Revision as of 21:14, 5 February 2010 editCautious (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,135 edits →Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:31, 6 February 2010 edit undoGlenfarclas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,577 edits →Your canvassing complaint about Ozguroot: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Potrzebuje poparcia ] (]) 21:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | Potrzebuje poparcia ] (]) 21:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Your canvassing complaint about Ozguroot == | |||
Hi Happenstance, I haven't looked into Ozguroot's conduct enough to say whether or not I agree it was inappropriate. However, I wanted to let you know I find it inappropriate and uncivil for you to call me a "partisan user," as you did at ]. If you've read my handful of comments, you will not detect an iota of partisanship in this matter. I'd appreciate if you would retract the remark as to me, and I'd think the same would apply to many if not all the other users you put on the same list. I came to your talkpage instead of putting this remark at ANI because I'm sure it was just a careless choice of words. Thanks— ]''' (]) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:31, 6 February 2010
|
Russian passport
I reverted your removal of the visa-free section in this article. First of all, I do not see how "consensus on Talk:Passport" could possibly be relevant to any article other than Passport itself: none of the editors of the articles about any other passports were made aware of the discussion. Second, because the whole rationale for the removal of visa-free sections was that in some articles (e.g. about the passports of African nations), visa-free sections might be inaccurate or out-of-date. However, I assert that the visa-free part of the Russian passport article is well-maintained and kept up to date, as can be seen from links to reliable sources; if you believe otherwise, please provide evidence. Tetromino (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion was listed at WP:Centralised discussion for almost a month, and was held at Misplaced Pages:Village Pump (proposals) for a good portion of that time. A consensus was clearly established that these sections are unencyclopaedic and unmanageable. The discussion also determined that the passport articles are an inappropriate place for this type of content, as foreign visa policy is unrelated to the physical passport itself. Rather than focusing on managing the visa-free section, editors' efforts should be directed towards improving information on the passport itself. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 16 days is not "almost a month". I have a strong suspicion that the discussion was concluded too hastily and that editors who have been keeping visa-free information in particular articles current were not given a chance to voice their opinion. I put together my views in a new section in Talk:Passport. Tetromino (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Passports and WP:ANI
As you may have noticed, I blocked User:Ozguroot to stop the edit war with you. The only reason I didn't block you is that you haven't tried to revert him. I have to run off Misplaced Pages for an hour. I have posted a comment about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Passport-related_edit_war, and a request that another admin review my block of Ozguroot and this situation. -- Flyguy649 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware, and to be honest I don't know how to deal with Ozguroot - he prides himself on ignorance of policy, has declared an intention to continue edit warring when unblocked and appears to have utterly no intention of acceding to, or even discussing consensus. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The one exception
There appears an issue of WP:OWN at one of the articles. I don't think it will be resolved in the short term. Can we let it go for the moment. Passions are high and the last thing we need right now is another flare-up. Lets try concentrate on the 'histories' problem. Another ed. with a good handle on this has agreed to give his assistance. We have moved on a long way from when people thought this was a zero sum game. Lets try to keep that momentum going. RashersTierney (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The maps are unacceptable to me, I'm sorry. I only agreed to the compromise under the assumption that is would be implemented in exactly the way suggested and demonstrated (Turkish passport/Visa requirements for Turkish citizens). —what a crazy random happenstance 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
New passport manual of style on talk:passport
I've tried to put a new passport manual of style on Talk:Passport. It provides guidelines for a "visa requirements" section of a passport page, giving guidance for cases where it would either be appropriate or inappropriate to include a map to illustrate the text. I made edits to Serbian passport in an attempt to be constructive and undo the revert war that is unproductively happening there. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie
Ze'ev Tzahor Auschwitz lie
Potrzebuje poparcia Cautious (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Your canvassing complaint about Ozguroot
Hi Happenstance, I haven't looked into Ozguroot's conduct enough to say whether or not I agree it was inappropriate. However, I wanted to let you know I find it inappropriate and uncivil for you to call me a "partisan user," as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ozguroot canvassing again. If you've read my handful of comments, you will not detect an iota of partisanship in this matter. I'd appreciate if you would retract the remark as to me, and I'd think the same would apply to many if not all the other users you put on the same list. I came to your talkpage instead of putting this remark at ANI because I'm sure it was just a careless choice of words. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)