend will then ban that computer regardless of the fact that it is owned by a school, public library, university or privately. This effectively goes against wikipedias aims of free information. So I ask ..... Who is the vandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.34.148 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Is there a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.181.5 ( talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Favonian. I was wondering if you could assist me with the protection on the Streisand effect article as you seem to have been the last user to edit the protections to the article. Specifically, I was wondering if you could set the Visibility parameter to enable instead of disable? I ask since the protection occurred due to what seems to be edit wars on the article instead of anything on the Feedback Page. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
Please review the recent edits of User:Max Wichniz whom this dif shows has created a fake member of the Imperial House of Austria-Este, whom he calls Anton Karl Ludwig Georg Felix of Austria-Este, and he has deleted notices to stop this vandalism and has restored the false information both to that article (which needs to be speedied) and to several other articles. He has created a new account which is entirely devoted to inserting this fake person in Wikipedia articles. Thank you. FactStraight ( talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The IP ( Special:Contributions/122.162.129.154) you just blocked for personal attacks (they also engaged in vandalism) has also been editing yesterday as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.30 - both target the Cinema of India and Stanley Caine articles, vandalizing edits to those pages are pretty much identical. In any case, they have now returned as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.246. Would a range-block be possible? AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear sir can you tell me that how we can add the page of any organization not for promotion only for existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samworld999 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The article should be about the musician. Nobody ever refers to cotton swabs as a q-tip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadji87 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? An IP has decided to removed references and referenced information from the article since it supports "Persian" ethnicity. [1] [2] Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am one of the two users involved in the edit war in the article " Italians". Days ago the user Enok changed the incipit without consensus. Moreover the incipit he changed was based on a reliable source (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi, an important Italian encyclopaedia) that says Italians are also a nation as well as an ethnic group. Enok says instead that they are only an ethnic group without providing any reliable source (he showed in the talk page, an original work and a popular legend as sources). After a long discussion I found three further reliable sources that say Italians are also a nation. Here are links: Treccani.it - Miti e simboli della rivoluzione nazionale (Italian); Department of Political Science, Stanford University: Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country, James D. Fearon; Wordology.com - Italy/Italians: Development of a Nation How Italy became Italy, and how the Italians became Italians.. Could you tell me what do you think? Are they reliable enough? These sources would be added to the current one (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi). Recently I've also noticed that the user Enok also changed the Italian translation of "Italians" putting it in brackets and removing the capital letter while in similar articles (i.e. French People) the translation in the original language is not in brackets and starts with capital letter. Finally I would like to ask you if it's ordinary that a user changes all edits you did, also in different articles, as Enok did with me, because according to me it seems almost a way to intimidate other users. Thank you in advance. -- 93.32.133.235 ( talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for temporarily blocking /info/en/?search=User:Themagician123456. This user keeps vandalizing the page of at least one musician he/she does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalaMadrid1972 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You have failed to beat ClueBot NG, try harder! ~~Junvfr <~_~> ( talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
You should see what's going on in this sockpuppet investigation, as well as this discussion. This vandal is back, after a 4-month Rangeblock, and his isn't giving up. He's creating new socks every day, and I think that we are almost out of options. Can you please help? LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this editor. I've just reverted almost all his contributions. [3] He even changed a quotation. Dougweller ( talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Golden Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC) |
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just warned a user for vandalism, and after some time (after he vandalised some more) you further warned and blocked him.
So, I was wondering, what steps can I take to make sure a user stops vandalising? I can warn, yes, but am I allowed to give the "final" warning? Also, how can I make sure an admin knows that a user needs to be dealt with? - Moony22 ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, you might be insterested in 95.151.41.140 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and [4]. It looks like they resumed their activity again once more another time some more, so to speak. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
And here we go again:
There are IPs changing the ethnicity of this individual without engaging in discussion, again. Would you be interested in protecting this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.196 ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, why did you delete 24,578 bytes in the articke about Central Europe?-- 80.53.5.108 ( talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Favonian,
I see you added a barnstar to my page as a sockpuppet and then reverted it through your main account. Not saying you are a sock master, but who added the barnstar? I want to know. I will not report you to SPI as the account may be hacked or not even yours. I just want to help. Titus Fox 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what to do. Too much collateral damage for a range block, Callanec suggest sp. What do you think? I've been attacked as an Arab supremacist and pro-Semitic today, so I'm obviously balanced. Dougweller ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the latest edits and making it protected. However, the page still contains incorrect information. This has been going on for some time and I don't have the time to repeatedly correct it.
For example:
"He was appointed dean by the provost in March of 2011 to facilitate the transfer of the Department of Computer Science out of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences and into the College of Engineering.[8]" This sentence is written to show that the reason for his appointment was only to do the transfer. However, the reference does not say that at all. It just says that he did the transfer. And the sentence tries to undermine his capabilities.
"He generated controversy with the firings of several people, including the Assistant Dean and non-faculty personnel who worked under Professor Greg Auner.[11]" The reference does not say anything about the assistant dean!
"After the firings, Fotouhi started a construction project to renovate and enlarge the Dean's Office.[11]" The reference does not say that at all!
And even if all these were corrected, the article has been edited in a way to show that most his contribution at Wayne State are negative; there is a whole paragraph about a paper article [11] in there, and half the truth in that article is not mentioned; the part that is about the problems with the people who were fired. There are a lot of positive things going on under his management, and one has to put all that in here if someone wants to give a clear picture.
I don't think Wikipedia should be place that former employees could take revenge from their managers. I was Dr.Fotouhi's former student a few years ago and created this page for him out of respect, and I know he is a great man. He has made many positive changes in the CS department and I know he is doing the same at the college. However, I do not have the time to deal with all these repeated revenge edits. I appreciate if you just delete the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobeir f ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Favonian
it's about the
Italians article again. After your block, a consensus has been reached on the form of the lead. One of the users who was involved in this edit war is starting now to change the lead again (and also other parts of the article): I reverted him twice, telling him to go to the talk page and explaining his changes there, but he keeps reverting and plays the dumb with me (see his comments). I don't want to be involved in a edit war, so I am asking to fully protect the article in its original state for a while, so that this user is forced to explain his changes on the talk page. Thanks,
Alex2006 (
talk)
10:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, I noticed you do anti-vandalism too. You have more experience, and I'd need some advice on this one. With my Twiki I thought to revert vandalism (albeit not a very clear cut case) on Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli; later on I got notified it had been reverted (IP). Now that I am reading the added text again, I am just doubting so-so if this is now to be considered vandalism (or just bad English), or not? The diff version starts here [10]. I guess it is not blatant vandalism but citing a Facebook post isn't very encyclopedic? This is not just some sneaky commercial for that movie, right? Please let me know what you think (I haven't rolled back this time). Thanks. Poepkop ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I note SZakir's recent unhelpful response to you on his talk page along with his continuing poor editing behaviour. I wonder whether he is also using a sock, i.e. Cleopetra111?? Their editing behaviour (e.g. removing pictures without any explanation and repeated attempts to make the same edits to an article like Saladin despite numerous reverts by other editors) suggests that SZakir and Cleopetra111 could be the same person? Regards -- Chewings72 ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To make correction of the wrong & damage already done for years via Wiki is disruptive editing or what? Don't know the spelling of Allah? Hell with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleopetra111 ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I can prove Crystal was married with wedding pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcedcorrectly ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Favonian, I thank you for letting me pass the Joan of Arc test by not reverting my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=598180142&oldid=598130011 :)
Merci beaucoup & cordialement, -- 90.2.113.193 ( talk) 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? User:Akocsg continues to add POV wording to emphasize the Turkic ethnicity since the Persian ethnicity has only one reference. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit on the IP's page. I have a feeling that you'll probably have to keep a close eye on the talk page for Belle Knox. Despite repeatedly stating on the page why we cannot use what the media is reporting as Knox's real name, people keep trying to re-add it. I honestly think that it's their way of trying to harass her on Wikipedia. I'm undecided as to whether the page should remain or be deleted, but this sort of thing does make me somewhat want to delete it until the kids move on to the next person to harass. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Ankireddyavinash ( talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Double Helical gears differ from Herringbone gears. Double helical gears have groove in between two half gears. Herringbone gears doesn't have any groove in between . Image which is provided in Wiki is of Herring bone gear and not of double helical gear.
Thank you.
Ankireddyavinash ( talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you protect the Ayyubids article? An IP continues to change the referenced Kurdish information to Turkish. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, sorry to bother once more (I will not do this every week :-); I hope you have some time to look at this case, the Feylis page. I do not know how to fix the problems of combined edit warring with a clear cut case of copyvio. Point by point (against the background of continuously rolling back and forth of Article version): Oct 21 User:علی_ساکی_لرستانی edits Article injecting copyvio-material (text only) (diff= [11]); Oct 30 User receives note on his ( User_talk:علی_ساکی_لرستانی)about copyvio problem (note still there, directly above header "February 2014"); Nov 10-17 Article is editlocked; Feb 18 User gets second cv-warning on his Usertalk page [12], this time he removes the message, on Feb 20 (i.e. the current version, see History too) which means he read it. Feb 19-22 a second Article editlock; Feb25/26/27/March1 edit warring may seem to continue. Copyvio material is taken from this non-WP-related web page in the USA [13], it is plain copypaste work (one or two lines with references only are deleted, the remaining text is identical). The copyvio material is to be found (in the versions from User) in the 2nd half of the Article introduction (and above the contents box), and, below the contents box (the “Bibliography”, for some reason in the middle of the Article?). User keeps on rolling back to the copyvio-version of the article, which is surprising after 2 copyvio notes on his UserTalkpage, I must say.
Please also see the most recent additions to Talk:Feylis regarding the edit warring and a copyvio warning, and the Article content, with my and User:Avicenna’s comments. User does not seem to want to communicate since the 2nd editblock (given his “pushing it through”-behaviour perhaps not really a surprise) (He added something to the Article Talkpage before, so he sure knows where to find it). The last remark of User in this Usertalk (last entry) does not make me feel very positive about User's future constructive contributions to this Article (or to related articles, for that matter).
To make it more complicated please note: I rolled User back 3 times on Feb16, and warned him for something he did not do: I accused him of deleting a couple of sentences with reliable citations about persecution of Feylis, but then I saw he only moved those within the article, I overlooked it in the diff view (that is what I apologised for below his level4 warning on his talkpage).
Maybe you could have a look at it and see what prevails, another page block and/or a user block, and for how long, or still something else? I have a slight suspicion but cannot verify he used sockpuppets too (last 3 IP changes, see geolocate function).
PS - Note that all other contribs he made to some related pages ( [14], [15], [16], [17]) have since been undone (see their Histories) (He/she seems to have a problem with "kurds"). Apart from that, the most recent change by User on Feylis involves the removal of a recently added reliable and verifiable source, so I do not know what this User is now up to except, indeed, trolling (and ignoring the copyvio warnings over and over)?
Oh well. Please do have a look. Thanks a lot, Poepkop ( talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please can you look over this article and the last message on my talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For blocking a pesty school IP. Bearian ( talk) 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for the colors! Blocking school IPs is one of the more tedious, though apparently necessary, chores in this job. Favonian ( talk) 21:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, it appears problem page Feylis sees the return of the vandal/puppeteer/copyviolator once more (2 IP rollbacks within 24 hours), see also above under User_talk:Favonian#Problem_Page.. Looks like exactly the same, rolling back, no comments on talk page for seeking consensus, weird (and unverifiable anyways) edit comments on last one (diff here [20]), destruction of previously functional links to external sources, removal of merge request on top of page, copyvio, etc all as before. The edit comment in the diff seems to admit the IP is indeed our Ali. ? Poepkop ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Rock8113 ( talk · contribs) says he is doing a school project where he has to insert his teacher's name in an article. [24]. I guess I should mention this elsewhere 0 if I can find the page for schools projects! Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Favonian, I was wondering if you could check this out, please... and with the previous article move that you made with Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song)), might you be able to move Heat Wave (Motown song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Motown song)) to Heat Wave (Martha and the Vandellas song), as you already know about all these titles and what's been going on with all of them, anyway! Thanks. Best,-- Discographer ( talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thus spoke Zatathustra - about the link I tried to publish in the article -- these painting were published by Russian Accademy of Science, the title of the publication in Friedrich Nietzsche Also sprach Zarathustra in two languages(German and Russian) with 20 reproductions of Lena Hades' works ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Favonian
Sorry to disturb you, but there has been an outburst of Edit war on the
Italians article, always thanks to the same user, and his habit to refuse to get the point and refuse dialog. Now I asked temporary full protection for the article and, moreover, also a third opinion, always hoping that he goes to the talk page. If this won`t take anywhere, what is better: opening a procedure for breaching 3RR, or an incident? Maybe you can have a look to the history of the article and give your opinion. Thanks,
Alex2006 (
talk)
05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please review your Move of the article, "German Shepherd Dog" to "German Shepherd"
|
---|
The WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force recommends, "The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries." The Template:Infobox_dog_breed requires the "name" parameter to be the "Breed name as in article title". In the case of the German Shepherd Dog article, the name in the infobox has recently been changed to match the title of article which unfortunately is not the breed name. That "name" parameter is now equivalent to the "alternative name" parameter in the infobox. Apart from anything else, there would be less confusion if the article's title was the official breed-name. The Move was proposed by SMcCandlish, and I don't see that any editors of the article were involved in the discussion to re-title (Move) the article. Anyone with more that a fleeting interest in the actual topic of the article, as opposed to a mere interest in the naming of articles, would be aware of the breed's official name. A supporter of the Move, Kauffner, appears to have been surprised to find that the The American Kennel Club uses "German Shepherd Dog", and concludes that the name (of the article?) was not as silly as first thought. I am not aware of any English-speaking Kennel Club or Specialist Breed Club that doesn't use the breed-name "German Shepherd Dog". Admittedly, the Encyclopædia Britannica uses "German shepherd" in its online edition. Similarly, the Encyclopædia uses that wording in its hard copy (1985 edition) in its Micropædia volumes. However, it does list the breed as the "German Shepherd Dog" in its Macropædia volumes. I have the 2000 edition of "German Shepherds for Dummies" whose first statement is "Everybody thinks they know the German Shepherd Dog (commonly referred to as the German Shepherd)". I also have a quantity of books widely regarded to be authoritative on the subject - all of which use the full breed-name in their titles. To explain why the German founders of the breed, and the officials of English-speaking Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs who subsequently adopted a direct translation of the original breed-name, used the words "German Shepherd Dog" would require further research. However, as a contributor to the "Origins" section of the article, it is clear that German shepherds played a very important part in the development of the breed. The need for disambiguation is unequivocal from an historical point of view. Regardless of the breed's common names or the most common search terms used to find the article (which proves nothing), there is a strong argument that the title of the article should comply with the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force. It would also be reassuring to know that those genuinely seeking knowledge of the breed are correctly informed. I am unable to find any documentation about other Requested Moves for the article and assume that the article was created under the title "German Shepherd Dog" on 1 September 2002. Almost ten years later you changed the title to that which has stood for almost two years now. I believe the reinstatement of the original title is well overdue. My arguments extend to those articles about other "Shepherd Dogs" whose titles were also changed. 49.181.236.140 ( talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing your decision to Move (re-title) the article. I don't see a consensus unless you mean consensus by absence of opposition to the Move. In the archive you have posted on the article's Talk page, I see a discussion of 1078 words over a twenty-four hour period with four participants. (A later contribution to the discussion, providing a statistical analysis of sorts, claims to be in support of the Move.) Outside of that discussion there is clear opposition to the Move's proposer. The proposer and supporters of the Move do not seem to have been aware of the most commonly used breed-name in the English-speaking world, and would appear to have assumed that the word "Dog" was simply tacked on for no justifiable reason. They are wrong as has been brought to their attention - alas, to no avail. In closing the Requested Move, you were expected to be familiar with the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere, which reflect the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community, and not just the preferences of a tiny fraction of users who might wish to eliminate the words "dog", "horse", etc from official breed-names simply because they find those words redundant in most cases. The recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force reflect the greater desires of the Wikipedia community. At the least, the titles of articles falling under the WikiProject umbrella would be consistent if the breed-names of the various "Shepherd Dogs" were re-instated as required. Of course a similar argument continued over decades with the German Shepherd Dog in the UK. The difference there is that the breed-name was at first given an inappropriate title which was then hard to "move". In the present case, you have changed the title from the breed-name to something else, apparently believing the arguments of two or three users. The Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names is qualified by the need to determine the name by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Such sources would include the writings of the founders and promotors of the specific breed, the names and writings of the national kennel clubs and breed clubs (including the Breed Standards), the writings of notable specialised-breed-judges, breeders and trainers, etc, not newspaper headlines, search-engine terms, titles used by publishers of very general book-series, etc. If you believe the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force contravene broader Wikipedia policies, you should notify the WikiProject and state clearly which particular policy is being violated and how. I was fairly satisfied to ignore the incorrect title as it has stood for the past couple of years. The proposer of the Move seemed hell-bent on having such titles. However, as the infobox in the article about the German Shepherd Dog has now been altered such that the article's title and the name of the infobox now match the alternative name in the infobox, it became very obvious that compliance with the WikiProject's recommendations is the only way to avoid confusion. If you do not see that point, please let me know and I'll try to put another way. 49.181.236.148 ( talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was referring to a Requested Move of which you were the closer. When I said "absence of opposition", I meant absence of opposition to the Requested Move, and, it appears to me that that absence of opposition is what you have used to determine consensus, ignoring the wider Wikipedia community's consensus as reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. I have presumed that the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects reflect a greater consensus than the two or three users who proposed and supported the Requested Move. The arguments of those who proposed and supported the Requested Move are clearly marked "Support". You appear to state the opposite, claiming that arguments against the Requested Move were clearly marked "Support", in which case you are wrong. The archive you have posted on the article's Talk page shows that the body of the discussion ran from 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) until 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC) with almost half the word-count being that of the proposer. As I said earlier, there was also a later brief contribution to the discussion which claimed to provide a statistical analysis of sorts in support of the Requested Move. As the closer of the Requested Move, you are the person responsible for changing the title of the article from the Breed-name to something else which brings you into conflict with the relevant WikiProjects. You are also the person with whom I must discuss the matter before requesting a Move Review. That's simply the procedure! If you insist that I register an account in order to continue this discussion, you will be falling foul of other Wikipedia policies, so I suggest you keep your recommendations and arguments in that regard to yourself. As an administrator, you should keep in mind that you are in a privileged position, especially in relation to normal users like me, and it would be extremely disheartening to see that position abused. 49.181.236.149 ( talk) 14:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In summary: Over a twenty-four hour period, two or three users proposed and supported the Requested Move of the article, "German Shepherd Dog", to "German Shepherd". Another user later contributed a statistical analysis of sorts claiming it to be in support of the requested move. No-one has disputed that the discussion was open for less than the required time before being closed. At the time, you were aware that the relevant WikiProject recommends that the article's title be the breed-name. The proposer disputed that "German Shepherd Dog" was the proper name of the breed, and, simultaneously requested that the article (and other similar articles) be re-titled by effecting a Move. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=478916318). A supporter of the Move later did some research and was surprised to find that the official breed-name used by the American Kennel Club was "German Shepherd Dog". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=479096222) In preference to two or three users, you disregarded the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects and effected the Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.146 ( talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 49.181.236.146 ( talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Tl;dr. You have graduated from disruptive editing to serial sock puppetry. The only way you can be allowed to edit again is to request unblocking from your original account. Favonian ( talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How can an edit be vandalism if the information provided is correct, verifiable, and to insult Wikipedia, a provided fact by simply looking at Wikipedia. On the Mad Max entry it is clearly stated that the movie was not filmed in New South Wales, Australia. It was filmed in Victoria. When viewing information concerning Stockton Beach it is claimed by "AussieLegend" that Mad Max was filmed in New South Wales. Why is it a Wikipedia volunteer can ban a member of the public who does not have the technical ability to edit to the standards of Wikipedia. It's not vandalism if I try to correct information that can be sourced from Wikipedia. A human being who wishes to improve the knowledge of others would have simply checked the information for themselves and entered the correct information on the contributors behalf. Seems we have a case of discrimination concerning people who cannot understand the rules and methods of Wikipedia. On the issue of Tin City, another subject provided in connection with Stockton Beach, there is no factual records concerning this settlement. Anybody can go to the National Archives of Australia website and search military/government records that will not provide any reference to a military base on Stockton Beach. Therefore Tin City could not have been demolished for the creation of a military base. If you take the time to do some research though you will find written records concerning the demolition of a depression/unemployment camp at Newcastle, South of Stockton Beach, that was demolished for a military camp and has newspaper, government verifiable sources that has been used in books printed on the subject of the depression era. Tin City only became public record, through newspaper records, about 10 or so years back when a the proposal for a National Park threatened to evict the residents There are not even 11 shacks there today but about 5. Check Google Earth. If you think correcting the number of shacks might be trivial why is it I cannot state that the Sygna, a wreck on Stockton Beach, was actually re floated twice in reference to the stern. By including the fact that the stern section was in fact sunk by the salvage company it clearly indicates that the Sygna wreck, viewed today, was not a result of nature but of the greed of the Unions and their members. The tug and salvage companies clearly wanted to recover the stern section after it's refloating but the union members withdrew their services. This information can be found in online newspapers. It's up to you as a member of Wikipedia to assist the public in providing facts rather than attitudes of volunteers that play god by choosing what is relevant to "his web site" that carries the Wikipedia name. There appears to be a huge conflict of interest as the information I am trying to edit has been provided by Aussielegend. It appears he does not want to allow any information to be included that is not his own. I really have no concern as to the future of Wikipedia but you should acknowledge the simple fact that without good costumer service and a product that comes with a "warranty" you have no customers. What you currently have is a "customer" who has the involuntary ability to sign up to use Wikipedia and the simply enter a simple "virus" that will block the general public from editing from that computer. The virus is as follows... Type in "Mad Max was not filmed at Stockton Beach." Aussielegend will then ban that computer regardless of the fact that it is owned by a school, public library, university or privately. This effectively goes against wikipedias aims of free information. So I ask ..... Who is the vandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.34.148 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Is there a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.181.5 ( talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Favonian. I was wondering if you could assist me with the protection on the Streisand effect article as you seem to have been the last user to edit the protections to the article. Specifically, I was wondering if you could set the Visibility parameter to enable instead of disable? I ask since the protection occurred due to what seems to be edit wars on the article instead of anything on the Feedback Page. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
Please review the recent edits of User:Max Wichniz whom this dif shows has created a fake member of the Imperial House of Austria-Este, whom he calls Anton Karl Ludwig Georg Felix of Austria-Este, and he has deleted notices to stop this vandalism and has restored the false information both to that article (which needs to be speedied) and to several other articles. He has created a new account which is entirely devoted to inserting this fake person in Wikipedia articles. Thank you. FactStraight ( talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The IP ( Special:Contributions/122.162.129.154) you just blocked for personal attacks (they also engaged in vandalism) has also been editing yesterday as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.30 - both target the Cinema of India and Stanley Caine articles, vandalizing edits to those pages are pretty much identical. In any case, they have now returned as Special:Contributions/122.162.174.246. Would a range-block be possible? AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear sir can you tell me that how we can add the page of any organization not for promotion only for existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samworld999 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The article should be about the musician. Nobody ever refers to cotton swabs as a q-tip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadji87 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? An IP has decided to removed references and referenced information from the article since it supports "Persian" ethnicity. [1] [2] Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am one of the two users involved in the edit war in the article " Italians". Days ago the user Enok changed the incipit without consensus. Moreover the incipit he changed was based on a reliable source (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi, an important Italian encyclopaedia) that says Italians are also a nation as well as an ethnic group. Enok says instead that they are only an ethnic group without providing any reliable source (he showed in the talk page, an original work and a popular legend as sources). After a long discussion I found three further reliable sources that say Italians are also a nation. Here are links: Treccani.it - Miti e simboli della rivoluzione nazionale (Italian); Department of Political Science, Stanford University: Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country, James D. Fearon; Wordology.com - Italy/Italians: Development of a Nation How Italy became Italy, and how the Italians became Italians.. Could you tell me what do you think? Are they reliable enough? These sources would be added to the current one (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi). Recently I've also noticed that the user Enok also changed the Italian translation of "Italians" putting it in brackets and removing the capital letter while in similar articles (i.e. French People) the translation in the original language is not in brackets and starts with capital letter. Finally I would like to ask you if it's ordinary that a user changes all edits you did, also in different articles, as Enok did with me, because according to me it seems almost a way to intimidate other users. Thank you in advance. -- 93.32.133.235 ( talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for temporarily blocking /info/en/?search=User:Themagician123456. This user keeps vandalizing the page of at least one musician he/she does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalaMadrid1972 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You have failed to beat ClueBot NG, try harder! ~~Junvfr <~_~> ( talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
You should see what's going on in this sockpuppet investigation, as well as this discussion. This vandal is back, after a 4-month Rangeblock, and his isn't giving up. He's creating new socks every day, and I think that we are almost out of options. Can you please help? LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this editor. I've just reverted almost all his contributions. [3] He even changed a quotation. Dougweller ( talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Golden Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC) |
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just warned a user for vandalism, and after some time (after he vandalised some more) you further warned and blocked him.
So, I was wondering, what steps can I take to make sure a user stops vandalising? I can warn, yes, but am I allowed to give the "final" warning? Also, how can I make sure an admin knows that a user needs to be dealt with? - Moony22 ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, you might be insterested in 95.151.41.140 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and [4]. It looks like they resumed their activity again once more another time some more, so to speak. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
And here we go again:
There are IPs changing the ethnicity of this individual without engaging in discussion, again. Would you be interested in protecting this article? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album) for two months? 183.171.177.196 ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, why did you delete 24,578 bytes in the articke about Central Europe?-- 80.53.5.108 ( talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Favonian,
I see you added a barnstar to my page as a sockpuppet and then reverted it through your main account. Not saying you are a sock master, but who added the barnstar? I want to know. I will not report you to SPI as the account may be hacked or not even yours. I just want to help. Titus Fox 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what to do. Too much collateral damage for a range block, Callanec suggest sp. What do you think? I've been attacked as an Arab supremacist and pro-Semitic today, so I'm obviously balanced. Dougweller ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the latest edits and making it protected. However, the page still contains incorrect information. This has been going on for some time and I don't have the time to repeatedly correct it.
For example:
"He was appointed dean by the provost in March of 2011 to facilitate the transfer of the Department of Computer Science out of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences and into the College of Engineering.[8]" This sentence is written to show that the reason for his appointment was only to do the transfer. However, the reference does not say that at all. It just says that he did the transfer. And the sentence tries to undermine his capabilities.
"He generated controversy with the firings of several people, including the Assistant Dean and non-faculty personnel who worked under Professor Greg Auner.[11]" The reference does not say anything about the assistant dean!
"After the firings, Fotouhi started a construction project to renovate and enlarge the Dean's Office.[11]" The reference does not say that at all!
And even if all these were corrected, the article has been edited in a way to show that most his contribution at Wayne State are negative; there is a whole paragraph about a paper article [11] in there, and half the truth in that article is not mentioned; the part that is about the problems with the people who were fired. There are a lot of positive things going on under his management, and one has to put all that in here if someone wants to give a clear picture.
I don't think Wikipedia should be place that former employees could take revenge from their managers. I was Dr.Fotouhi's former student a few years ago and created this page for him out of respect, and I know he is a great man. He has made many positive changes in the CS department and I know he is doing the same at the college. However, I do not have the time to deal with all these repeated revenge edits. I appreciate if you just delete the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobeir f ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Favonian
it's about the
Italians article again. After your block, a consensus has been reached on the form of the lead. One of the users who was involved in this edit war is starting now to change the lead again (and also other parts of the article): I reverted him twice, telling him to go to the talk page and explaining his changes there, but he keeps reverting and plays the dumb with me (see his comments). I don't want to be involved in a edit war, so I am asking to fully protect the article in its original state for a while, so that this user is forced to explain his changes on the talk page. Thanks,
Alex2006 (
talk)
10:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, I noticed you do anti-vandalism too. You have more experience, and I'd need some advice on this one. With my Twiki I thought to revert vandalism (albeit not a very clear cut case) on Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli; later on I got notified it had been reverted (IP). Now that I am reading the added text again, I am just doubting so-so if this is now to be considered vandalism (or just bad English), or not? The diff version starts here [10]. I guess it is not blatant vandalism but citing a Facebook post isn't very encyclopedic? This is not just some sneaky commercial for that movie, right? Please let me know what you think (I haven't rolled back this time). Thanks. Poepkop ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I note SZakir's recent unhelpful response to you on his talk page along with his continuing poor editing behaviour. I wonder whether he is also using a sock, i.e. Cleopetra111?? Their editing behaviour (e.g. removing pictures without any explanation and repeated attempts to make the same edits to an article like Saladin despite numerous reverts by other editors) suggests that SZakir and Cleopetra111 could be the same person? Regards -- Chewings72 ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
To make correction of the wrong & damage already done for years via Wiki is disruptive editing or what? Don't know the spelling of Allah? Hell with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleopetra111 ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I can prove Crystal was married with wedding pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcedcorrectly ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Favonian, I thank you for letting me pass the Joan of Arc test by not reverting my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=598180142&oldid=598130011 :)
Merci beaucoup & cordialement, -- 90.2.113.193 ( talk) 23:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in protecting the Ali Qushji article? User:Akocsg continues to add POV wording to emphasize the Turkic ethnicity since the Persian ethnicity has only one reference. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit on the IP's page. I have a feeling that you'll probably have to keep a close eye on the talk page for Belle Knox. Despite repeatedly stating on the page why we cannot use what the media is reporting as Knox's real name, people keep trying to re-add it. I honestly think that it's their way of trying to harass her on Wikipedia. I'm undecided as to whether the page should remain or be deleted, but this sort of thing does make me somewhat want to delete it until the kids move on to the next person to harass. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Ankireddyavinash ( talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Double Helical gears differ from Herringbone gears. Double helical gears have groove in between two half gears. Herringbone gears doesn't have any groove in between . Image which is provided in Wiki is of Herring bone gear and not of double helical gear.
Thank you.
Ankireddyavinash ( talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you protect the Ayyubids article? An IP continues to change the referenced Kurdish information to Turkish. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, sorry to bother once more (I will not do this every week :-); I hope you have some time to look at this case, the Feylis page. I do not know how to fix the problems of combined edit warring with a clear cut case of copyvio. Point by point (against the background of continuously rolling back and forth of Article version): Oct 21 User:علی_ساکی_لرستانی edits Article injecting copyvio-material (text only) (diff= [11]); Oct 30 User receives note on his ( User_talk:علی_ساکی_لرستانی)about copyvio problem (note still there, directly above header "February 2014"); Nov 10-17 Article is editlocked; Feb 18 User gets second cv-warning on his Usertalk page [12], this time he removes the message, on Feb 20 (i.e. the current version, see History too) which means he read it. Feb 19-22 a second Article editlock; Feb25/26/27/March1 edit warring may seem to continue. Copyvio material is taken from this non-WP-related web page in the USA [13], it is plain copypaste work (one or two lines with references only are deleted, the remaining text is identical). The copyvio material is to be found (in the versions from User) in the 2nd half of the Article introduction (and above the contents box), and, below the contents box (the “Bibliography”, for some reason in the middle of the Article?). User keeps on rolling back to the copyvio-version of the article, which is surprising after 2 copyvio notes on his UserTalkpage, I must say.
Please also see the most recent additions to Talk:Feylis regarding the edit warring and a copyvio warning, and the Article content, with my and User:Avicenna’s comments. User does not seem to want to communicate since the 2nd editblock (given his “pushing it through”-behaviour perhaps not really a surprise) (He added something to the Article Talkpage before, so he sure knows where to find it). The last remark of User in this Usertalk (last entry) does not make me feel very positive about User's future constructive contributions to this Article (or to related articles, for that matter).
To make it more complicated please note: I rolled User back 3 times on Feb16, and warned him for something he did not do: I accused him of deleting a couple of sentences with reliable citations about persecution of Feylis, but then I saw he only moved those within the article, I overlooked it in the diff view (that is what I apologised for below his level4 warning on his talkpage).
Maybe you could have a look at it and see what prevails, another page block and/or a user block, and for how long, or still something else? I have a slight suspicion but cannot verify he used sockpuppets too (last 3 IP changes, see geolocate function).
PS - Note that all other contribs he made to some related pages ( [14], [15], [16], [17]) have since been undone (see their Histories) (He/she seems to have a problem with "kurds"). Apart from that, the most recent change by User on Feylis involves the removal of a recently added reliable and verifiable source, so I do not know what this User is now up to except, indeed, trolling (and ignoring the copyvio warnings over and over)?
Oh well. Please do have a look. Thanks a lot, Poepkop ( talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please can you look over this article and the last message on my talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For blocking a pesty school IP. Bearian ( talk) 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for the colors! Blocking school IPs is one of the more tedious, though apparently necessary, chores in this job. Favonian ( talk) 21:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian, it appears problem page Feylis sees the return of the vandal/puppeteer/copyviolator once more (2 IP rollbacks within 24 hours), see also above under User_talk:Favonian#Problem_Page.. Looks like exactly the same, rolling back, no comments on talk page for seeking consensus, weird (and unverifiable anyways) edit comments on last one (diff here [20]), destruction of previously functional links to external sources, removal of merge request on top of page, copyvio, etc all as before. The edit comment in the diff seems to admit the IP is indeed our Ali. ? Poepkop ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Rock8113 ( talk · contribs) says he is doing a school project where he has to insert his teacher's name in an article. [24]. I guess I should mention this elsewhere 0 if I can find the page for schools projects! Dougweller ( talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Favonian, I was wondering if you could check this out, please... and with the previous article move that you made with Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Irving Berlin song)), might you be able to move Heat Wave (Motown song) (see Talk:Heat Wave (Motown song)) to Heat Wave (Martha and the Vandellas song), as you already know about all these titles and what's been going on with all of them, anyway! Thanks. Best,-- Discographer ( talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thus spoke Zatathustra - about the link I tried to publish in the article -- these painting were published by Russian Accademy of Science, the title of the publication in Friedrich Nietzsche Also sprach Zarathustra in two languages(German and Russian) with 20 reproductions of Lena Hades' works ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Favonian
Sorry to disturb you, but there has been an outburst of Edit war on the
Italians article, always thanks to the same user, and his habit to refuse to get the point and refuse dialog. Now I asked temporary full protection for the article and, moreover, also a third opinion, always hoping that he goes to the talk page. If this won`t take anywhere, what is better: opening a procedure for breaching 3RR, or an incident? Maybe you can have a look to the history of the article and give your opinion. Thanks,
Alex2006 (
talk)
05:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please review your Move of the article, "German Shepherd Dog" to "German Shepherd"
|
---|
The WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force recommends, "The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries." The Template:Infobox_dog_breed requires the "name" parameter to be the "Breed name as in article title". In the case of the German Shepherd Dog article, the name in the infobox has recently been changed to match the title of article which unfortunately is not the breed name. That "name" parameter is now equivalent to the "alternative name" parameter in the infobox. Apart from anything else, there would be less confusion if the article's title was the official breed-name. The Move was proposed by SMcCandlish, and I don't see that any editors of the article were involved in the discussion to re-title (Move) the article. Anyone with more that a fleeting interest in the actual topic of the article, as opposed to a mere interest in the naming of articles, would be aware of the breed's official name. A supporter of the Move, Kauffner, appears to have been surprised to find that the The American Kennel Club uses "German Shepherd Dog", and concludes that the name (of the article?) was not as silly as first thought. I am not aware of any English-speaking Kennel Club or Specialist Breed Club that doesn't use the breed-name "German Shepherd Dog". Admittedly, the Encyclopædia Britannica uses "German shepherd" in its online edition. Similarly, the Encyclopædia uses that wording in its hard copy (1985 edition) in its Micropædia volumes. However, it does list the breed as the "German Shepherd Dog" in its Macropædia volumes. I have the 2000 edition of "German Shepherds for Dummies" whose first statement is "Everybody thinks they know the German Shepherd Dog (commonly referred to as the German Shepherd)". I also have a quantity of books widely regarded to be authoritative on the subject - all of which use the full breed-name in their titles. To explain why the German founders of the breed, and the officials of English-speaking Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs who subsequently adopted a direct translation of the original breed-name, used the words "German Shepherd Dog" would require further research. However, as a contributor to the "Origins" section of the article, it is clear that German shepherds played a very important part in the development of the breed. The need for disambiguation is unequivocal from an historical point of view. Regardless of the breed's common names or the most common search terms used to find the article (which proves nothing), there is a strong argument that the title of the article should comply with the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force. It would also be reassuring to know that those genuinely seeking knowledge of the breed are correctly informed. I am unable to find any documentation about other Requested Moves for the article and assume that the article was created under the title "German Shepherd Dog" on 1 September 2002. Almost ten years later you changed the title to that which has stood for almost two years now. I believe the reinstatement of the original title is well overdue. My arguments extend to those articles about other "Shepherd Dogs" whose titles were also changed. 49.181.236.140 ( talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing your decision to Move (re-title) the article. I don't see a consensus unless you mean consensus by absence of opposition to the Move. In the archive you have posted on the article's Talk page, I see a discussion of 1078 words over a twenty-four hour period with four participants. (A later contribution to the discussion, providing a statistical analysis of sorts, claims to be in support of the Move.) Outside of that discussion there is clear opposition to the Move's proposer. The proposer and supporters of the Move do not seem to have been aware of the most commonly used breed-name in the English-speaking world, and would appear to have assumed that the word "Dog" was simply tacked on for no justifiable reason. They are wrong as has been brought to their attention - alas, to no avail. In closing the Requested Move, you were expected to be familiar with the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere, which reflect the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community, and not just the preferences of a tiny fraction of users who might wish to eliminate the words "dog", "horse", etc from official breed-names simply because they find those words redundant in most cases. The recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force reflect the greater desires of the Wikipedia community. At the least, the titles of articles falling under the WikiProject umbrella would be consistent if the breed-names of the various "Shepherd Dogs" were re-instated as required. Of course a similar argument continued over decades with the German Shepherd Dog in the UK. The difference there is that the breed-name was at first given an inappropriate title which was then hard to "move". In the present case, you have changed the title from the breed-name to something else, apparently believing the arguments of two or three users. The Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names is qualified by the need to determine the name by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Such sources would include the writings of the founders and promotors of the specific breed, the names and writings of the national kennel clubs and breed clubs (including the Breed Standards), the writings of notable specialised-breed-judges, breeders and trainers, etc, not newspaper headlines, search-engine terms, titles used by publishers of very general book-series, etc. If you believe the recommendations of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force contravene broader Wikipedia policies, you should notify the WikiProject and state clearly which particular policy is being violated and how. I was fairly satisfied to ignore the incorrect title as it has stood for the past couple of years. The proposer of the Move seemed hell-bent on having such titles. However, as the infobox in the article about the German Shepherd Dog has now been altered such that the article's title and the name of the infobox now match the alternative name in the infobox, it became very obvious that compliance with the WikiProject's recommendations is the only way to avoid confusion. If you do not see that point, please let me know and I'll try to put another way. 49.181.236.148 ( talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was referring to a Requested Move of which you were the closer. When I said "absence of opposition", I meant absence of opposition to the Requested Move, and, it appears to me that that absence of opposition is what you have used to determine consensus, ignoring the wider Wikipedia community's consensus as reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. I have presumed that the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects reflect a greater consensus than the two or three users who proposed and supported the Requested Move. The arguments of those who proposed and supported the Requested Move are clearly marked "Support". You appear to state the opposite, claiming that arguments against the Requested Move were clearly marked "Support", in which case you are wrong. The archive you have posted on the article's Talk page shows that the body of the discussion ran from 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) until 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC) with almost half the word-count being that of the proposer. As I said earlier, there was also a later brief contribution to the discussion which claimed to provide a statistical analysis of sorts in support of the Requested Move. As the closer of the Requested Move, you are the person responsible for changing the title of the article from the Breed-name to something else which brings you into conflict with the relevant WikiProjects. You are also the person with whom I must discuss the matter before requesting a Move Review. That's simply the procedure! If you insist that I register an account in order to continue this discussion, you will be falling foul of other Wikipedia policies, so I suggest you keep your recommendations and arguments in that regard to yourself. As an administrator, you should keep in mind that you are in a privileged position, especially in relation to normal users like me, and it would be extremely disheartening to see that position abused. 49.181.236.149 ( talk) 14:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In summary: Over a twenty-four hour period, two or three users proposed and supported the Requested Move of the article, "German Shepherd Dog", to "German Shepherd". Another user later contributed a statistical analysis of sorts claiming it to be in support of the requested move. No-one has disputed that the discussion was open for less than the required time before being closed. At the time, you were aware that the relevant WikiProject recommends that the article's title be the breed-name. The proposer disputed that "German Shepherd Dog" was the proper name of the breed, and, simultaneously requested that the article (and other similar articles) be re-titled by effecting a Move. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=478916318). A supporter of the Move later did some research and was surprised to find that the official breed-name used by the American Kennel Club was "German Shepherd Dog". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:German_Shepherd&oldid=479096222) In preference to two or three users, you disregarded the recommendations of the relevant WikiProjects and effected the Move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.146 ( talk) 00:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 49.181.236.146 ( talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |