User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:41, 6 July 2010

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

User:Bertport

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert [1] at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with User:Clemensmarabu, had been contributing days to the article Tibet. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.

I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored [2], you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr

Watch out

See this. Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Serbian–Albanian conflict

Can you give a look at the article Serbian–Albanian conflict. It is full of WP:OR WP:SYNTH, but what is more important is only an agenda pushing article. Aigest (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deucalionite

This banned user is back [3] so could you semi-protect the article?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't take action against him myself – you might try some other admin (User:SlimVirgin has been active on the case repeatedly.) However, before we keep fighting over this one, it might be advisable to first fix those sources. I must grant Deuc this point, the sourcing for that point is abominable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think that I can easily fix it when the article gets semi-protected.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the original edit by Guildenrich, who first introduced those sources [4], when they still had actual bibliographic info and links (which are now missing). One source [5] merely says he came from "Arta in Albania" (that's a 19th-century source of course), so nothing about Albanian ethnicity. Another [6] calls him an "Albanian Greek", yet another says [7] he was from an "illustrious Albanian family"; in both these cases it is not clear whether "Albanian" is being used in an ethnic or in a geographical sense – and the latter may well be more likely. All of these sources are quite outdated and hardly reliable. So, ignoring Deuc. for the moment, what do you want to do? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment(ignoring Deuc.) I would remove anything related to his ethnicity(Greek from an Albanian family doesn't make much sense) and afterwards search for reliable sources about it. If I were to use only these sources I would add something close to Greek Orthodox monk of (possibly) Albanian origin, but I believe that I can find more sources so I don't think that we'll have to base our edits just on these references.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Deucalionite is back in Talk:Byllis. Along with other users he is trying to add the WPGR tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zjarri's latest accusation about off wiki cooperation with Deucalionite is really weird (in talk:Byllis). By the way this tag game is really childish (personally speaking it's useless too). Since there is an 'ancient Rome & Greece' tag, it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's childish then why did you insist on the use of WPGR? Btw my comment includes I don't know, unless.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added wpgr before 'ancient Greece & Rome' tag was added (as I've explained above this tag is ok to me). Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duchamps comb

I added an indef topic ban to the user in addition to your block.[8] It's up to you whether you want to lift the block or not. NW (Talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of what the sources say

Could you take a look at this?

Basically, the article includes the statement:

"Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud write that "the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command."" - sourced to "For Your Freedom and Ours: The Kosciuszko Squadron - Forgotten Heroes of World War II" by Lynne Cloud and Stanley Olson. Indeed, it's a direct quote from the source.

Varsovian insists on adding the following statement right after it:

This statement flatly contradicts available historical records,[25] media reports of the time,[23][26] statements from the British government[27][28] and the memoirs of western command Poles,[3] including those who were invited to attend.[29] - note the presence of citations.

The problem is that none of these citation 1) reference Cloud and Olson and, more importantly 2) show that historical records, media reports of the time, statements from the British government or the memoirs of western command Poles (sic) actually contradict Cloud and Olson. In fact, pretty much all the sources given in citations SUPPORT Cloud and Olson. So Varsovian is pretending that the citations say the opposite of what they actually say.

I realize my comments on talk page go into some detail and are a bit long but I wanted to fully examine the citations. Furthermore, while when I was first looking at it I expected this to be just typical OR and stretching of the info present in the sources, by the time I got done looking through the citations it became pretty clear that this was a probably deliberate misrepresentation of the sources. I could buy if it was one or two mistakes, in a case where the matter is ambiguous. But this is 7 (seven) instances of providing sources which say the OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to reference.

While this isn't as blatantly offensive of a misrepresentation as what Bandurist did recently on "Polish Auxiliary Police", it's very much in the same vein - sticking a citation at the end of a highly contentious claim in the hope that no one will check it for verifiability. Also, this kind of problem with Varsovian's editing apparantly keeps coming up again and again; and when he comes under scrutiny he backs off for a few days, then after a short break returns to do OR on this article (and several others) - and this time he totally misrepresented the sources to support it.radek (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 I added an indef topic ban to the user in addition to your block.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuchamps_comb&action=historysubmit&diff=371750527&oldid=371669083] It's up to you whether you want to lift the block or not. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
+== Misrepresentation of what the sources say ==
+Could you take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946#misrepresentation_of_what_the_sources_say this]?
+Basically, the article includes the statement:
+:''"Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud write that "the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.""'' - sourced to "For Your Freedom and Ours: The Kosciuszko Squadron - Forgotten Heroes of World War II" by Lynne Cloud and Stanley Olson. Indeed, it's a direct quote from the source.
+Varsovian insists on adding the following statement right after it:
+:''This statement flatly contradicts available historical records,[25] media reports of the time,[23][26] statements from the British government[27][28] and the memoirs of western command Poles,[3] including those who were invited to attend.[29]'' - note the presence of citations.
+The problem is that none of these citation 1) reference Cloud and Olson and, more importantly 2) show that historical records, media reports of the time, statements from the British government or the memoirs of western command Poles (sic) actually contradict Cloud and Olson. In fact, pretty much all the sources given in citations SUPPORT Cloud and Olson. So Varsovian is pretending that the citations say the opposite of what they actually say.
+I realize my comments on talk page go into some detail and are a bit long but I wanted to fully examine the citations. Furthermore, while when I was first looking at it I expected this to be just typical OR and stretching of the info present in the sources, by the time I got done looking through the citations it became pretty clear that this was a probably deliberate misrepresentation of the sources. I could buy if it was one or two mistakes, in a case where the matter is ambiguous. But this is 7 (seven) instances of providing sources which say the OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to reference.
+While this isn't as blatantly offensive of a misrepresentation as what Bandurist did recently on "Polish Auxiliary Police", it's very much in the same vein - sticking a citation at the end of a highly contentious claim in the hope that no one will check it for verifiability. Also, this kind of problem with Varsovian's editing apparantly keeps coming up again and again; and when he comes under scrutiny he backs off for a few days, then after a short break returns to do OR on this article (and several others) - and this time he totally misrepresented the sources to support it.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)