User talk:Irn/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Irn/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ton e 23:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: INCITE!

Nice, thanks. Dkreisst (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Falafel

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Falafel. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.

I find this block to be rather unwarranted. User:Irn made efforts to discuss the sourced text he/she was restoring here: Talk:Falafel#re: Falafel has been part of the diet of Arabs, as well as Mizrahi Jews for centuries. Notice that the only two comments in this section are from Irn, while User:M1rth who was reverting the additions made by Irn, didn't bother to respond, discussing instead only by way of edit summary reverting the additions. I think that pointing out WP:3RR and other related policies to Irn would have been a good first step to take here, particularly since this is a new user who made a good faith effort to add relevant and sourced material to the article. Indeed, this user managed to find the original New York Times article for the source that was cited, putting a rest to questions raised regarding its reliability. In short, I think this block is unfair. There is little danger of continuing disruption here and the block seems punitive, rather than preventative. Please reconsider. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true, Tiamut, that Irn is doing the "right thing", and M1rht is in the wrong. However, that does not excuse edit warring under any circumstances. I don't really know what else to say—Irn's warring was, unfortunately, disruptive, and thus I blocked his/her (I'm not sure of Irn's gender) account to prevent further disruption. I reiterate my blocking message: edit warring, even if you're "right", is wrong. Anthøny 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User Request: I'm not really requesting an unblock since it's only a 12-hour block that will expire soon, anyway, but I do want to contest it. I can see how my edit-warring was a bit disruptive and poor behavior on my part. However, I honestly wasn't aware of WP:3RR. You said you blocked it "to prevent further disruption," but I really don't think a block was necessary for that, as I was clearly making an effort to resolve the dispute, and this was my first offense. I think a simple "Hey stop it with reverts, eh?" would have sufficed. Also, I'm a little unclear on the 3RR: did I break the 3RR rule? I only reverted it twice.

Response: Reviewing the comments above, your contributions, and the history of Falafel, I feel this block is completely unwarranted and was improperly handled. You should have been warned about the 3RR prior to blocking, which you were not. As far as I can tell, you didn't even violate the 3RR. Furthermore, you did make an honest effort to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. So while you didn't exactly request an unblock, I'm unblocking you anyway.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - it turns out the software beat me to it. Your block expired before I could remove it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised that I was not notified that discussion was ongoing on this matter... Let alone that a straight unblock was made. Hersfold, Irn is very much aware of the 3RR rule... Additionally, the block was for edit warring—not a technical violation of the 3-revert rule. The behaviour on Irn's part was disruptive... I made a block. Rather by-the-book, and very much deserved. Anthøny 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/March 2008#irn. RFRBot (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of rollback

Well, rollback is for reverting vandalism/blatant spam only, and not for reverting good-faith edits or for use in content disputes/revert wars. The best thing to do would either be to wait for a month or two, and re-apply then; or, I could grant it to you now, (after a review of your anti-vandalism work), but only if I have your guarantee that you'll use rollback for reverting vandalism, and that you understand it's for that use. Remember that rollback can be removed as easily as it can be given. Acalamari 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes here. Your block above was quite inappropriate in my view, and it's a shame your request got denied as a result. Feel free to contact me if Acalamari's not around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a review of some of your anti-vandalism work, and after your guarantee and understanding of rollback's use, I believe you'll use rollback correctly. For information on rollback, you may wish to see Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. In the meantime, be careful, and good luck. Acalamari 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that

you do not feel discouraged by what I think was a rather unfortunate application of the blocking policy. Technically, more than one revert is considered edit-warring, but you made efforts to discuss that were not reciprocated and you received no heads up as to 3RR or other relevant policies here. I'm glad that others saw fit not to deny you rollback privileges and that no major harm has been done. You should know that many editors have been blocked for 3RR without technically violating it - (at least two of the four times I was blocked were for 3 reverts or less - thankfully, I've since learned just to take a step back when faced with people who revert without discussion). Edit-warring is heavily frowned upon here and I know that you were not trying to do that (as evidenced by your attempts at discussing the issue twice, with no response from the other editor). Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings. And happy editing (and vandal-fighting!) Tiamut^talk 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was, honestly, feeling quite discouraged when I first saw the block. However, I definitely learned a lesson that'll make me a better editor in the long run. And I appreciate the encouraging messages as I'm still, obviously, learning the ropes here. --Irn (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to semi-related comment on my talk page:

You're quite welcome. That's why we have the {{unblock}} template - admins are still human, and do make mistakes from time to time. I'm glad to see you got your rollback button as well. Quick tip, though - when your talk page gets too long to handle, make sure to archive it rather than just deleting the old discussions. If your block record ever comes into question for whatever reason, it'll be important that you can provide that discussion as evidence in your defense. Anyway, it's good to see you weren't put off by that incident. Please let me know if you ever need help with anything, and happy editing as always. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star

		The Resilient Barnstar
		You are the type of user this barnstar was designed for. In spite of the block, you've come out of the situation with a smile and made an effort to learn from the mistakes you made. Keep up the good work (in improving yourself as well as the encyclopedia)! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: This is not intended to display any sort of opinion towards the block itself - even if you weren't "unblocked," you would still be deserving of this barnstar if you had the same resolve following its release - probably even more so.

As a follow-up note, Irn, I'd like to endorse and second this barnstar. Since my block, you've come on a treat: the incidents visible pre-block are clearly long gone, and, to use Hersfold's comment, above, you've "come out smiling". You're clearly a great editor, and it's unfortunate that our first encounter was through the block system. Hopefully future meetings will be under circumstances less drastic. All the best, and kind regards. Yours, Anthøny 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Bridge

Hi Irn- thanks- that's wonderful. I was hoping someone would write that. I will contribute to the article for sure. Best, Kootenayvolcano (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Habacuc's Natividad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Habacuc's Natividad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced category

Please do not add categories that do not have a sourced statement in the article that verifies the accuracy of the category, as you did to Tim Wise. Note that the issue isn't "what kind of source" I need; it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. Read the blue links in this message. Note also that sources are cited in the article, not in an edit summary. Read WP:CITE. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements? The policy you linked to (WP:V) does not discuss categories. Furthermore, only direct quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources, according to WP:V (are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?). Maybe you would do well to read Wikipedia:When to cite.

Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical. None of the categories for the Tim Wise article are sourced because the article has literally no sources. Why are you objecting to the insertion of this one category? Additionally, why did you remove the category and respond snarkily on my talk page when you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source?--Irn (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CAT: "If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? ... If the answer ... is no, then the category is probably inappropriate". The few exceptions are the ones that are quite obvious; for example, Category:Living People is appropriate if there is no date of death in the article and status of living is implied by description of current activities; in that case you don't need a specific statement that the person is alive. But issues of ethnicity and religion always require a statement in the article verifying it. This has been discussed extensively in various talk pages.
"are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?": I'm not challenging anything, just requesting verification, per Wikipedia policy.
"Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical": Please read Wikipedia guidelines regarding assuming good faith. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, there is no editorial oversight other than other editors trying to be sure that policies are followed. Otherwise anyone could write anything and it could not be challenged. There is nothing petty or hypocritical in what I am doing. If you don't feel that category needs a sourced statement to back it up, let me suggest that you raise the issue on the article's talk page and wait for consensus from the Wikipedia community. And please remember a core principle of Wikipedia: "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited".
"respond snarkily": Perhaps it wasn't intended, but that accusation is very close to a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA.
"you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source": I don't have a source. Finding and citing the source is the responsibility of the editor adding the category.

Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you didn't address my most pertinent question: What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements?

The quotation you provided confuses me. I looked it up in the original context, and I still don’t know if I understand it. The category already exists; doesn’t that render this a moot point? Further, what would it mean to write a few more paragraphs on the subject? That every page tagged as Category:American Jews needs multiple paragraphs on Jews in the US? Also, from where are you getting the information in the rest of that bullet? I see no policy that states that issues of ethnicity and religion always require a statement in the article verifying it. Telling me that something has been discussed extensively on talk pages does not make it policy.

As for assuming good faith. I had assumed good faith when making the edit. I saw that you objected to the category because it was unsourced, so I provided you with a source that took me four seconds to find. However, when you again reverted it with only "unsourced" in the summary and then posted a comment on my talk page consisting of five imperative sentences, citing general policies and guidelines with questionable applicability, I began to question that. And that is why I openly questioned your objections. Your response to which, by the way, did not address my subsequent statements, which explained why I thought what you were doing was out of line. I still maintain that holding the addition of this one category to the standards of reliable sources and verifiability is petty and hypocritical. I don’t think I need to reiterate why it’s hypocritical in this instance.

To be clear, I do think that requiring a verifiable source in this instance is petty. Wikipedia policy only states that quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources. BLP policy further specifies that contentious material in biographies of living people requires verifiable sources as well. You have repeatedly asserted that what you are doing is Wikipedia policy. Am I missing something?

Finding and citing the source is the responsibility of the editor adding the category. You’re right, and I can’t argue with you. However, this goes back to the good faith bit. You actually wrote I don’t have a source. I don’t know what you mean by "have" but I did provide you with a source, so that’s a rather disingenuous statement. Additionally, while it is, technically, the responsibility of the person adding the information, if your concern were truly that you don’t want unverified information in the article, I don’t see why you couldn’t have taken the same amount of time that it took you to write on my talk page and integrate the source yourself. Or, tag it as {{Category unsourced}} instead of simply reverting it.

Finally, thank you for your explanation of your actions. I appreciate where you are coming from in your concerns for keeping unverified tripe and misinformation out of Wikipedia. I mean that sincerely. I just don’t think you are going about it in a constructive manner. -- Irn (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]