Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 6 April 2007

Mardavich is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Thanks for visiting.

Reply

HI FayssalF,

The article is well referenced, the overview is a summery of the entire article in the same style as any other article. I do understand that you're from Morocco and you have your own POV, but I am still surprised that you're supporting User:Ralhazzaa despite the fact that he was essentially soliciting you based on your background. I'm saying this based on the fact that User:Ralhazzaa had been cherry-picking Arab users and mass-spamming them here on English wikipedia to act as his meat-puppets, before he was asked to stop by the admins here, so now he's doing it in Arabic wikipedia. That's why I don't think such disruptive behavior should be awarded. See my reply on the article's talk page for more details.--Mardavich 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mardavich. Thanks for the comment. I just want to explain to you some facts re my conditional support to the NPOV tag.

First and above all, being a Moroccan has nothing to do w/ our issue. I call that a stereotyped characterization of co-editors, especially when someone tries to describe the ones w/ whom s/he disagree w/ in order to show the bias. Wrong. I've been here for 2 years now and i've never been engaged in any edit warring or POV pushing, be it in Morocco-related articles or Arab-related articles. Please correct me if i am wrong at this.

If you go back to my conditional support and try to read it carefully, you'd understand what i mean. I know very well the subject Mardavich and know of course that the term Arabian Gulf has been introduced by some Arab countries in the 20th century. However, i pointed out to the fact that the overview section (which is very important) is unreferenced and once it is referenced, my conditional support would shift to an absolute disagree. I have no book ref which i can add it as a ref to that section. Please do if you got one. Again, your message above would have had grounds if only my stance was to support the tag. It wasn't the case.

The problem(s) you raised about Ralhazza doesn't really concern me unless if it was under an RfC on his behaviour. -- FayssalF - 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you please translate this comment for transparnecy on English wikipedia. Ralhazza has been clearly warned about canvassing other users in POV disputes, it looks like he's doing it now in Arabic and via e-mails to escape any scrutiny of his disruptive conduct. The user is evidently treating Misplaced Pages as a battle ground. --Mardavich 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The translation: Could you please configure you email account at Misplaced Pages? I hope to communicate w/ you in a direct way. If you can't do that you can leave me a message at my talk page. -- FayssalF - 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssal. By the way, sorry for any misunderstandings, I didn't mean to imply that you're biased in any ways, I was just giving you a head-up that you're probably being canvased. --Mardavich 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries Mardavich. It is not a big deal and i do understand your attitude. I am not a fan of canvassing and in many times i warned people because of that. I just thought i had to give my opinion this time at the article talk page because i believed it is not a difficult case when every edit is clear but the only thing which was missing was the reference to the overview. So no big deals here. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A message to you and Ralhazzaa

To Ralhazz... Please stop overtly soliciting people to vote as per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing.

To Mardavich... Please calm down as per Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am sure Ralhazz would stop that behaviour in the future. -- FayssalF - 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

User:Ralhazzaa is not a new user, he's clearly familiar with the INs and OUTs of Misplaced Pages both here and on Arabic wikipedia, he's been citing Wiki policies which is another sign of his familiarity with Misplaced Pages, yet he's deliberately ignoring admin warnings regarding his ongoing disruptive spamming/canvassing campaign. After numerous admin warnings and even after your own warning, he continues canvassing users on Arabic wikipedia to this minute for meat-puppetry purposes on English wikipedia. I've been told that User:Ralhazzaa is also canvassing users on IRC chat's Arabic wikipedia channel. Please look into this issue, and take any actions necessary. Rgards --Mardavich 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it programmed personal attck, Mardavich? I can't understand why u and others "warning" me in my personal page and discuss openly with other users what punishment I should recieve? Why you want to blam me as many opposing POVs are coming? I could also know that you had accused another users of being meat-puppets in ar.wk! Do u consider asking for "legal advice" and "how to reply an accusation" as a spam? As I don't like to personlize the problems, but it would be more civil not to run a personal attck. Pages of interest are clearly disputed and biased, it is not my problem. Please, kindly, stop any kind of personal attack and accusations Ralhazzaa 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am urging everyone to calm down and take it easy. We have talked about canvassing before and the link provided above as an evidence of a spamming/canvassing campaign is not 100% correct. In fact, Ralhazzaa was asking for a legal advice from an ar.wiki user which is legitimate.

However, Ralhazzaa forgot that asking someone (especially from anothr wiki) to participate in a debate where he never participated at is a kind of meat-puppetry (see Wiki Meatpuppets) although he didn't ask User:Islamic what to do apart from a legal advice.

The translation of what has been said is the following:

I've been accused lately by a user of sending a collective message across wikipedia in relation to the article Arabian Gulf through the ar wikipedia. Can you provide me with legal advice and share our debate? I am talking about the article in the Arabian Gulf. I also hope you configure your email account.

Now, let get this very straight. Ralhazzaa, you are asked formally now to stop doing what you've been doing. If you really need a legal advice, you can do it but you should never again try to ask people to join a debate where they never participated at especially from outside the en.wiki. Indeed, we got plenty of admins HERE who will be willing to help you in this matter. Mardavich, you cannot follow any user all the way long and try to scrutinize their edits. You got plenty of interesting things to do here. Please guys take this advice and save us some time. -- FayssalF - 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of vandalism

I was looking for a past exchange between myself and CovenantD and in the process found on his discussion page a posting from you (re: 300 (movie)), which read in part:

We're not talking simple vandalism here, simple vandalism is swear words or deliberate defacing of the page, none of which applies to your reverts, almost all of your reverts have been related to content dispute....

I was recently involved in a problem with the article The Green Hornet, which was disabled from editing by newly registered or unregistered users due to "heavy vandalism." This was someone repeatedly changing the reference to a character "Daniel Reid" to "Andy Reid" and making the name a link to an irrelevant real person. That is content dispute, although there is no question as to the actual fact of the matter. Did the irrefutable inaccuracy of the anonymous IP's edits qualify it as vandalism (which seems to me to be what CovenantD claimed in his/her defense, anyway), or is there some inconsistency going on here? Ted Watson 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Received, but I don't see that the subject being alive makes a difference as to whether or not the action constitutes vandalism to the article/site, or is relevant to what I said, for that matter. It was The Green Hornet article that was being vandalised, not the one about Andy Reid. There was in fact no real effect on the latter article. Ted Watson 22:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"...more sensitive...." Yeah, I see what you mean. Thank you. Ted Watson 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

I reverted your recent change, because changes like that should get posted on the Discussion page first. We are trying to prevent a lot of drastic changes to the article that are not agreed to by a concensus of the editors, and you might well be aware that changing the term "semi-hisotrical" to "ficticious" is going to alter the article considerably. I won't argue the merits of the prior edit over yours because that needs to occur on the Talk Page. Arcayne 06:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Don't think you can hide these . Also, putting my name in quotes as another way to insinuate that I am someone else will do you no good. The Behnam 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you brought back the section that seemed pretty concluded. Now add something to it, please. Arcayne 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I archived discussions that went without comment for hours. Rather than bringing something out of archive, you might have introduced the discussion again, as I suggested not once but twice. If you wish to start the conversation anew, you should feel free to do so. The item will be returned to archive. Arcayne 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not warn me of wikipedia policy. I may not have filed as many complaints as you, but I am pretty well-versed in policies. Please stop the threatening behavior that caused you a great many problems before. If you need to be reminded that you do not need to be as confrontational as you have been and are becoming again, please consider this post that reminder. Arcayne 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab

(And I do not use the Persian name here because I do not remember it despite have commented a few minutes ago. This is one reason I think it should not be in the name of the article.)

Thank you; no. Your !vote is contrary to WP:NAME, which is policy; I shall leave my response where it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are inventing rules; as you are doing in claiming that we should use both names in the first place. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was; as one of the people who designed it, I assure you that you have failed to understand that purpose. The discussion section is for general discussion, not answers to particular points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor,
You recently took part in the discussion of this move request. The format of the move request has been modified, to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.

You are invited to re-state your opinion on the issue, or modify your previous comment, under the new format. - Best regads, Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I am sorry, but since I respect you as a Wikipedian, I have to ask you why you said "Turkish settlement" was a "notable topic that acquires its own article"? I am not talking about Turkish settlers, but "Tr settlement". When did you ever hear that expression used in major news media (again, not settlers)? It is a fork of Cyprus dispute, you surely must see this in an article whose content is straight from that article without any relation to the title? Is this about some other dispute having a ramification on other articles? If it is about my vote in SANLO, let me remind you that I have never AfDed any article listed at Category:Communist parties of Turkey - even the likes of Bolshevik Party (North Kurdistan-Turkey) - which I know for a fact that it is run only by ten people out of a small office in a Paris suburb. This article is not a notability issue, it is a Fork one.Baristarim 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Can you please go ahead and restore them yourself. I couldn't find them. Sorry. Thanks --Aminz 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

300

About Arcayne, I would suggest again opening an RFC (and then arbitration if that doesn't work) especially since this user Arcayne refuses to concede that the film is not semi-historical in any way. Warner Bros. own words as I quoted and which the article quotes also, which says "pure fiction". It is a fantasy film. What Arcayne is doing is abusive and actionable so I would suggest taking matters to RfC or arbitration since this cannot go on forever, and users like that have to be taken to the right authority. Khorshid 15:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

300 lead

Hello, in the past you've expressed strong opinions about the wording of the lead to 300. At present we've gathered six options from the past week's conversation in an attempt to reach consensus. I wonder if you'ld mind having a look, and weighing in as to which would be acceptable, and which you'ld prefer. That is, if you're not having too much fun on vacation! Thanks, --Javits2000 12:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, it's not a vote, it's an attempt to reach consensus. If you preferred the lead as it was, you could have simply edited the list and added it in, instead of picking another fight or questioning the "legitimacy" of a process that made no claim to be binding in the first place. --Javits2000 10:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)