User talk:Corax/archive2

user_talk:corax/archive

Theognis

I just saw your user name as part of the url of some selected fragments of Theognis, here. Is this you?

This actually came up in Democratic peace theory, which I think I put in reasonable shape. (It was better a couple weeks ago, before Ultramarine and his ceaseless campaign to have it Present the Rummellite Truth; but it should still be acceptable.) Let me know what you think; and if you care to edit a trifle you would be very welcome. Septentrionalis 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not that person. But thanks for your work on Democratic peace theory. That article has been in dire need of attention for some time. Corax 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Saying things like:

• But as I said, some people won't be happy unless the article and the accusations contained therein are reproduced over and over again.

does not improve the civility of the project. Let's focus on the edits, not on assumptions about the motives of editors. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OCD

You referred to Oxford Classical Dictionary - do you have the passage? Bring it in. Haiduc 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it on the web? Can you excerpt relevant passages? Does it only refer to antiquity? Then it will not be of use in the Modern article. Haiduc 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look it up on my next trip to the library, but if you can key something in in the mean time that would be great. Haiduc 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail it to me, if you don't mind. Haiduc 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, if I get to the library before you do I'll let you know. Haiduc 12:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gorgias (dialogue) article

Hi. You reverted out, without discussion, a footnoted statement I put into the article on Plato's Gorgias (dialogue). It is not random. It is one of the places that Epicharmus of Kos is mentioned in antiquity as one of the first comedic writers. This fact has been pointed out throughout scholarly history, especially, in Theatre of the Greeks by P.W. Buckham, (1827), p.164. There are few validated mentions of Epicharmus as the first amongst old comedy writers. This is one of them and so it is important. Another one is in Plato's dialogue, Theaetetus. I have a talk and discussion page. And the article has a discussion page. You could have left a note there before attempting to revert it. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I have re-inserted the material in the article with an explanation in-context of history and the dialogue. If you have further comments, I would be glad to hear them. Thanks for pointing this out. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry

elements cross-posted

Please don't violate WP:OFFICE actions and re-post/re-word a so-deleted article. It's a significant violation of common sense, beyond anything else. :-)

Everything you added back can be put in the article, but iff it is sourced from a real source (no, the old version of the article does not count).

James F. (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Where were the 3 inline cites per fact in the text I removed, then?

James F. (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles under the scope of WP:OFFICE have to be extremely carefully looked at before each and every change is made. Nothing, not one thing, should be added unless it not only "can be verified", but actually is verified inline in the article.

You just dumped in the information from before. Not one since cite was in the re-added text, despite policy (and, for gods' sakes, common sense).

James F. (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can read exactly what the article was like before it was deleted - it was not "accurately and carefully cited" - it wasn't cited at all. There were a handful of links to sites, most of them personal advocacy pages and archives of such things. Either you're using a wholly new and unusual meaning of the word "cite", or...

You seem to think that this is personal - "your problem", etc.. It's not. The problem is that this is a biography of a living person, and as such should be very carefully thought about anyway; further to this, it seems to have been very highly slanted and POV in a libellous manner. If you can't understand that that is a Bad Thing, I'm not sure that there's much that I can explain further.

James F. (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert the article again. If you do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Dear Corax: For threatening to continue to revert war in your edit summary here I am regretfully forced to give you a short 24 hour block, to enable you to have a chance to cool down and avoid replicating such behaviour in future. In addition, you have been unnecessarily combative in relation to your views on how Justin Berry should be edited; I would be most exceptionally grateful if you would please try to take a step back, and not be quite so heated about handling this dispute. I would also suggest that you read WP:OFFICE carefully and note the instructions on how articles that fall under that policy should be handled. Please feel free to edit after the block expires, and I thank you very much for your work on Wikipedia. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am talking to other admins right now about, first, removing this block -- as it is illegitimate. I made no threats or promises to violate any policies of Wikipedia. Second, I will be talking about getting your admin privileges removed.

For the record, Justin Berry is not listed under WP:OFFICE. So perhaps you should take your own advice and familiarize yourself with the policy. Regards, Corax 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (who will be talking to you on your discussion page soon).

Dear Corax: This edit summary, as I linked to the diff above:

Reinstated sourced, accurate, and verifiable version of the article -- as I will continue to do.

If that isn't a threat to continue to revert war I don't know what is. "Reinstated [...] as I will continue to do" is clearly synonymous with "Reverted, as I'll continue to revert". As for WP:OFFICE the article may not be listed now but the text which you revert war to reinsert was removed under the WP:OFFICE policy, and you continue to attempt to reinsert the disputed text. I cannot possibly understand how you could view my giving of a short block in response to persistently combative editing behaviour from you as admin abuse. However, I stand by my decision, and will let others decide whether or not I have abused my privileges. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to engage in revert wars, not to revert. I made no threats to incessantly revert an article repeated in a short time span. Second, since the entire article was wiped out -- including basic information freely available in a NYT article -- without any notes underscoring which portions were "disputed," I think it's highly disingenuous for you to be lecturing me about reinserting "disputed text." According to you, EVERYTHING is disputed, and thus reinserting ANYTHING is in violation of WP:OFFICE policy. Corax 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians against censorship

Thanks for getting my project nominated for deletion. You sure are talented at alienating potential allies. Kaldari 10:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate your project for deletion. Reserve your venom for User:NicholasTurnbull. Besides, what good is your little project if you and those who support it cave so easily to what is the most blatant case of censorship I have ever seen on Wikipedia? They may as well delete it. Corax 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:OFFICE

I would like to know how the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article. It seems that anytime things are inserted into the article, even with citations, an admin invariably removes the inserted information, claiming that it is a violation of WP:OFFICE.

So, how exactly has the direct application of WP:OFFICE changed the guidelines for the creation of the Justin Berry article, and how do these guidelines differ from the normal guidelines regulating the content of an article? Are a certain number of citations needed? Are certain facts, no matter how verifiable, not to be allowed? Since you are one of the many administrators who have been reflexively clearing the article of what appear to be perfectly factual pieces of information, but who have not justified this removal besides making a vague allusion to WP:OFFICE, I think you owe not only me but every other user who has tried to reconstruct Justin Berry a clearly articulated, detailed answer. I will also be posting this to the talk page of the article, in the hopes that other admins engaged in the reverting will respond. Corax 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Corax: Thank you for your message. I'll try my best to explain the above to you, although to be perfectly honest with you I don't know too much about the mechanics of the policy in question myself and the best person to ask on the subject would be an officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. I will answer each of your points in turn as separate headings. Please note this is only my understanding of the situation and not necessarily what the Foundation considers to be the case:

How the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article

An officer of the Wikimedia Foundation invoked the WP:OFFICE policy on the Justin Berry article to remove text which had been disputed by the article subject. This basically means that the editing action carried out under the policy is non-negotiable and not to be reverted. As stated on the page:

Do not unprotect or revert a WP:OFFICE edit without authorization from Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, or else you could be blocked or even desysopped. There may at times be legal reasons for this.

This basically means that the change will be enforced by Wikipedia administrators. In the case of the Justin Berry article this means the text removal isn't permitted to be reverted, either in whole or in part.

How the application of WP:OFFICE has changed guidelines for article editing

Editorial policy is identical to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines with the exception that the action undertaken via WP:OFFICE, in this case, the removal of text, may not be reverted by any user except on decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies as usual.

Citations needed for new material

Wikipedia:Cite sources must be followed as with all articles on Wikipedia, and this is not changed by WP:OFFICE unless specific sources are prohibited by the Foundation from being included in an article (in my opinion). I would note however that citing isn't enough to override WP:OFFICE - that is even if you retroactively cite text which has been removed as per WP:OFFICE it doesn't make it permissible to be reinserted.

Are certain facts prohibited?

No facts are prohibited, rather the text that had been removed by the Foundation is prohibited from being restored. It is an issue of content rather than context and thus of course ordinary Wikipedia editorial standards apply to the article.

I do hope the above is of some assistance. If you have any further questions or queries do please let me know. With regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused By Your Vote

Hi Corax. I'm a little confused why you voted to delete a the WAC group that you are an active a member of? Also, noting that you posted a notice recently. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry to hear that. So, are you voting more with your heart? It appears that you are a little bit upset with Kaldari. Personally, I'd rather you express your disatisfaction on the WAC talk page. Especially, if the group survives the MFD vote. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

False Information versus High Accuracy

I find your actions on the WAC noticeboard as divisive as your voting to delete the group while still pretending to be a member. I hope you can see you are damaging your own reputation more than anything else. It's important the noticeboard has highly accurate information. This is evidenced by the furor that happened when false information was presented in the past, such as your false indictment of Jimbo Wales, which you seem to have now recanted. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I do not consider myself a member and have removed the userbox from my personal page. Second, my Wikipedia "reputation" is of little importance next to the factual accuracy of the content I provide. In other words, I am not out to win a popularity contest or win an election here. Third, I have made no false indictment of Jimbo. I correctly noted that he wiped the article in question at the request of the article's subject, then he encouraged others to rewrite the article without so much as stating what was wrong the previous one. This is not false. Neither is this an "indictment" depending on one's opinion of the situation. I removed the strikethrough you placed on another user's comments because it's highly unadvisable not to edit other editors' personal contributions unless those contributions are on your own user or discussion page. Regards, Corax 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincerity. The user you claim to be so vehemently defending actually thanked me for striking her comment off the noticeboard. She's not exactly running over here to thank you for defending her is she? You now say, "I correctly noted he wiped the article". That's a tame way of paraphrasing what you originally wrote. I'm glad you've finally toned down the hysteria. Truly. I wish you peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That you insist on characterizing perfectly factual statements with which you disagree as "hysterical" is a practice that it in itself hysterical. It is at least offensive to the point where you should probably refrain from doing it in the future. Corax 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm open to review the way I characterised your post. Let's look at it:

* In an unprecedented move, ... Jimbo ... violated all of his own rules ... nobody is quite certain ... Attempts at reinserting ... are now being censored

Okay, I concede. Hysterical is slightly too strong. My apologies. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Domestic policy of George W. Bush. Why? --Mr. Billion 06:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)