User talk:Irbisgreif/Archives/2009/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy deletion of SOD/CAT contested

Hi Irbisgreif. I am informing you that I disagree with the deletion tag you placed on SOD/CAT as similar diagnostic substances and supplement ingredients have a long history of appearing on wikipedia. See Protandim and GliSODin and a more mature entry is Resveratrol. Hold off on your rapid deletion criteria judgment until the author has had a chance to properly annotate the entire entry. Precident should be an important, and controlling factor in one's decision to delete an entry. How can an individual researching the topic of antioxidant enzyme agonists get information about available technologies if YOU and a few other quick draw rapid deleting administrators are killing off entries simply because individuals may have waited longer than others to ellucidate their proprietary technologies on to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertisements are not allowed here on Wikipedia, and I am not an administrator. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[[1]]

Is this decision a joke? In what User:Erikupoeg is correct??? In that he is lying? And all the more surprising is "the claims being put together in that way are synthesis" - what does this refer to, can you provide a diff/link/citation/quote? For your information, there is no "claim" per se and synthesis at all either. There are complete citations and respectable sources--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on the noticeboard, not here. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, consider taking it to the NOR noticeboard. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have answered on the noticeboard and expect you to explain your decision with valid links/quotes/citations. Could explain, please, what does "NOR" stand for? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARubikonchik&diff=305534829&oldid=305532951 - answer regarding bad faith of User:Erikupoeg--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR Consider taking a look. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reported the ongoing issues with User:Erikupoeg - [here]. Thank you for your participation.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've taken a look and given my comment. Keep in mind that an RfC is a big step, and that your own behaviour will be subject to investigation as well. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky Original research.

User: Muntuwandi continues Relentlessly to add this information to the Genetic history Of Europe article were able to detect low levels of West African admixture in Europe in regions where Haplogroup E was present. ref group="">Halder et al state. "We observed patterns of apportionment similar The source does not say where Haplogroup E was present. and he also continuously adds this low levels of African admixture (2.8–10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations.</ref>Auton et al detected a South-to-North cline of West African haplotypes in Europe with peak frequencies in Iberia. The authors suggest that this cline is indicative of gene flow directly from West Africa and not necessarily from North Africa ref group="">Auton et al state."The article does not state of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations. This is OR at its finest.

I'm a little tired right now, I'll look more in depth later. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
SOPHIAN, you need to do a better job of articulating your arguments. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR and WP:RS. It would also be a good idea to read some of the references. If you need any help, or if there is anything that you are unclear about in the article, don't hesitate to ask. Remember WP:AGF. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Both of you, please keep the talk about the article on the article's talk page. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombhunters

I was myself quite worried about the COI of the author and the format and style of the article. In addressing your concerns, I was able to take the nominated article], find sourcing, and perform a decent cleanup. I believe the result is now an encyclopedic article worthy of inclusion in Wilipedia. I hope the author learns by the example. Might you consider a withdrawl of the nomination? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Happily. Good rescue! Irbisgreif (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And hapy editing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I consider it a far better end-result when something on AfD is remade into a good article rather than deleted. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Some are easier than others :) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Toomey's Mills

I would like to know your reasoning behind nominating Toomey's Mills, a place on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that that register alone makes the location notable. The article doesn't make notability clear. If it's modified to show clear notability, I'll withdraw the nomination. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
General notability is conferred by the listing on the NRHP. If you feel differently, take it to AfD. It is not a candidate for speedy deletion, as notability is asserted - you do understand that A7 is no assertion of notabilty, not "no notability?". Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Toomey's Mills

In general, if something is listed on the National Register of Historic Places it's considered notable, de jure according to the National Park Service. This isn't one of the most significant NRHP properties, but the NPS has certified it as notable in their opinion, and therefore meets the general notability policy. You may wish to adjust your threshold of deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that that register alone makes the location notable. The article doesn't make notability clear. If it's modified to show clear notability, I'll withdraw the nomination. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, that is your notability right there. I think maybe you need to slow down on nominating articles and learn about the notability standards first before nominating things for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The question is "is this notable", not "is it considered notable by some other group" Irbisgreif (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy deletion tag from this article for two reasons, either one of which would make this article ineligable for speedy. Firstly the article does not to me appear to be about "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" as it apears to be about the building itself and that does not gall into any of those categories. Secondly being on the NRHP is an indication that the subject may be notable and that is all that is needed to avoid speedy. You'll have to take this to AfD if you really want this deleted but I'd be surprise if it result in a 'delete'.
More generally I'm also somewhat concerned with your speedy tagging. The majority of comments on this page are about your incorrect tagging. Can I suggest you make sure you throughly understand the criteria and possibly also spend some time observing what is / isn't speedied before tagging any more articles for speedy deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact, while this page does make it look like I have bad speedy-delete tagging, my tagging for the most part has been uneventful. I just do NPP and occasionally make a mistake. I try and use AfD if I'm not sure, but I'm still not perfect and make a bad call sometimes. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Bear in mind that a credible assertion of notability makes most things un-speediable. There are large tracts of Wikipedia that seem to be un-speediable by bizarre consensus. If I were King of Wikipedia, I'd mass-delete 98% of the articles on schools. Consensus has developed that all schools are notable, no matter what. I think that's nonsense, but it's practically a sacred article at AfD, so I've given up. Articles on NRHP subjects are on a firmer footing, as they meet an objective standard of notability. This particular one is at the very bottom of the scale in my opinion, so I understand your position, but community consensus is that it is, in fact notable by default. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand, and have always desired to work within consensus. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Frunze Higher Naval School

Noted your insertion of comments even before I finished making initial entries. Perhaps you should exercise some patience. Also, on what basis do you assume to question the relevance of a page creation? I see nothing in the less than informative identity you project to justify your comments. I inserted the page because clearly many involved in Russian military wikis do not know of the existence of the M.V. Frunze Higher Naval School and have, therefore, conflated it with the Frunze Military Academy with which it has no connection.Fedoroff (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply marked the page as patrolled and added a few tags to show you what things needed to be done. I did not nominate it for deletion, nor do I feel it should be. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brentcampbell36

I was just going to tag this page for speedy deletion myself, but because you beat me, so it resulted in me getting an edit conflict message. But, anyway, thanks! I guess I wasn't the only one to think it should be deleted. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith, but it seems to be a vandal account. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was taking a look at the user contributions of this user, and it does not look like a constructive account. It looks like one we're better off without. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on these edits, it looks like this user is holding some sort of grudge against you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Delete my account due to Deletion. Okay?--Brentcampbell36 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Rubikonchik (talk) --Rubikonchik (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your quick revert on my user page by the time I noticed it you had beat me to it. Jamesofur (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it came up in Huggle and I was pretty sure it wasn't what you wanted your page to say. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Very much so but no pain no gain. Thanks again Jamesofur (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Instant Reversion

You may not have noticed my edit comment: "There is nothing notable in listing things a reported has reported on - nor are there any references attempting to support or establish notability. Please use Talk." Nor paid much attention to the material that was removed.

I'm sure that this was due to an IP removing a large amount of material - as this is a normal edit and the article is being worked out I would appreciate if you would revert your edit. 99.141.246.39 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I did. The vast amount of information removed made me highly suspicious. I remain so, but I will defer to consensus on the article. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your "warning" to me was as follows : "The recent edit you made to Susan Roesgen has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. ...please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary."

Further indications that you are reverting at warp speed without thought are found in the amount of time you could have even possibly spent reading my comment or even giving minimal consideration to the material in the article:

  1. 22:10, 3 August 2009 (hist) (diff) N User talk:99.141.246.39 ‎ (Message re. Susan Roesgen (HG)) (top)
  2. 22:10, 3 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Susan Roesgen ‎ (Reverted edits by 99.141.246.39 to last revision by Xenophrenic (HG)) (top)
  3. 22:10, 3 August 2009 (hist) (diff) N User talk:82.60.172.157 ‎ (Message re. Italian soda (HG)) (top)
  4. 22:10, 3 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Italian soda ‎ (Reverted edits by 82.60.172.157 to last revision by JForget (HG)) (top)

Here is a sample of the material removed:

Drew Peterson arrest
Roesgen has been on location following the Drew Peterson case in February, 2009, during the investigations, and in May, during his arrest and initial court appearances.

Hardly notable for a reporter to make reports. Same for the rest of the diary entry's. Your reversion of me is without foundation. Your comments left on my page for the reversion are simply cut and pasted by you and applied several times a minute and indicate your lack of consideration in this instance. Again, I ask you to revert your edit to the Roesgen srticle.99.141.246.39 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to not understand the (HG) tag on those edits. I am not browsing wikipedia using a normal system right now. I am using huggle, which brings up suspicious changes to files. As a result, I can see an edit at a glance. All it takes to correct vandalism is to press Q, then move onto the next edit. It automatically places a warning template on your page and reverts the edits. If you feel that I jumped the gun, you can build consensus on the article's talk page. I am not watching the page, or you, and I have nothing against good-faith edits. As a side note, you might want to consider the advantages of making an account. I've been editing as an account and not an IP for a few days now, and I've found that the ability to make pages and complete things like AfD nominations is quite valuable. Please have a nice day. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the removal of information because it "isn't notable", I do not agree with that as an applicable reason. The fact that a person was born in 1932 isn't notable either, yet we include dates of birth in biographies routinely. Information indicating that a person was born in Tinbucket, Ohio, or happens to be married, isn't notable either, yet we include such information. It is the subject of the article that must be notable, not every word of information contained in the article. You could make an argument to remove the information based on notability if it were defamatory or contentious; you could possibly make that argument if the article was already overly long and required trimming. Neither applies in this case, and I don't see that we are in danger of running out of pixels. Being sent on location of major news stories as a reporting correspondent is actually a pretty big deal among the news-heads, if I recall, as a sort of status symbol.
I do see that the article has been recently active due to a news report she did that ruffled the feathers of some conservatives, but stripping away all other activities of this reporter except that one 3 minute event results in highlighting that event — whether intentionally or unintentionally. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep the debate on the Article page, thanks. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Further indications that you are not paying attention to what you edit: " Being sent on location of major news stories as a reporting correspondent is actually a pretty big deal among the news-heads, if I recall, as a sort of status symbol."
The prose you are referring to that was quoted above - the one I used as a diary example - merely states that the Chicago based reporter reported on Drew Petersen - the Drew Petersen story is in Chicago. It was neither a major news story nor was it "On Location" in any way. You have yet to support your edit, and should withdraw the erroneous edit that you are unable to defend.99.141.246.39 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on the article talk page. My user page is an inappropriate place for this. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Twanker

Hello Irbisgreif, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Twanker has been removed. It was removed by Paulettann with the following edit summary '(Added information supporting the use of the word Twanker.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Paulettann before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Notable number of speedies.

I have been watching this page as a result of your placing a speedy on some pages I created (conjoined with a note showing you had not looked at my edit history properly). Three quarters of the messages here have been about the misapplication of speedy tags, to which your response has often been 'go ahead and remove it.' If the first is not wrong, the second certainly shows a worrying lack of confidence in your own judgement. It does not serve the purposes of wiki if editors throw up vast amounts of valid corn and this prevent other editors who care from finding the invalid chaff. Please be more careful over what you interpet as deletable (such as a previous AfD which had a 5-0 'keep' vote). --Fiskeharrison (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not lack confidence in my judgement, I simply respect both Wikipedia process and my fallibility as a person. I have always exercised care, and out of each day's edits, there are a couple of complaints. I did not believe the articles you created were notable, if consensus is otherwise, so be it, that's how Wikipedia works. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My articles were merely examples. What I am saying is statistical: if 3/4 of your talk-page is people complaining about speedies, and 1/2 of them are right, you are abusing the system. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If 3/4 of my talk page is people complaining, and 1/2 of them are right, and they represent less than a tenth of my total actions, what does that mean? Irbisgreif (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It means that you're wrong nearly one out of ten times - and those are just the ones that bother to contact you. A 10% failure rate at such an accelerated tempo indicates that you're causing harm and damage on an epic scale leaving destruction in your wake for others to deal with. Perhaps you should consider the quality of your edits as a measure of your worth and not the quantity. 99.141.246.39 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that a tenth were represented here, I said that less than a tenth are, significantly less than a tenth. I am not "causing harm and damage on a epic scale". I am simply becoming unpopular with a small minority of editors who have become unhappy with my judgement. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicken-shit.

You shouldn't have refactored my statement. You should have let me do it. Which I would have refused to do. Also, WP:DTTR. Crafty (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not, in fact, reword your statement at all. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, whatever. You fucked with it. Always pisses people off that does. Also, slinging terms like libellous and defamatory around is over-the-top. Chicken-shit may hav been a poor choice of words on my part maybe but nobody was defamed. Loosen up babe. Don't be so prissy. Now I'm sure we both have better things so let's leave it at that. Regards, Crafty (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me, but I didn't modify it. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Young New Mexican Puppeteer

Hello Irbisgreif, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Young New Mexican Puppeteer has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - I would say #6 is a significant chart position - song also has some RS coverage (see: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Young+New+Mexican+Puppeteer%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Wikijournal

I like your idea of a wikijournal and would be one of the first to start a journal article over there. I hope it is established and soon. Let me know of your progress and good luck!Camelbinky (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've got a wikia started, and a page on Meta. Consider adding your name here. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

More concerns

As well as my concerns over your speedy tags I mention above I'm also concerned with some of your reversions and the use of automated tools to leave a standard message on the user's talk page. Examples are:

  • Pork (diff) This to me seems like a good faith edit to add information so in my opinion not leaving an edit summary explaining your removal is unhelpful. Also unhelpful is using the standard vandalism warning when the edit may not have beeing vanadalising. We should assume good faith and not bite new users. To then make the same exact reversion again without trying to explain things to the editor in question is in my opinoin extremely unhelpful and likely to scare people away from Wikipedia. I'm not disagreeing wiht you reversion, which was probably correct, just how you dealt with it.
  • Aisha (diff) As you did not leave a new edit summary I've no idea why you reverted this. Again it's not obviously vandalism so leaving an edit summary is both useful and expected. Leaving a vanadalism warning is in my opinion even more incorrect for this edit than the previous edit.
  • Fish diseases and parasites (diff) I agree that this removal was correct but again think it would have been useful to leave the user a message explaing why you'd removed it (at the very least in the edit summary but possibly also on their talk page). They may well have a genuine good reason for wanted the article deleted but not fully understand how to do so. Again leaving a vandalism warning is biting the new comers as this may not have been vandalism.
  • Redondo Union High School (diff) Same points as for Aishia.
  • Susan Roesgen (diff). Again same reason as for Aishia. This one is particularly worrying given that the user you reverted had explained there actions and asked for a discussion on the talk page.
Irbisgreif did better than leave an edit summary; a polite full explanation was left on the disruptive editor's talk page. Irbisgreif was not the first, nor the last, editor to revert the disruptive edit, which was auto-tagged as section blanking. Edits by an editor with no edit history that are unproductive are not typically implemented first, and discussed later. Discussion, consensus, then implementation is the norm. Irbisgreif acted properly in this specific instance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Italian soda (diff) This edit clearly isn't vandalism so adding a vandalism to the users page is incorrect. In this case the editor was clearely trying to start a reaosnable discussion but is obviously unaware of how to do so on wikipedia. Personally I'd have copied their comments to the talk page, left an edit sumamry along the lines of "This isn't the appropiate place for this discussion, please use the talk page", and left a similar comment on the user's talk pages.

In summary I find your use of automated tools extremely worrying as you don't appear to be thinking about, or are not fully aware of, the consquences of your actions and as such you appear to be biting new editors, not to be assuming good faith and leaving inappropiate warnings. Can I suggest you slow down, go back to manual editing and think things through more until you have more experience of how wikipedia works.

I also think you point that your error rate is low is missing the point. In your opinion it might be, but experienced users would only leave a message on your talk page if they were worried about your rate of errors and though it higher than is expected on wikipedia. I suggest you take the advice left on your talk page as just that, advice, rather than try to refute all the points experienced editors are making. Dpmuk (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point on Pork. The information may have been legit and I probably jumped the gun. The others, however confuse me. Can you explain to me how changing an article on a wife of Mohommad from the wording "They also believe she behaved inappropriately in her role as Muhammad's wife." to "Also this is backed up by her inappropriate behavior as her role as Muhammad's wife." is, in any way, not POV-pushing vandalism?
Tagging a random article with a mere {{delete}} tag, when the page looks completely legit, strikes me as vandalism. Especially when the user had just done this.
With RUHS, I simply removed some poorly written advertising. With Susan Roesgen, I have to point out that a content debate has started, and that this IP user seems to enjoy jumping on people who revert their edits.
And disruptive "this doesn't exist" talk on the page seems like vandalism to me.
So, could you please explain how the others were not as I view it? Simply telling me "This clearly isn't vandalism" doesn't tell me why the community doesn't view it as vandalism. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Taking each in turn:
  • OK I accept you were probably right with the 'delete' tag given their recent history but a more informative edit statement would have helped make this clear.
  • With Aisha yes what you reverted probably did break POV rules but I seriously doubt it was vandalism as I doubt it was a delibrate attempt to be disruptive and merely someone changing the article to what they thought was correct without understaning all the polices. That's a content dispute not vandalism. In all but the clearest cases of vandalism it is good practice to use an informative edit summary to inform people why you've reverted. As I say I would also be somewhat surprised if the edit was actually vandalism and so leaving a vandalism warning is biting new users and possible scaring them away.
  • With Redondo Union High School again this wasn't vandalism but probably a good faith edit without realisng it was inappropiate for wikipedia and so the same comments apply as for Aisha. Additionally by just reverting you reverted other changes the user made without any explanation - I assume the clubs etc they removed no longer exist so this was probably a valid attempt to update the page. (This information shouldn't be on the page full stop but just reverting you gave credance to the previosu version).
  • Italian soda - I suspect this was a good faith attempt from an Italian to make the comment that they'd never heard of it and given the article is completely unsourced this is probably a valid observartion to make and may well deserve some discussion. Yes they did this in an inappropiate way but not understanding how wikipedia works is not vandalism. Leaving them a vandalism warning for a simple mistake caused by lack of experience is not appropiate. Also by not leaving a proper reason either in the edit history or on their talk page they may feel their contributions are worthless and not stay on editing wikipedia in a constructive way which they may well do once they understand how things work.
  • Susan Roesgen - The IP editor left a reasonable edit statement for their actions so almost by defintion it's not vandalism it may break other rules but it's not vandalism as there was not a delibrate attempt to be disruptive. Again by not leaving a n appropiate edit summary or leaving them an appropiate message they have no idea why you reverted what to them was a sensible change that they had reverted.
Incorrect. The edit summary given by the IP editor was wrong (there were cited references), and not applicable (the editor's opinion on notability). As for not being deliberately disruptive, the editor has been warned several times by multiple editors; blocked at least twice [2][3] for disruptive editing and personal attacks, and prompted the semi-protection of the article due to disruptive editing and vandalism. Irbisgreif acted appropriately in this specific instance, although the standard template used to inform the editor of the revert could have been worded more applicably. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're way too ready to assume people are being delibrately disruptive and as such I fear you will scare of new editors who make mistakes through ignorance of the rules. Using standard edit summarys when it's not a clear case of vandalism makes it difficult for the editor or anyone else to follow what's going and why. Using standard vandalism warnings when the perosn probably hasn't been disruptive intentionally is likely to scare people off. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try and make an effort to be more personable and understanding with new editors. I think the user contribs marker in huggle should be helpful for that. Thank you for bringing these concerns to me and being willing to explain them, that helps me understand more than anything else. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for the kind welcome. I realise now this is not as easy to start out on here as I at first thought it might be. I am feeling very confused now and really right now wonder if I am actually at all clever enough to write the article entry on one of my British outdoors heroes here, that I hoped to have! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor D Gamble (talk • contribs) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that! You should find it pretty easy to get used to things here. Your first article could use some work, but that's okay. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, and the virtual cookies there too, lol!

I think I will have to go by one of those 'Idiots' guides to on this all maybe! It is just like a sea of stuff I do not understand right now. I really do not know where to start on trying to get my first article right! I know it needs linking in to other things here already, like the entry for the SAS Handbook author John 'Lofty' Wiseman and Special Air Service Regiment of the British Army here. At the moment though sadly, not feeling too confident of finishing the work neded doing on this article before it gets deleted here! Many thanks anyway for being so kind. Trevor D Gamble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor D Gamble (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider checking out here: [[4]] Irbisgreif (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FG repository

I've started a repository of potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I come across any, I will. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, Irbisgreif. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Templating

First of all, WP:TEMPLAR. I've been here for 18 months and have over 3,000 edits, I know the policy. Secondly, you might actually get the right template while you're at it. This was about content not deletion. Finally, I've participated in a number of articles where straw polls were used to measure concensus. While it's true that wikipedia's not a democracy, they're one of the best tools available for seeing who supports what in a manner that is concise and in one easily accessible location. Soxwon (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that essay. Also, see below. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems I wasn't the only one. You should be more carefull when patronizing [5] longstanding editors w/o reason [6]. Get familiar with WP first. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the two of you seem quite intent to referring to it as a vote, so I'm trying to make sure you're aware that voting isn't what Wikipedia is about. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe we are aware (or would hope so considering the number of edits between us), but if wish to advise others on wikipedia, then you should realize that it's quite patronizing and annoying to get a message that starts out "Welcome to Wikipedia" from a user who has half your edits and is one year your junior. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me quote myself with relevent part marked in bold:
So now we're talking; And we just disagree about common sense. Common sense regarding trivia has almost nothing to do with the coverage of such and we, the editors have to choose if it is worth to include in this article or not. I guess we can agree so far and the next step would be to reach consensus one way or the other which this RFC is about. So far,Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics did not draw any comment and so we're on our own. Maybe a "request for consensus" could help? It's not a vote since WP is not a democracy but editors can cast a "vote" with his/her reasoning below in the new section I started, hopefully bringing this issue to an end?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this help?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:TEMPLAR says, "...those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." Common sense.
Just poking my nose in here to say that the above 2 editors do not speak for everyone. Most of us find templates neither patronizing or annoying, but we reserve the right to pretend we are offended by them when we want to chastize someone for other reasons.  ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I try and respond to criticism as positively as possible, and I'm assuming that the above users were complaining in good faith. If they are annoyed with something other than my use of a template, that's for them to know and me to not care. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this [7] and/or this [8] edit please you more? If not I can still make changes.
BTW, to the latter (in your reply above): No. The template starting with the "headline" August 2009 was the most if not to say the only "annoying thing for me and I would've mind the template w/o the Title (which is usually used for newcomers or warnings). Besides, I don't know you and have no "axe to grind". Also Soxwon and I are two very different editors and I guess I can speak for him when I say don't refer to us as we where one. Amazingly for me, Xenophrenic seems to wp:ABF with his comment and all s/he accomplished by his/her very useless comment is that I'll strike him/her from my trust list. If someone thinks pilling some straw on a tiny lit match instead of a drop of water it makes you think twice.
One last thing though. I saw you're looking for a coach to become an admin. Although I don't see a good chance for you to pass the sysop vote (and yes, there it is a real vote), I wish you the best and good luck. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no chance IMO, he's templating people in a way that people have asked him not to, and that there are guidelines against, and he appears he may be doing it to deliberately to antagonise people. That would never fly for an admin. He's also starting votes and recommending positions exactly contrary to wikipedian key policies. In other words, there's every chance he would be a disaster.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You have not, however, assumed good faith on the part of other editors. Please consider that WP:TEMPLAR is an essay, not a guideline. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints." You also just accused me of bad-faith editing as well. I consider templates to be an excellent first effort to resolve a situation. They remind an editor of policy and they are short and succinct. You have gone on a crusade, recently, to rename and remove a large number of linguistics related articles. I figure this is because you have legitimate concerns about them, though I do not agree with your reasoning. I have never considered you to be acting in bad-faith. You have concerns, I have counter concerns, and yet, you have assumed that everyone who supports the inclusion of articles on bound morphemes, like -mania, -logy, et cetera, is unaware of policy and attempting to harm the encyclopædia. Please refrain from doing that. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I consider you templating me as simply a form of harassment. Do not ever write anything on my talk page ever again for any circumstances. Thanks!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I will use your talk page for what it is for, getting your attention and engaging in discussions with you. I cannot comply with your request, I'm afraid. Also, I am sorry that you view my use of a template as a form of harassment, but it was not intended as such. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A member of both project deletion and article rescue?

I saw your "keep" on one of the articles which was on the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron list, and I was planning on stopping by and saying hi.

I always wanted to do what you have on your user page: confuse the hell out of people with conflicting templates, snarky. I like it. Ikip (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear, I believe in deleting what doesn't belong and rescuing what does! I've found that an AfD debate can seriously improve an article, and that's a good thing, in my opinion. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Everything is so polarized now unfortunately. Best wishes, and I hope to see you on the AfD circuit. Ikip (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Teenage Level Fiction Books

Greetings. I'm curious why you opened an AfD discussion on List of Teenage Level Fiction Books when it had already been proposed for deletion, but not objected to. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I opened it shortly after it was created and nominated it for deletion via Twinkle. (New Pages Patrol) Looks like we had an edit conflict. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Warm welcome

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Irbisgreif/Archives/2009, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are our first split personality member, a warm welcome. Ikip (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Split personality? I just might be. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy of contributor

Based on your interaction with other editors, I thought you would find this study revealing: Detailed at: Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia

Although policies help build a stronger commuity, we find that ambiguities in policies give rise to power plays.
Attempts to undermine or bolster the legitimacy of a contributor constitute another class of power play. This type of power play, [includes] questioning the legitimacy of sources or threating formal sanctions. The legitamacy of contributor power play can either implicate an external attribute of a contributor (e.g. race/ethnicity, expertise, or personal experience) or their stus within Wikipedia.

Read the study,[9] it is really shows how wikipedia really works. Unfortunatly, it is absolutly useless as a tool on wikipedia. It will not persuade anyone of anything, nor will it help build consesus to support your position, but it is nice to read something which makes you realize you were right all along. When I found the 12+ articles of journalists about how nasty editors can be who delete articles, it made me feel vindicated. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks interesting, I'll take a look. Thanks for sending it my way. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

General talk

Hi there, you correctly nominated Daggerspawn at AfD. I stumbled upon Tales of Dark which is pretty much similar and has been tagged since Nov 08(!) for notability. Try and nominate that one, too. Cheers. Rafablu88 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're capable of nominating stuff for deletion. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. Just thought you might want to go for a comprehensive win. ;) Rafablu88 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Hi, thanks for your reply on my talk page about my concerns regarding your AfD nomination. Whilst I always try and assume good faith, I find it difficult to see how you could have followed the WP:BEFORE guidelines when nominating Franciszek Przysiężniak for deletion. Given that the article had asserted the subjects notability when it was first created (albeit in a small way, with the line "Franciszek Przysiężniak (nom de guerre "Ojciec Jan", "Father John) (born September 22, 1909, in the village of Krupe, near Krasnystaw, died September 30, 1975 in Jarosław) - was a lieutenant in the Polish Army, an officer of anti-communist resistance groups National Military Organization (NOW) and National Military Union (NZW)", and wasn't therefore eligible for a CSD, I felt that more of an effort should have been put into finding additional sources and references before the AfD nomination. I hope this explains the comments I left on the AfD page. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the notability there. A lieutenant doesn't seem like a very notable person, but if I've misunderstood the importance of that rank in those organizations, I'm terribly sorry. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the assertion of notability that would've meant a speedy would have been declined (ie, it was asserted he was a lieutenant), so AfD was the correct place to take it if there were worries about its notability. It's the very short amount of time between the article's creation and nomination for deletion that concerned me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I do New Pages Patrol, and that's why I found it so quickly. I'm no deletionist, and I don't consider getting the article deleted a "win". But there's a lot of new pages that are about people who just don't matter. It get's silly. As a result, I take them to AfD or put them up for speedy. (I've found I don't like the PROD tag). Irbisgreif (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I used to do NPP a little bit too, but got frustrated with it for the same reasons. A better thing to do might just be to put the page on your watchlist if its not a CSD candidate and see if grows any over a day or so. If not, put it up for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Enneagram articles

Hi, Irbisgreif, I noticed that you'd added a mass of cleanup templates to Enneagram, Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram of Personality‎ and for a brief moment I thought a vandal had stuck. :)

The enneagram is not simply a polygon or nonagon as you suggest: the Fourth Way version is also inscribed in a circle. Compare pentagon, pentagram, pentangle (and for that matter pentacle).

Yes, the articles have issues and editing seems only sporadic. Matters were confused to some extent when an editor split off all the Gurdjieff/Fourth Way material into another article, leaving the Enneagram article an incomplete mish-mash.

The Enneagram article started off about Gurdjieff and others' use of what they called the enneagram; then someone added the pseudo-maths; and finally someone decided to move the original material to another article :D

Please be aware, however, that Fourth Way Enneagram and Enneagram of Personality‎ may also need expert attention, eg someone who's well-read in the areas of G. I. Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way, amongst other things. Just a thought. Good luck, Esowteric+Talk 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not ditch the geometry material (which is in nonagon anyhow) and replace it with the material in Fourth Way Enneagram, with a redirect to Enneagram from that article and a page top link to Nonagon ? Esowteric+Talk 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking of doing. Along with rewriting some of the description to sound a little less... strange. I'm just looking for resources. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck, Esowteric+Talk 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the old version was better, especially since it had included the isogonal enneagram faces of the final stellation of the icosahedron, which wasn't in enneagon and had good reasons for not doing so: I doubt icosahedral stellations have much to do with enneagons at first sight! Anyway, I reverted back to the old version by 1ForTheMoney. If you have any objections to this, you can discuss it at my talk page. Thanks! --Professor Fiendish (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First wave of edits involving Enneagram

Irbisgreif, you wrote: "You might want to take a look at them, you seemed interested."

Many thanks for your efforts, I can see the moves and will have a look tomorrow (UK time) as I'm really bushed after a load of html validation twiddling. Am about to turn in for the night. Esowteric+Talk 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem, let me know when you do look. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. Judging by the many folk I know who've come across "enneagram" in the writing of folk like Gurjieff, Ouspensky and others into the Fourth Way, and the Sufi Idries Shah, I would say that 99% would type in "enneagram" and expect to get to Fourth Way material or enneagram of personality. If nothing else, via a disambugation page or disambiguation entry. It's really little to do with nonagon.

Anyhow, must dash. Esowteric+Talk 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"I've been here for 18 months and have over 3,000 edits"

How come user page is less than 2 months old (or do I read the index wrong)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.232.204 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mine is less than 2 months old. Soxwon, above, has been around that long. Look at who's signing these things. ;) Irbisgreif (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!

Two welcomes? Thanks! Irbisgreif (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see they had added it already, deleted the spare. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the sentiment, at any rate. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this proposed move

Please see Talk:Nonagram#Requested_move. Someone wants to move nonagram to enneagram. Can you have your say, too, please. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion. If you oppose, please make sure you also have a reason to oppose a move to Enneagram (shape). Georgia guy (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help in getting the thing sorted, it's appreciated. Esowteric+Talk 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Irb

Good to see you again.

Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:

Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it! Ikip (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Already signed up :). Irbisgreif (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong articles

I noticed that you have been proposing redundant images and those potentially violating copyright formerly used in Falun Gong articles for deletion. You might like to review these again, as there has been considerable cleaning up of the articles recently, and more such images may need deletion. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look. How has the mediation been going? Irbisgreif (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Olaf Stephanos earned himself a 6 month topic ban; an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to take a look. Please note that this is a permalink; any editing should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I would not have discovered those various addresses, nor spotted the address in the text. Whether this editor turns out to be a puppeteer or simply a misbehaving editor, I think the work was worthwhile, and I thank you.- sinneed (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I really just moved things to a better venue. That IP editor did all the 'hard' work. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you nevertheless. *I* would not have spotted it. I am watching your talk page, no need to talkback. :)- sinneed (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Another Satanoid account here? Cheers --Sikh-History 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful with AWB, please

Hi, Falun Gong is on my watchlist and I saw that you'd unlinked Amnesty International. This is a notable first mention and some will want to follow the link. This was the only link in the body of the text other than a link hidden in the footnotes, so imo it deserves its place.

I notice that you're using AWB, which has its pitfalls. You might also watch out when unlinking words that are then only to be found linked in the infobox, See also or page bottom templates. Folk like to be able to click on inline links as they're reading, without having to check further down the page to find them.

Just a thought. Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ach, mia culpa. Sorry about that. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Major General Sterling Price

I have replied to you on his talk page. I am happy to continue the discussion there. --Falcorian (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Derek Gleeson

Hi there. Just a quick note on the above:

  • If the original editor asserts ownership of the source material, the {{copyvio}} template should be placed on the article and listed at WP:CP
  • GFDL-only content is no longer permissible since the licensing transition on Jun 16th this year, please make sure that if you advise people about resolving licensing issues, you point them towards CC-BY-SA licenses instead or compatible, or, even better, WP:DCM for people claiming ownership of the source material or WP:PERMISSION for editors claiming to have the authorization from the owner of the source material.

I know, it's all a bit complicated. Keep up the good work :) MLauba (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that material available under GFDL or CC-BY-SA was acceptable, my mistake. Irbisgreif (talk)

Coach me please

Would you mind to help me to attain standards needed to become an administrator? Thank you.

  1. Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 11:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin coach, I'm afraid. I'm trying to become one myself. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Theo Sandfort

I put hand-on instead. ADM (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Help, I put hang-on, but somebody reverted me. ADM (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to be careful not to place comments by other people on other pages like that. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It was created mistakenly.

I am sorry but the page Sarfaraz Khan Marwat was created mistakenly. --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Deleiton is appreciated.

Ah, I see. In the future, if you make an error, you can immediately request CSD as the author. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

UAA report

I have to say I'm puzzled by your request to block User:DG6 for being too similar to User:DGG, especially given that they've never interacted.

Wikipedians are allowed to have similar usernames. Heck, for a while, we had admins named Essjay and Sj, and I started out thinking they were the same person. So, I have to ask, was there something in the username policy that made you think a block was necessary in this unproblematic situation? If so, it should be clarified. rspεεr (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that extremely similar user-names should be reported. Given the similarity to the glyphs 6 and G (depending on face), I belived it possible that the two could end up being confused for each other. As DGG is a sysop, such confusion could be a major problem. If what I did was inappropriate or improper, I'm willing to apologize both to you and User:DG6. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
UAA is for reporting usernames to be blocked, and the only case of similar usernames that's serious enough to require a block is deliberate impersonation. For a coincidental resemblance, the policy recommends they put a disambiguating note on the userpage. I'm not sure even this is necessary, because DG6 and DGG look rather different to me. rspεεr (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Masi Bicycles

I've disputed your request for speedy deletion and added a note on the talk page explaining why. I think you could be a little less eager to delete articles, I did not even have 24 hours to whip the article into shape before you tagged it. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Icd (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment there. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User signing on my behalf.

Dear, I am facing a problem with a user who after posting his comments paste my User Name's link to deceive others that I have signed (infact wrote) the lines. He in the end of his writing has copied my user name's links and talk page references just to make other believe that I have written everything. What to do with the imposter? --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:WQA. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Terrorism

This article is a joke, article Sikh terrorism is becoming to look more like a legitimate cause against British colonialism of the last century when in fact all references to terrorist acts 80's and beyond have been heavily obfuscated or deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&diff=310633425&oldid=310030083

The above link included this reference http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34319 but its been classed as a dubious source ?

The above changes include references to sikh terrorism but were mysteriously blanked out, many refs to Sikh terrorism have been removed either because 2 (pro terrorist) editors felt the references were never good enough or that the whole western media was biased against them, or some issue of dubious foul play etc..(please see fist archive of discussion of sikh extremism)

If the editors are extremist apologists, would one still be able to edit and include relevant information? I do know this is a sensitive subject for sikh extremists. However you read these stories related to sikh terrorism they usually get deleted.

http://www.southasianmedia.net/index_story.cfm?id=604664&category=Frontend&Country=MAIN

The above link should backup the Jamestown link

And those exposing them will be silenced with the help of Admins having their arms twisted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.69.203 (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irbisgreif/Archives/2009/August&oldid=1082550275"