User talk:Dominic/Archive7

Purge cache to update

This is now a subpage transcluded here. You can either just use section editing and edit below or go to User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General discussion, or User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation for all of it. Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made subsections just for coherence. I just arbitrarily made up the heading names, and they're only supposed to be explanatory. Dmcdevit·t 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the article was unprotected, the have been contests on which of the two disputed versions should be displayed [1]. The displayed version throughout the protection period was chosen based on what the old title of the list and what the list was intended for before all those disputes [2] [3]. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei have refused to keep that version displayed, and have insisted to display the version that they prefers [4] [5] [6]. I'd like to hear from your advice on what I should do. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out (for the sake of balance in arguments), that moments after Instantnood was nominated for a 3RR violation [7], he has taken to re-igniting past disputes through a variety of pages, most of which he listed above for your reference. Most of these pages will show that he was the first editor who triggered the latest rounds of edit warring, and even after the rounds of reverts, he has not seen it neccesary to conduct any form of discussion on them. I certainly do hope that he would accept your suggestions for conducting proper dispute resolution, instead of habitually relying on edit warring.--Huaiwei 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks so much Dmcdevit. In fact Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and I have been talking, here and there, nearly everyday throughout the past few months. There was never any middle ground between Huaiwei and I, and we kept being stuck in arguing on this and that, from the definitions of country, around the term mainland China, to the spellings of Macao/Macau. I appreciate you're going to help us and help Wikipedia, but frankly, I remains pessimistic towards the possibility of reaching a true resolution. The lists of companies and airports are the best examples that the other party is not even willing to armistice, and have insisted to keep their prefer version displayed. They are not even hearing my rationale (to display a version according to what the articles were intended for and were like before the disputes and contentious edits), that has worked with the list of railways in China and national dish. — Instantnood 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the lists of airports and railways as examples to illustrate. This is the version prior to the contentious edits ([8] [9] [10]) by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat, and this is the version that was chosen to be displayed, according to my policy (compare). In another example, the list of railways, this is the version prior to the edits ([11]) that I've made and Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat doesn't agree, and this is the version that I've displayed (compare).

Both articles involve the inclusion of the items of Hong Kong. The airport list started under the title "list of airports in Mainland China", and included airports in mainland China only ([12] [13] [14]). The railway lists started under the title "list of railways in China", with Hong Kong included ([15]). For the first list I didn't include Hong Kong in the displayed version, and for the second one I kept Hong Kong.

I believe I've done all these firmly according to my policy, and have done more than enough to showing impartialness when choosing a version to be displayed. I don't have to do what I have done with the list of railways in China, national dish and Electronic Road Pricing if I were insisting to display my preferred versions like they do.

And, for your information, I have also approached user:Thryduulf, who was responsible for protecting the lists of companies and airports last time. (Please response on my talk page. Thanks.) — Instantnood 22:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't about an armistice. It's about keeping the wikipedia open. When 'nood requests page protection that lasts for a month simply to keep his own edits (or whatever edits, really, it doesn't matter) it ignores the rest of the community. Page protection is not there to maintain a status quo. It's a wiki, and articles change. If his choices and preferences aren't maintained by the community then his duty is to go to the community to gain concensus, and not to appeal to administrative authority to protect his POV. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply) re: Dispute resolution. There is an ArbCom case. It's stale, because ArbCom sees the majority of it as content disputes. I've been involved in plenty of edit wars with him, as have dozens of other people. Here's the pattern 1) edit war 2) game a 3RR 3) slap twoversions template up 4) request page protection. There are people who agree with him on some POV issues, but all of those people are willing to discuss. He doesn't. He lawyers the "rules". When even the dispute is stale (like several months since anyone discussed it) he'll revert war just to protect the template which references the dispute - instead of going to the community (including those that agree with him) to ask for concensus. It's apparently his goal to simply be a one-man block to community editing if it disagrees with him. SchmuckyTheCat 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually would respond in my talk page, but I will make an exception here just to keep the discussion in one place for convenience sake.

As STC points out above, and what instantnood admits too, "discussions" do exist, and has been so for the past 10 months. Unfortunately, it is apparant no one is willing to move from their stated positions, probably because the underlying issue is one we holds rather "dearly"? Still, I have noticed all these while, that instantnood has been far from being forthright in revealing his motivations here, perhaps for fear of the expected backlash it is going to create. It is plain obvious, however, that it all begins and is still centered over the status of Hong Kong on the international arena.

Instantnood viewpoint (at least based on what he has said over the past months, and from his editing histories and patterns), is that Hong Kong should be listed distinct from the People's Republic of China, be it in the form of a country list, in the form of articles (he insists on one article for HK, and the other for the "rest of China" aka "Mainland China"), in the form of categories, or even stub templates and so on. It has been noted, that his entry into wikipedia using his current username appears too sophisticated to be a newbie. I first waged war with an anonymous user for about a month or two over how airports should be listed in Category:Airline destinations's articles, insisting that HK should appear distinct from the PRC. This person dissapeared, and instantnood appeared, basically advocating exactly the same thing. This tussle quickly spread to other pages, with basically the same phenomena.

My view, as I openly declared in my user page (User_talk:Huaiwei#Hong_Kong-related_Articles_2), has been that I am highly suspicious of anyone attempting to challenge Chinese sovereignty over all its territory, including exagerating the political status of an entity beyond what can be considered acceptable. While I openly state my position consistently over the past months, instantnood avoids doing so, often choosing to revert when I revert his edits, or when I subsequently went ahead and simply started modifying the way HK is presented. After much effort, it finally came to the fore, that he admits calling Hong Kong a country, "using the definitions as specified in list of countries": User_talk:Vsion#Re:_Hong_Kong_as_a_country.3F, User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_3#Hong_Kong_as_a_country.3F

The rest of the associated arguments starts to fall in place, because they are mostly related. The big fight over the status and usage of Mainland China is related to the fact that Instantnood wants to use it, so that Hong Kong will be listed seperately, compared to the term People's Republic of China which would have included Hong Kong. Of course, instantnood never admits to this motive when arguing intently for its use, but the edit patterns are quite clear beyond reasonable doubt.

We argued for months over whether Hong Kong is just one city or composed of many, just because instantnood wants to keep List of cities and towns in Hong Kong in List of city listings by country. Ditto for List of cities and parishes in Macao. And when the arguments over the so-called "cities of Hong Kong" hots up, another major fight breaks out over whether Victoria City is a "capital city" of Hong Kong or not.

Most other arguments are merely over how Hong Kong should appear in articles (from anything as diverse as Value added tax to List of cathedrals), although they start to accumulate into yet another debate over whether Hong Kong is a dependency or not (because Instantnood is quite desperate about keeping it in List of countries, a list which includes dependencies). After rounds of cat fights which was (kind of) settled only after User:Vsion sent an email to the HK government asking if HK is a dependency and was told simply that HK is an SAR (which Instantnood then attempts to dismiss), list of countries suddenly evolves into one which includes places of "special sovereignty". Almost overnight, instantnood drops the debate over Hong Kong's status as a dependency, and has never uttered about it since.

Like a constant "side show", war is still being waged over the categorisation system. Having fought (and lost) several content wars, instantnood, while helping to build a categorising system for Hong Kong, conveniently took the time to basically dis-engage as many HK-related articles from Chinese ones as he can, and dilligently adds as many of these articles to country-relevant categories as possible.

On a side note, there has been several disputes more related to "local pride" then anything else. Such as the fights over whether Cantonese or Mandarin page titles should be used. Over whether food served in one place is similar to another. Over the order in which chinese scripts should be listed. Sometimes, the arguments simply bother on the edge of ridiculousness. The debate over Hong Kong-style milk tea was particularly interesting.

And so he adds Cathay Pacific as a "national airline", which I later removed (nothing officially states that the airline is a flag carrier of any kind). Argues that the Hong Kong Central Library is a "national library", which I demanded for documentary proof and which non was forth coming. Calls the Flag of Hong Kong a National flag, even thou it is officially known as a regional flag. (Btw, just noticed an offensive entry in National emblem. hehe) National dish became another hot playground, over whether Hong Kong should be listed seperately, and what dish should appear on it. "Abuses" the Wikipedia:Requested moves to get Hong Kong representative football team renamed back to Hong Kong national football team (people usually ask for votes for a move, not for a move to be undone).

As we speak, something as casual as National pastime becomes a hotseat, when its relevant Talk:National pastime has reached 38 kilobytes long as at the time of writing this, over something which should have been discussed long ago...just what, then, is a country. Observe the to and fro responses made. Concurrently going on, is another long essay writing session in Talk:List of official languages by state, which started off as yes another presentation dispute before evolving into one over just what a "language" really is.

In the earlier stages of this dispute, forms of "discussions" did take place, but often collapses into an endless to-and-fro trading of comments with no real signs of anyone willing to come to any form of agreement. By what instantnood says above, it is clear, that he has taken this failure to therefore skip the discussion process and to simply proceed to conduct edits. Occasionally, he feigns ignorance, claiming he didnt even think his edits were "contentious", like how he claims he "didnt know" there was a spelling disagreement over Macau/Macao Category_talk:Railway_stations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China.

The above is my rumbling summary of 10 months worth of disputes, but I hope the gist of the arguments is relatively clear. In the end, strong POVs over political issues spills over into related topics, although they rarely stray very far from it. I all along believe it all boils down to differing political viewpoints, but it takes two hands to clap. Instantnood has been unwilling to admit that he has a political viewpoint, perhaps for fear that it will greatly weaken his standing and his room for "squeezing and twisting" around here. But if he continues to pretend that he has no political viewpoint, then how can dispute resolution begin?

In any form of dispute resolution, there has to be a give and take situation. I have constantly asked him....how much is he willing to give up for the sake of establishing a middle ground, and I clearly remember him saying "certain things" are not within discussion because "there's always something that you cannot surrender" a very long time agoUser_talk:Mailer_diablo/Archive_B#Instantnood...again. He further insists that "non-locals" will "never be as familiar as the locals", and should accord due "respect" to locals. I found such comments highly immature, and gives a good clue of just how stubborn he is at heart. I suppose we dont need much guessing as to just what that "something" which he cannot surrender is?

Hong Kong's position in the world, of couse.

I know my text is long, and I apologise for this, but I do hope the above text could at least give you a (admittedly biased) quick overview of what has happened thus far. Nothing is beyond hope, and nothing cannot be resolved, if all parties are serious, committed, and believe it can happen. I believe it can happen. Perhaps now we just have to wait for Instantnood to realise it can happen too?--Huaiwei 00:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei hits something on the head, which we've both brought up repeatedly in other disputes. Instantnoods problems aren't with content. They are with presentation [read the text of the footer in this edit [16]. There are lots and lots of good editing going on when editors conflict over nationalism and religion. Lots of international issues turn into wikipedia flareups with POV - and the best way to combat POV is to present all POV. Instantnood goes straight for the things that bind wikipedia together though, because it's a battle for him to present Hong Kong to be as independent as possible. So his presentation battles go towards categories, stub-sorting, templates, and article titleing - ie, things we can only have one of.

You also asked him if his use of twoversions is permanent or temporary. I think I have an answer to that. Two, actually. First answer, for the template, is that it would be temporary as long as he gets his way (that's an answer only half in jest.) The second answer is that there is something more subtle than that as well. He does intend to use that template in order to present his parallel versions of articles - a schizoprenic wikipedia. Besides the twoversions templates, he has a series of articles in his userspace User:Instantnood/Sandbox where he "preserves" his versions. Totally acceptable, of course. However, for a while he made a blatant play to present his alternatives and link to them from the main wikipedia article namespace [17] (notice how he simultaneously plays belligerent "I'll add it back now" and ignorant "Nothing says I can't!"). I'd contend that the twoversions template is just another method for him to maintain a parallel article structure in his presentation style. SchmuckyTheCat 04:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be succinct, with diff links whenever they're helpful.

These are all content disputes, but it's more to do with behaviour of some wikipedians. Take the lists of companies and airports for example, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat changed the scope ([18] [19]) and titles ([20] [21] [22]) of these two lists without any discussion, and has refused to restore them according to their original intent. They know well it's going to be contentious. SchmuckyTheCat has also moved some articles previously retitled "..mainland China" (e.g. education in mainland China [23] [24]) by user:MarkSweep, now an administrator, again, without any discussion.

I remain highly skeptical towards their willingness to reconcil on anything. While a long discussion has been in place at talk:list of official languages by country, fire was sparked at list of official languages [25]. Huaiwei also spark fire at national pastime [26], although he knows it's debatable. Other articles, lists nad categories, to name a few, category:healthcare in Hong Kong [27], category:law enforcement in Hong Kong [28], category:law enforcement in Macau [29], and there are many more that I cannot name them all.

Many articles specific to mainland China already exists before I joined Wikipedia in January, although by then most are titled "something in/of China", with some having a disambiguation notice telling readers the articles are about mainland, and provide links for readers to proceed to the articles on Hong Kong, Macao and ROC/Taiwan. It was not me who request for separate articles for mainland China and Hong Kong as Huaiwei has asserted. They already existed. Almost all categories titled "something in/of China" or "Chinese something" by then were mainland China-specific, until Huaiwei started making the Hong Kong and Macao counterparts subcategories of them. Yet he disagreed with moving the mainland China-specific content to categories titled "sth in/of mainland China".

Contrary to his claims, territories with special statuses were on the list of countries at the early stage when it's created [30] [31]. What was suddenly evolved?

The {{nationalflags}} template has been existed on flag of Hong Kong since February 29 2004 [32], until removed by Huaiwei on [33] July 5 2005. This is again a pushing of his point of view that the word "national" is exclusive to sovereign states.

Dmcdevit, I understand it can be tough for you to look into so many details of the conflicts spanning over nine months across so many entries. It has been so nice of you to be willing to help us. The above may perhaps be a tip of iceberg, and surely it will take tremendous amount of time and effort to have everything resolved. For the meantime, I'd suggest to start their switching to their preferred version at the lists of companies and airports. Thank you. — Instantnood 09:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite tempted to comment on instantnood's entry above, but maybe I will just let the urge past for now. Meanwhile, I would just like to indicate my full willingness to coorperate and to basically avoid adding/amending/deleting any article/category/stub/etc related to presentation issues related to Hong Kong/Macau; the spelling format of Macau/Macao, the use of People's Republic of China/Mainland China, etc, to allow negotiations to begin. To encourage compliance, I would also like to propose, that whoever breaks this commitment should receive disciplinary action in some way, perhaps in terms of a block or something.

I certainly hope that STC and instantnood may similarly agree to comply (and I do hope no one then quickly starts making funny edits before agreeing), although I suppose instantnood may find this a little too hard to do, since, as like what User:OwenX mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Instantnood, instantnood's participation in wikipedia has more or less been on "one topic in which almost all his edits are" about.

Btw, I will attempt to give a more complete answer for the role of STC later...as I am kinda "mentally sapped" now. Hope you do not mind the delay, and once again, I must thank and commend you for your efforts here. Few administrators has been willing to take this up, and for good reason, and few has managed to come this far. It saddens me when admins give up, and I will give all I can in my hopes that your efforts will not be futile.--Huaiwei 16:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did the revert before seeing your reply. Of course I'm most willing to stop the reverts. Yet it would be ridiculous for the other party to make such promise while insisting that their preferred version shall always prevail, and have successfully turned the pages to display their preferred versions at the present moment. Thanks again for your kind efforts. — Instantnood 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• re: cease-fire. Sorry I didn't answer earlier, I'm mulling. I am somewhat interested in this. It has been proposed before in a way I rejected entirely. It probably makes me out to be not a team-player that I'm hesitant, doesn't it? I suppose I can agree as long as progress is being made. If an edit has been sitting for awhile, it's not really going to hurt to leave it - though with his thousands of edits, I consistently run into things (often unexpectedly) that just scream. And, I'll just back out if 'nood starts lawyering this, or if he starts creating new POV things and whines about being reverted under this gentlemans agreement. If we have a no-revert agreement than the advantage is to the one that inserts the content, which he does faster than either Huaiwei or myself can even read. SchmuckyTheCat 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern, STC, hence my declaration above that I will not even ADD disputable content, and I hope all will comply too. This mean no one should add or remove HK from country lists for now. No one should modify the way it is being listed. As far as is humanely possible, lets avoid writting about Macau/Macao for now. Alternatively, we can have a more honest and transparant system to allow content to continue to flow: by having a page which we list all edits in which we feel may be potentially contentious, but have to be added for the time being for the sake of content expansion. For example, if we want to create a new article on a chuch in Macau, then go ahead and do it using whatever spelling prefered, but list this article also in that "tracking" page so that all of us know the author is not attempting to be "sneaky" and is doing out out of good faith. This helps to encourage responsible editing, and increase trust between members.

So if we are going to have this list, then perhaps may I also suggest that we create a single page for all related discussions on this issue (and for that list of articles),for the things to be ironed out, and a formal conclusion made in which all must abide by, failing which disciplinary action can be carried out by admins? I am not too sure of where or how this article should be located in, but I am open to anything to long that a single page can be easily retrived and reference to in any future dispute (because I have to note that it is possible for anyone else to appear and invoke the same kind of tussle if he happens to have the same political view).

What do you guys think of these suggestions?--Huaiwei 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am most willing to comply, but I am afraid I have to say it is a bit meaningless to have things frozen as at the time being. Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat have insisted to display versions according to their preference, and have already done. This is already allowing them to be in a better position to agree with anything.

As for what SchmuckyTheCat has said, I have no objection for Hong Kong categories to be subcategories of PRC or Chinese counterparts. I fully acknowledge the fact that Hong Kong's sovereignty is held by the PRC, so as Puerto Rico is to the United States, the Faroe Islands to Denmark, Åland to Finland, or Svalbard to Norway. What I objected was to group Hong Kong categories as subcategories of mainland China-specific categories, no matter their titles. When the situation is ambiguous, interwiki links between the categories is preferred, and has been done by some other wikipedians, such as user:Olivier, to a few categories that I have never edited. Since Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat have violently objected to use the term "mainland China", many mainland China-specific categories are left with the titled "something in/of China/the PRC" or "Chinese something".

I talked about original intents because they reflect the view of other uninvolved editors. In any situation where there's a dispute between two parties, the best temporary solution is that both parties renounce putting their points of view to the disputed article, and let uninvolved third parties to decide. Everybody else's point of view, except for the two parties involved, should be reflected in the displayed version.

I agree with Huaiwei's suggestion above. In fact I've bookmarked Wikipedia:centralised discussion and template:cent, and am planning to discuss out there and, possibily, to reach an ultimate resolution, when the ArbCom case is over, and the other parties have agreed to stop insisting to display their preferred versions. I believe this will provide the best foundations to have the conversations, and to facilitate inputs from the rest of the community who are familiar with the subject matter. — Instantnood 10:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact is no one is in a better position as it is now. We still see plenty of objectionable content and presentation on both sides, so if we keep highlighting offensive articles and declaring the situation unfair, then how is this going to proceed? For every article you say is "frozen in a version STC and me prefer", there is another article I would love to revert over. Put this kind of feelings aside, for now, and see how things go.

Btw, I notice we have started talking about content here (with regards to categories) already. Its a good move, but lets wait till STC fully gets on in this project, and lets iron things out one at a time in the single discussion page, so that everyone's views can be heard.--Huaiwei 11:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. As to the central location, I don't really mind. We could just make a subpage in my userspace, or did you have something else in mind? I also like your idea about content additions as well (since that's the impetus for reverting anyway) and had rather hoped that that was basically what would happen if everyone was making a good faith effort. All agree? Dmcdevit·t 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up in agreement from me, and awaiting the go-ahead from the other parties involved. I am agreeable to the location of the subpage (not too important as of yet. We can consider implimenting it as part of conventions later). And dont worry too much about the "additions" thing for now too. All three of us need to volunteerily declare what we will not do before it does ahead, and we agree on a common threshold point. I cant be unitarily setting the benchmarks. Hope you guys can be more forthcoming? Thanks a million!--Huaiwei 21:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind making any sacrifice, except those that would be translated into the long end of the stick to the other party. I would highly appreciate if Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat were willing to voluntarily remove their points of view that have been implanted into the articles and categories during the contentious edits, i.e. to restore these articles and categories based on their original intent, no matter the original intent coincides with the position of any party. That would be a very good gesture to build mutual trust, which has been absent after several times of reverts to insist to display according to their preference. Without mutual trust I'm afraid it would be much harder to reach a resolution, and harder work for Dmcdevit to mediate. — Instantnood 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, I do not think this is the right attitude to adopt at all for a condusive environment to be created for dispute resolution. While asking for I and STC to "remove contentious edits", I wonder if you are expecting to do the same yourself? It is not exactly in good taste to expect others to conceed first before the process has even formally begun, and to use this as a condition before you would sit on the negotiation table. I do not think this is setting a healthy precedent at all.

I have to constantly emphasise. No one is in a better position at all now. None of us actually predicted that a potential for dispute resolution is sight in what started off as yet another one of your calls for an admin to "freeze" pages, so there is no basis to insist that anyone pre-planned anything. Beyond the few pages you asked to be reverted, both STC and I certainly do have an entire library of articles we wish to revert too. And if your original demands are met, are you then allowing STC and I to be placed on a stronger position to demand greater concessions on your part subsequently?--Huaiwei 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. The total number of edits from Instantnood is probably two or three times the number of edits from Huaiwei and I put together - and that's kind of assuming Huaiwei and I would always agree (which we don't).

I've been really busy lately and only casually looking at things on my watchlist rather than spending time thinking of ways to answer you Dmcdevit. I think there was a specific question, and I'll go back and try and look at it later. For taking this to a centralized place - feel free to just make a subpage any old place thats convenient for you that doesn't crowd out other folks, cuz once going, we'll make a lot of noise. I might suggest that a free-for-all isn't going to be helpful. You may want to sub-divide by a page with a section for each of us, and we can only answer questions from you and not respond to each other.

And Huaiwei, I await with baited breath I will attempt to give a more complete answer for the role of STC later.  :) SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also a response to Huaiwei's comment at 22:54, October 11) Dmcdevit, if you can follow the edit history of the disputed entries (for those tagged with {{twoversions}}, special:whatlinkshere would be a useful tool), you may have already found out that I have always been sticking with my policy, that is, regardless of my point of view, I always restore these entries according to the original intent. There are articles that I have restored to a version that conincides with the point of view of Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat. Unlike them, who have been doing whatever they can to insist to display their preferred versions, I've never shown any insistence to display a version according to my own preference. I see it as an act to show my impartialness in turning edit warrings to temporary truce, and for this mediation may concern, this is to show that I don't want to be in any good position when agree or promise with anything.

May I emphasise that I am only requesting Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat to do it voluntarily. This is not a prerequisite, but it's definitely a good gesture to build mutual trust. Do they refuse to do so, I would be more pessimistic towards the possibility in reaching anything in this mediation. I am sorry Dmcdevit to have kept you busy around us. — Instantnood 07:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the past experience, no resolution has ever been reached in the last nine months. I understand all what you are requesting is temporary, nevertheless the whole mediation process can last for a long time, it is not in the benefits of other readers to display their preferred versions that deviate from the intent of the rest of community who has edited the same article. What I have requested is not prerequisite, but it will definitely show they are not insistence. If they strongly believe their POV is neutral, I could have said I believe mine is neutral too. I cannot understand why they are not willing to do what I have done (e.g., with the list of railways in China (history)). — Instantnood 08:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• StC says:

List of railways in China is a fine example. It's edit history is short and simple with less than fifty edits you can scan it on one page.

• Day 1

1. User:Alanmak creates the article and does some fine tuning, he names it "List of railway in China"
2. Another user performs a move, not to "mainland" or "PRC" but simply to pluralize railways. "China" appears to be good enough.
3. Alanmak does minor edits

• Further along

1. Instantnood decides to change everything about the article. [34], he removes Hong Kong, puts up a header that says it's only about the mainland, and changes the category. His edit summary is rather vague.
2. Huaiwei reverts him ten minutes later, noting in the edit summary that the article is not limited to the mainland.
3. 15 minutes later, Instantnood reverts Huaiwei with a snarky edit summary, then does another edit to place the twoversions tag on the article.
4. 10 hours later, I move the template to the bottom of the article and state clearly the edit in the summary.
5. 2 hours later, Alanmak returns, edits the Hong Kong link and states that it is not a mainland only article.

• Over the next month

1. At least three anons make edits, some of them significant. Two other named editors and Alanmak continue to make edits. I make a non-significant copyedit. Huaiwei extends the alphabetical sorting of the category. Instantnood makes four edits, the only contribution to them being he takes the edits he likes and saves them, then reverts himself and updates the twoversions tag to point to his save - effectively twice updating his content fork.

The talk page for this article - blank. Nobody has even hit the edit button. To Instantnoods credit, he gave in right away and didn't edit war. However, he still attempted to change it to his POV until quickly slapped down by someone who wasn't Huaiwei or myself. He is still maintaining his POV fork. However he hasn't

• attempted to justify why he even attempted to remove Hong Kong from the list
• attempted to justify why he attempted to limit the article to one region
• made any attempt to discuss why a twoversions template is appropriate here

And like all other articles where he has placed the twoversions template, the edit history is clear, the silent majority just goes on with the edits and ignores him and his disputes. Did any other editor of the half-dozen who have edited this article back him up or also attempt these edits? Nope, he's just out there tilting at windmills.

I don't really feel any need to justify why he's incorrect for the 1000th time. Wikipedia works on concensus and he has none, the rest of the community has rejected his view, because the fact of the matter is that Hong Kong is part of China, so an article about China should include Hong Kong (or, point to an article about Hong Kong) and not exclude it. The NPOV policy isn't just about articles either, it works across the wikipedia. If Instantnood has a POV to assert that he thinks is missing, he needs to find the appropriate article and get it out in the open and not change articles.

A side example here, is Evolution of the Horse. Creationists probably engage in more wiki flame wars than our China dispute, but notice there isn't a single word here about creationism? Obviously creationsists have a POV about evolution in general, but it's not in the article about the horse. So Instantnood needs to get past his POV of an indendent Hong Kong and not try and push it down every single article. SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also a response to SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 16:25, October 12) If there's a clear consensus of the community like the one SchmuckyTheCat has mentioned, there wouldn't be administrators moving articles to "something in/of mainland China", and proposed to have mainland-specific categories (e.g. #1 #2), there wouldn't be an article like demographics of mainland China (move history) with the title "mainland China" since last December. And during the revert warring of the list of companies, there are other editors preferring mainland too. My request to Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat is not a prerequisite. I just meant to express my feelings towards their true willingness, and towards the possibility of reaching a real solution. — Instantnood 18:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else, I am simply waiting for one member to get past his mental block and say yes. Comments about everything else will come in due course. Meanwhile, when the negotiation process formally starts, may I propose that we make use of the main page to write statements and so forth. This discussion page may be best used just for background discussion, such as how the negotiation process can take place?--Huaiwei 12:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood, I've told you that I think your proposal is unworkable. You said somewhere above that it wasn't a prerequisite. So, now I'm going to put the question to you again. Will you agree to the ceasefire right now as is? Dmcdevit·t 15:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to report, that I just noticed the first instance in which Instantnood has made a disputed edit in Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong [35]. And the only reason why I notice this is of coz by the fact that it pops up on my watchlist (I set every single article I ever touch to be on my watchlist). As part of my continued adherance to my promise, I am not going to revert it, but I would think his action begs a good explaination here.--Huaiwei 07:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm most willing to comply, and I do hope mediation would work. I just meant to express my bad feelings, which I found no reason I should hide, towards their true willingness to reach a resolution, for they have clearly shown they don't care about their advantaged position in promising with anything. I have also indicated my opinion that we should start dealing with the two lists. As for the two entries you mentioned, the edit to the Pan-Blue visits article is nothing contentious at all. I don't agree the by country category should be removed from the healthcare category, but I've reverted myself already, adhering to what I have promised. — Instantnood 08:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. One last thing for this section. The enforcement Huaiwei mentioned above: does anyone feel strongly about it either way? I'll go along with it if everyone agrees to be bound by it, but i think i'm uncomfortable otherwise (as this mediation is voluntary). Speak up if you want it. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept slap on the wrist blocks that are short, inconvenient and possibly escalating. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wah....I gotta type the description again?? Haha. Anyway why arent the rest contributing to it yet? (other then STC's that is)--Huaiwei 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy and paste parts if you like, I just want to ave it in one location and in your own words. :) Dmcdevit·t 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't ask that if you've been involved in the Big Daddy case. :) In a little over 5 weeks of posts, he's gotten himself into arbitration. He's now deleting any criticism on site from his talk page...yadda yadda. We're up over 200 pieces of evidence and we're not done yet. --Woohookitty 06:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I needed that laugh. --Woohookitty 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a true sweetheart. Thank you. Well he has no chance in heck and he exacerbates it daily by adding more and more to the evidence page. But yeah, from some of the comments one of the arbitrators made, I don't think he has long for this wiki. :) --Woohookitty 06:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that will stop him will be a strait jacket and the guys in the little suits. lol Seriously, we should probably propose that. --Woohookitty 07:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I put it up for a vote.

I have no clue why I hadn't thought of that. --Woohookitty 08:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are off of your indefinite wiki vacation?--Silverback 06:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks for reminding me, I had only taken the notice off of my talk page. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks go out to you for your support on my adminship nomination. I will try very hard to maintain your satisfaction.  Denelson83  21:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can help me, I saw the Rajput article go to hell and now see that it has fallen beoynd any academic standard and would not hold up in a debate at a university level. However, nothing I can do there, it seems it has been hijacked for political reasons.

The Gurkha article, thats very personal since the history begins with my ancestor Kabhoj. Now I wrote it but have seen people edit sections out without realising that what I have stated is history, it was never refuted in the University because first it was fact, second I was an a real descendant who even today is in very close contact with the roytal house of Mewar and Nepal because they are my cousins.

Someone had the nerve to place a NPOV, which I immediately removed, since it alarmed me that there is a political agenda happening here where people who do not have a clue about the subject matter, and yet wish to gear it towards what they wish to hear and thus use the "Neutrality" clause as a weapon.

I would have thought that Wikipedia would love to have someone who is known as a expert in the history and lifestyle of he Nepalese Gurkha to give you the honest account, however now I feel this place is being taken over by bullies. In case you need to cross reference who I am, you can do so by contacting Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, South Asian Studies Department, or even Dr. Diana Eck at Harvard University. Retired General Narendra Singh, Gurkha Rifles, former ADC to Lord Mountbatten, he is my cousin.

I could go on and give references but what I am asking is for your assistance in not allowing for this article to go to hell. If I can't do anything to save it, then I would prefer to remove everything I wrote along with my name and Dr. O'Connell's name and revert the history section back to its inaccurate form as when I had found it the first time.

I hope you can help since I am very computer illiterate.

Sincerely, Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 11:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dmcdevit,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am not sure if I did it properly but I cited a list of references since someone put a request for citations. I would appreciate if you could assist me in this issue of protecting the history so that it remains authentic. You can also see my retorts on the discussion page.

I have also thoughtof contacting my cousins in the Embassy if the article misrepresents the Gurkha history in any way by someone vandalising it. I really do appreciate your kind words and advice. I saw the Rajput article go down in flames and hijacked for a political agenda with the introduction now being completely incorrect, since anyone in South Asian Studies can tell you that this is not how it is seen or practiced in India, Nepal or among Rajputs.

I know I cannot do anything there, but here in the Gurkha article I can since I am known and can easily contact the Royal family of Nepal (my cousins). I have even given Dr. O'Connell's contact info if anyone needs to discuss the matter and my authenticity. I just thought I would shed some light on the article and give information that would be helpful.

I saw it vandalised in the past but simply reverted it back to what I had written. However, now I am seeing some new names and attempts to change the article and perhaps gear to a "politically correct" version at the expense of academic freedom and truth. In the same light if we were to one day filter the atrocities of the holocaust of WW2, then what would we be left with in terms of history.

Seeing how this article is showing signs of being invaded, I have decided not to post scan pictures and archival material of the Gurkhas in an environment that can be misused against my people.

Again, I thank you for your prompt reply and kind words and honestly request that you and other editors and administration help me protect this one article from being hijacked and maintian its authenticity as well as its academic level. This article which is so sacred because it is my family.

Please feel free to show my request to any other admins or editors, which you feel may help me.

Sincerely, Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea you were the one to block and protect it from further hijacking. Honestly, I sincere gratitude in what you have done. Below I am including a letter I had written to another individual about the situation of the Rajput article. Honestly, you have done something that has restored some hope that something can be done for Wikipedia. Here was my letter:

Dear Goethean,

Although I understand that you are trying to mediate the situation on the Rajput article, but talking academically, it has gone to the flames.

I followed the discussion for some time, but I saw how one side was just arguing while one side was trying to cite evidence. Although, Shivraj was not the most elegant or articulate of debaters, however neither were the other boys, they never cited any references, not one.

In a South Asian Studies environment, the sentence “Rajputs are followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism.” This statement would never hold up since there is a lack of understanding what is a Jati, Caste and Varna system is.

I did my thesis on Rajputs for graduate studies at the University of Toronto, under the fmaous Harvard Professor for Indian and Hindu Studies, Dr. Joseph T. O’Connell, whom I am still in touch with today. However I als did my thesis on the Rajputs because I happen to be one. When I showed this discussion page to some of my colleagues who happen to be Paksitani and Muslim, they ridiculed it since even they clearly stated the Islam does not recognise Hindu castes. I don’t take offence to it, since it makes sense, these are two distint cultures.

It brings to mind the article : The Origins of Our Caste System in Vedic Times - Brahmins By Sudheer Birodkar:

“Caste is an institution which is truely Hindu (Indian) in character. So much so that even the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as, Hindu hereditary class, with members socially equal, united in religion, and usually following same trades, having no social intercourse with persons of other castes. The word caste itself is derived from the Portuguese word 'Casta' which means pure or chaste. In the Indian lexion we refer to caste by the words 'Varna' meaning colour and 'Jati' which is derived from the root syllable 'Ja' which means 'to be born'. But why does the caste system that prevails mainly among the Hindus, also exists in a subconscious manner amongst Muslims in India (Pakistan and Bangla Desh) as also among the Christians and Sikhs in India?”…….. http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/castevedic.html

Also: Islam And Caste Inequality Among Indian Muslims By Yoginder Sikand countercurrents.org 15 February, 200 http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand150204.htm

The claims and arguments presented in the discussion by the other side were not only weak, but at many times insulting. Also, never were references cited, no academic works etc. Honestly, this definition would not hold against any criticism in an academic environment or debate. I am simply being honest.

The Caste system was such that if a Rajput did something that was dishonourable, he could loose his status and become a Jat (Dhillon, B.S. (1994), `History and Study of the Jats', Beta Publishers Inc., Ottawa, Canada, I also happen to know this author while doing research at the University of Toronto for Indian studies). Thus Jats are defined into two terms, Asal Jats and non-Asal Jats. Non-asal Jats may be descended from Rajputs who lost their Jati. If a Rajput converted, he was considered an outcaste. References of Kings losing their Jati or Caste can even be seen in the Srimad Bhagvatam an example of this being during the story of Vishwamitra where Vishwamitra elevated himself to Brahm-Rishi from being a Raj-Rishi, also a certain king had become a Chandal due to a curse and therefore an outcaste, Vishwamitra preformed sacrifices to allow him to still enter heaven. Anyways, that is a bit off topic but a good example.

This group also made erroneous claims about Rajput history, even to the point that Wikipedia is the only source in the world that claims Jodhabai being a Janjua Rajput, when the rest of the world and history books all state that she was a princess of Jaipur, sister of Man Singh, and married to Akbar. The rulers of Jaipur trace their ancestry from Kush the son of Ram and are the head of the clan known as Kachawas. You can also see the references by the family themselves: http://www.royalfamilyjaipur.com/j_rul.htm or for a referemce to who Jodhabai was you can even see it here http://www.4to40.com/discoverindia/places/index.asp?article=discoverindia_places_jaipur

I find it incredible that the ones who yell the loudest get there way on Wikipedia. This article has only shown that and also that the claims for Encyclopedia standard and academic standard are not enforced and simply are lip service. I am honestly concerned. If this had been a site which was completely in control of the Pakistanis, then I could understand. However, if this site was in control of Arab or Iranian Muslims or a Secular Western Academic authors, then I would expect for some level of honesty and respect to another person’s culture.

The argument began because Muslims were not being recognized as Rajputs. Everyone knows that there are Muslims that may be descended from Rajputs since it took place in History, however to claim to be one and be descended from one are two different things. Being a Rajput requires religious obligations and rites demanded by Hinduism.

The Phulkian states of the Sikh aristocracy also claim Rajput ancestry and in doing so have built numerous Hindu temples which can be seen today, not just in Punjab but extending all the way into Jahri Pani, Tehri Garhwal. However, even if the academic world recognizes who I am and my links with the Sikh families in question (since we are talking about blood ties and family) the other side simply would try to use the Sikhs as an example without any consideration in understanding the dynamics, history or culture of the Sikhs. They obviously never read the Pakistani publication,

"The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, the great grandson of Fakeer Azizuddin, Maharaja's Foreign Minister.

Neither have they read “A matter of Honour; An Account of the [British] Indian Army, Its officer and Men” by Philip Mason isbn:0333-41837-9

“Armies of the Raj” by Byron Farwell ISBN 0-393-30802-2

Even during recruitment, the British looked at the Muslim Rajputs as an inferior breed since they were seen as not having the same stock or fighting spirit as the Hindu or Sikh Rajputs. These are not my words, its in “A Matter of Honour…”isbn:0333418369

Although I understand that Shivraj became a bit too passionate during the argument, he made more sense than the others who argued against him. They were simply playing a very political and dirty game, it is sad they could not have been brought into a formal debate at a University.

And yet, simply screaming and being insulting while making erroneous claims like a couple of teenagers, they got their way and the Rajput article has been brought to the depths of being nothing more than a politically geared article at the expense of Academic freedom, integrity and knowledge.

I write to you because I know you will understand, however, I don’t expect anything good will come out from this article.

Thank you for taking the time to read about my concern.

Gorkhali 10:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I received your message about Gurkha. Although I have once visited [Nepal]], and have seen many Gurkha people even in India including some who have been working in our organisation, I do not have much knowledge about them. Nevertheless, I am sure to spot irrelevant contents, if any, in the article - I will try to filter out POVs and place my opinion on the talk page of the article. However, it may take few days. I hope to interact more with you on this matter as also on others. Regards. --Bhadani 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[36] This is just a hey, I appreciate your effort. And on that front, I poked the other users talk pages to try and get them to come fill out the questions you put up last week.

And your spot on that Tony deserves a thank you. SchmuckyTheCat 21:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dmcdevit,

I received some messages from some of the individuals who were hijacking the Rajput article. It does not seem as if they will refrain, they are just waiting for the article to be unblocked. I was also following the Rajput websites and it seems that the "Wikipedia" issue is coming up and touching a nerve since the article was being geared towards a political agenda. Thank you again for your swift response and concern.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He said he had a problem with my answers and I just wanted to know what since I meet that 2,500 edits, 3-6 months he put on someone's talk page. Well, I suppose if it's just a dislike of admins then I'm getting even worse by trying this. Thanks again. gren グレン 10:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly note I have started a new section for Hong Kong on the list of road-rail bridges [37]. — Instantnood 20:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another section has been started for Macao [38] . — Instantnood 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I added more Chinese bridges [39] SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I've edited it too, and I'll dutifully report it here. [40] :) Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some muslim users were constantly reverting my edits on rajput page. Then I requested the page be protected and also asked these users to provide evidence for there edits. It has been close to 48 hours and they have chosen to not provide any evidence. So what should be assumed in such a circumstance?

-Shivraj Singh

I've apologised to Tony for my petty behavior vandalism. If there is anything that I can do to regain the trust I've lost, please let me know.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I am trying tried to stay clear of the RfC, and the little bit I have stuck in I hope will prove healthy, as opposed to just making more spite. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here to talk about...

Ok, I'm a sucker for things that need done. That's how I got involved in deletion politics in the first place, for the backlog. I'm pretty unclear on some of it (corn soup?), but I'm sure I'll figure it out. So count me in.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you even more for pointing out the status of certain users who don't have a very good record of wikipedia policy. :) Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! By the way, you're not the only admin in Arizona anymore... :) Titoxd^(?!?) 17:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on the talk page. I reverted back to the 34 million because I think a number is important for a reader who has no idea of the base population of Europe at the time. Numbers project the reality of the massive death toll more than percentages. Historical numbers are always suspect, subject to debate, and estimates at best. I suspect the 34 million is a quote/reference in an early version of the article. However, it wouldn't hurt to try and come up with a list of estimates and refine our figure. We could put in a low to high range.

I will try and go through my library in the next couple of weeks and see what estimates are available. Why don't you guys do the same. I have a couple of relatively current books -- but modern estimates are always based on the primary documents. During my academic lifetime at least, opinions have swung widely --- from "they were all exaggerated" to "accept their accounts without question." Since English speakers more readily access English primary documents, many estimates are based on the English experience, which most historians agree was higher than 30 percent. Areas in Eastern Europe had so few plague accounts that their information is usually not included. Outside of Europe, Middle Eastern and Asian sources are even harder to deal with. All these things make the process a frustrating one. But, please don't take my revert personally. WBardwin 03:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I believe that it was you who protected the Rajput article. In the pursuit of resolution of the dispute, I would like to add some text to the article. Unfortunately, it has not been approved by all parties, but nonetheless, here it is:

Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.

This would replace the last sentence of the "Definition" section. Unfortunately, at this point, we don't have citations to back up the attributions. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 18:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

User Goethean has no evidence for any of the edits he and his buddies have made on rajput wikipedia in the last 10 days or so. I have repeatedly asked them for evidence and none is forthcoming. They are just pushing there beliefs and POV's. Eminent historians like James Tod/ Prof Dashratha Sharma/ Dr LS Rathore is what I have cited in my edits. These guys have reverted the edits but on being asked to provide evidence they have chose to remain silent for a week now. Though they have been very vocal in an attempt to diver the discussion away from the topic of providing evidence to support there claims. Please see the discussion page on rajputs and the heading "Talk Facts".

No hindu rajput agrees with the definition that Goethean is asking you to push onto Rajput page. He has some kind of political/religious agenda biased in favor of Islam.

I have tried to discuss on the talk page because some muslim users were constantly reverting my edits on rajput page. Then I requested the page be protected and also asked these users to provide evidence for there edits. It has been close to a week and they have chosen to not provide any evidence. So what should be assumed in such a circumstance?

The books from which this article is formed are very welll researched books on rajput history written by eminent historians. No one , even on rajput discussion page has provided a single counter evidence to what is written by the following authors.

James Tod did more then 20 years of research when he was living in Rajasthan in 1800's and then published the momentous "Annals and Antiquities of ancient Rajasthan". This is the only book which covers in great detail the history of rajputs. Before him and since him such a comprehensive book has not been published.

Other books I cited were by Professor Dashratha Sharma who took into account quite a few stone writings of various chauhan kings throughout there dominion and also took into account numismatics and the history works written in native Indian languages by the authors of that era. e.g Prithvirajvijay, Hammir MahaKavya etc.

Third book is by an existing professor at Jodhpur university who spent a lot of time researching the Indian works on the life of Hammir and then published has work in English.

These authors are not known to westerners who any way tend to rely more on muslim historians who tend to be very biased towards there kings.

On the rajput discussion page I pointed out how biased muslim historians are even today. MJ Akbar who is a very educated man and a journalist from India published a book recently called "shades of swords" in which he lists the wars of muslim kings but completely glosses over the severe defeats Ghori suffered in Gujarat in 1178 at Kayadara and later at Taraori in Haryana in 1191. And there are many more omissions.

Reason we have so much acrimony because muslims have been fed one version of the history by there historians in which there kings are shown as superhumans and rajput kings were shown as pushovers. Reality is far too different as many historians have pointed out. I presented a complete bibliography which they have managed to delete also. (I am in the process of collecting the publishers etc for these books in the bibliography. I am travelling and am away from my library but I will gather all the info by COB friday).

Alo user Goethean is an extremely biased hindu hater. Here is an example:

Gothean has been selectively removing hindu responses from the wiki talkpage on rajputs. He is calling himself a moderator but I let the post from raja(who happens to be a muslim), where he talks about insecurity of faith, sit there on the talk page for more then 24 hours. Goethean was nowhere to be found. Then someone called me a moron and Goethean was still on snooze. Finally I responded to raja and then Gothean woke up instantaneously and started deleting stuff. When I ask him to explain this duplicity in behavior he remains silent. See the difff below. Raja is a muslim user who made an assertion on insecurity of faith and then I responded.

  1. cur) (last) 18:55, 26 October 2005 203.101.51.164 (→Talk facts)
  2. (cur) (last) 17:56, 26 October 2005 Goethean (→Hindu Rajputs)

-Shivraj

Shivraj, having looked at your edits and your contributions to the talk page, I must say that Goethean's version of things is less POV, less Hindutva, and more historically accurate. And no, I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist (which would make me a Hindu by some Hindutva definitions). Zora 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on my watchlist, but I'm not sure that I'll have the time or energy to get involved. I'm supposed to be writing a history of the Islamic conquest of Iran.

Sometimes being a Wikipedia editor feels like writing one term paper after another.

I've also called it "editing as a blood sport". Zora 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While you are researching this topic here is a pop quiz for you: 1) Why did Islam completely dominate Iran/Iraq/Egypt/Saudi i.e the population in these regions is 99% islamic today. 2) Why did the same not happen in India?

--Shivraj Singh 12:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can make proposals on the /Workshop page as well as comment on them. I'll look at editing on both articles and think about injunctions. Fred Bauder 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Wikipedia:Probation and it occurred to me that Conspiracy theory was not the subject of my arbitration case. How is Conspiracy theory applicable to probation for race and intelligence or is my probation blanket? zen master T 18:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really consider a month long page edit block as being appropriate as well? What of the underlying context of the dispute(s)? zen master T 18:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dint know you celebrate Deepavali, but thanks so much for the move at Current events in Malaysia and Singapore. ;}--Huaiwei 12:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How's that for "notoriously slow"? Dmcdevit·t 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel I should be included in the temp ban on Freemasonry articles, can you go revert Lightbringer's changes to Taxil hoax and Freemasonry? The diffs for where he started editing are at [41] and [42] (SarekofVulcan)

Done. Dmcdevit·t 18:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias.--SarekOfVulcan 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off i am well aware of policy, buat as is the case with you self any most admins, you fail to to eith have done your reasearch fully or to find out exactly what is going on, but instead have decided to inject the defacto and unwritten policy of appeasment, which for an encyclopedia is unacceptable. As for the useres action, i do take them as vandalism under the provisons of Childish vandalism, in thathis edits only are ment to remove articles from categories thus blanking them, and Attention-seeking vandalism, in orrder to seek to bring attention by other pov warriors to join his side, as well as Redirect vandalism. The user has now since decided to edit under an anon 172.156.2.190 (talk • contribs), in which he has nw used edit summries to to justfiy his vandalism, all of which i have reverted. Now i see the missresprsenting and addation of misleading information in lue of the facts that have been presented to the user to be vandalism, theirfor i will treat them as vandalism, and if you see fit to blcok me then so be it, but be sure that after the block has expired, if that it is still misleading and misrepreseative, i will change it agian. I am not here to make friends or to have wikilove or be part of theis community experiment that you downplay, i am here to present information. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you're helping mediate some matters involving Instantnood. Do the following, concerning IN's proposal, counter-consensus creation, reversion, and opposition of the renaming of {{Macao-stub}} fall within its "parameters", or close enough to be worth your while to help deal with it? Alai 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the mediation is still alive right now. If it were, that would certainly be a part of it. We'll have to see. As an unrelated matter, though, if you believe it was created against consensus, you should put it up for deletion. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much, though IN insisted that it, and the ArbCom case, were "not related". It's indeed up for deletion, see the second link, above. (I say "renaming", though with categories they in effect have to be re-created under a different name, and then deleted. It'd be OK as "Macau" -stub (and category, and text, and links..).) If this mediation resumes, then firstly, good luck! Looks like you may need it. And secondly, can you let me know? As things stand, I may just leave a note on the talk page of the ArbCom (too late to add additional evidence, I think). Alai 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think Maca(o/u) was part of the Arb case other than the behavior that caused both. Not that it matters. I'll keep you informed if anything happens. You may be interested to know that I asked thh arbs to finalize the arbcom decision, and there's been a few votes in the last few days. I think the probation will happen soon. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not Maca* specifically, but the remedies on the table would seem to be scoped in such as way as to cover such instances. But I'll probably just keep my nose out, at this late stage. Cheers. Alai 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've pre-empted my thanks. I was saving you a bit, because it was clear that you'd had a bit of trouble with what to say. So, I apologise for those actions that gave you pause. I do swear to go forth and try to sin no more. I'll make even more effort to stop saying nasty things to he-who-gets-my-goat-because-he-reminds-me-so-much-of-me. And I'll apply myself to WP:TL, although I have to admit I have developed an irrational fear of these innocent letters. If it's really so simple, why is the page so huge?

And, kidding aside, thank you. I'm listening. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kelly, I thought I'd take this here so the ANI doesn't get more clogged than it already is. With regards to [43], I hadn't looked at the arb case, but I was talking in generalities. I'm interested in what you think on the general principle of protection vs. blocking (or injunction, as the case may be, same function). When I come across a request at WP:RFPP for protection of an article involved in an arb case, I always think that I would prefer the offending parties in an injunction than protect the article. The more common scenario is that I look for 3RR blocks to hand out (depending on the situation, obviously) rather than protect. Other admins take protection much more lightly (at least more lightly than protection). What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I am reluctant to use protection because it locks out everyone, not just the edit warriors. That said, in this case virtually all edits to the article are by parties to the pending RfAr. I freely admit that I'm not fond of 3RR (I think it has the effect of encouraging edit warring by giving the impression that one is entitled to 3 reverts a day, which is clearly not the intent of the rule). If we weren't relatively close to a final decision in that case I would definitely entertain a preliminary injunction. The other thing about this particular case is that the edit war is "low speed", typically one go-round a day, sometimes two; it has been rare if ever that it's reached the level of 3RR. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reproof is well-taken.

What is the correct description and appeal for unexplained or (as in this case) falsely explained, removals? Surely this is, or should be, contrary to policy. (Please note the text I am defending is not mine; what I chiefly want is a justification; I might well agree with it if offered.) Septentrionalis 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I want to complain about someone who is contributing to a couple of articles, on what perhaps could be loosly called fringe science. I feel that their contribution is bordlerline scientifically neutral, but I feel it is not neutral from the point of view from an encyclopedic entry.

I have already implemented a request for discussion, but there have not been many contributions by third-party contributors.

It seems to me that any article on Wikipedia describes the subject from the point of view of the artcle title. It is not a scientific debate. Unfortunately it is a little technical, but a couple of quick examples.

On the Plasma cosmology page, there is an argument about a picture caption (first image, called M87's Energetic Jet); the Plasma Cosmology talk page provides lots of the detail. Originally the caption was quite short, and just summarised what the image was illustrating. But the caption has been changed to include a counterpoint, and judgement on the perspective given. I don't feel that a picture caption is the place for this. Likewise the article introduction has been changed from an explanation of Plasma Cosmology, to a discussion that includes various counterpoints. I have no objection to counterpoints in an article, but not in the introduction, and definitely not in a picture caption.

One other example. The article on Redshift, describes three examples of the cause of redshift. I've tried adding a 4th type calld the "Wolf Effect" which is not very well known, but it has been completely marginalised. I've also tried adding other types of "partial" redshifts, but these have also been removed. The argements can be seen on the Redshift talk page. I have references to peer reviewed papers indicating that the Wolf Effect can produce a redshift, and I've had emails from some of the authors confirming this. The Redshift article contributor disagrees (no evidence given) with me, with the information removed or marginalised. I have tried to expand the article to be inclusive of other kinds of redshift, acknowledging their limitations, but again, with no success.

Consquently I feel that the other contributor, while being almost scientifically neutral, are not being neutral and impartial from the point of view of the subject of the Wikipedia article in question, and are including counterpoints which should appear after the introduction, and after the subject has been described.

Two final points. Indication that the contributor was treating the Plasma Cosmology article unfairly was when they added the Pseudoscience category tag to the article. While the subject may be fringe, peer-reviewed articles on the subject appear in the IEEE, and scientist Hannes Alfven won the Nobel Prize for his work on plasma. Pseudoscience it is not.

On the 1st November 2005, the contributor mentioned towards the bottom of the [Talk:Plasma_cosmology|Plasma Cosmology talk] that "there is no reason to continue this discussion". --Iantresman 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]