User talk:Historian2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Historian2, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  --Bachrach44 02:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Conduct at Modern attempts 2 License tagging for Image:Sanhedrin ceremony.jpg 3 How's it going? 4 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg) 4.1 License tagging for Image:Sanhedrin ceremony.jpg = 5 Blocked 6 AMA

[edit] Conduct at Modern attempts

Just a reminder going forward, since I have unprotected the article now: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you do so again in this article, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What reverts? What changes? --Historian2 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am warning everyone about 3RR ahead of time, since I have unprotected the page. That is all. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, The issues I had with comments about Rabbi Ariel and Rabbi Steinsaltz, with Daniels cooperation, have reached a compromise. I am basically happy with the page. I am ok with 95% of the wording and that is enough for me. --Historian2 16:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Sanhedrin ceremony.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sanhedrin ceremony.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this. Go ahead and delete.

Historian2, if you want some help with image tagging, I'll be glad to help. Its really simple, not as complicated as the OrphanBot makes it sound. The OrphanBot is a script, operating on its own, so it won't help to answer it. But you can pick an appropriate tag that will let it know that the image doesn't need deleting. Like I said, if you want, I'll help. Leave me a message at User talk:Pedant if you want. User:Pedant 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought tagging was something that had to be written into the image. --Historian2 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a bit on that email you received, I'll find the answer for you. User:Pedant 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How's it going?

I was just wondering as to the progress you've made on the Sanhedrin dispute and whether or not I could be of any assistance.--K-UNIT 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like things are settled, see Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Thanks very much for your advice at the beginning. --Historian2 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you think the article is fixed you can remove the POV tag. Also, I really hope you'll stay with Wikipedia, as the one thing we really do need its more experts like yourself. I can assure you that these kind of disputes are a rarity and that there will always be people to help you out if you need it. There are still many articles that I'm sure you could greatly improve, which would be so helpful since so many people use Wikipedia as thier primary information source. Whether you decide to stay or not, I wish you the best.--K-UNIT 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you go and delete, why don't you ask about it first? It has been placed in the public domain, I am waiting for User:Pedant (see above) to get back to me on how to document that. --Historian2 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Sanhedrin ceremony.jpg =

I see that someone else helped me out by tagging the pictures as {{webshots}} But just out of curiousity, I received an email from the originator (Arutz7 News Service) saying that they released the two pictures into the public domain. How do I document that? Do I cut and paste the whole email, or just the bare info and perhaps a contact address?

Thanks for your help --Historian2 16:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would cut and paste the whole email, yes, but remove your own email address and anything else that you don't want to include. Then you replace the image tag it already has: {{tv-screenshot}} with {{PD-release}} — The 'pd release' tag is for when the creator has made a statement releasing the work to public domain.

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, it slipped my mind. User:Pedant 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked both you and Daniel575 for 24 hours for a three revert rule violation on Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Instead, please use the talk page of the article for further discussion and perhaps see if you can find third party opinions on the issue. On a side note, none of the edits appear to be vandalism - this is a simple content dispute, in which each editor believes he or she is trying to improve the encyclopedia in some way. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information on what constitutes vandalism. Also, on another side note, the removal of the fair use image goes on the side of caution, as copyright violations can have legal implications for the Wikimedia foundation, and when there is question about whether an image satisfies fair use criteria, it's best to use caution and perhaps remove it and discuss afterwards. Once the block expires, please come back and discuss the changes in the talk page before making any further reversions. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting his parody "Dutch Anti Zionists" section, I had no problem with him discussing content of the Rambamist section on the talk forum. His edits "Dutch Anti Zionists" which consisted of parody and lampooning is clearly vandalism by wikipedia rules.

As far as the picture issue goes, I was acting under instructions from other sysops.

According to Aguerriero's guidelines - which Daniel575 refuses to follow - changes were to be discussed on the talk page first, which is what I was telling him (i tried *not* to break the 3RR rule) --Historian2 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, actually you were right about his addition of that section - it was a violation of WP:POINT on his behalf. I am unblocking you as you understand what the issue is - Daniel's edits were indeed inappropriate and while you were edit warring, you made your intentions clear here. It seems Danny is getting into trouble in other Wikipedia articles, so he may be blocked for a longer time in the near future, so he may be less of a concern in this article, but nonetheless I would strongly suggest that you get a neutral, third party opinion on whether such a paragraph can remain included in the article instead of continuing to revert his edits. The village pump might work for this. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I am new here and have no idea how all this works. --Historian2 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA

Hi, I'm going to be your advocate. Addhoc 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do I answer, here or there? --Historian2 13:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, I guess. Addhoc 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am really just looking for advice on how to handle what appears to me to be a harassing, problem user. Thanks for any help. --Historian2 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple questions

• Where do I find a sysop when the 3RR rule is broken?
• Where do I find a sysop when consensus is reached but the problem user doesn't follow the consensus?
• How can it be reported that a problem user continually add the same unsourced POV text?
• How can it be reported that two people work together to do the same thing?
• How do I report harassment and abuse in individual comments to me on the talk page?

--Historian2 13:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The following covers where to report abuse to sysops:

However for POV concerns either contact WP:MEDCAB or WP:AMA as you have done, although not all mediators or advocates for that matter are sysops. Addhoc 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at what is happening in the Sanhedrin wikipage right now, back and forth about one damaging, unsourced POV text. Daniel575 keeps adding his text with no explanation. His friend Danezra logs out and comes back as 65.13.36.44 to avoid being called on the 3RR rule. In my book I call this harassment. I don't want to be spending my days watching wikipedia history files. --Historian2 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, Addhoc 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The text he's introducing doesn't have a reference, so I've mentioned this on the talk page. Also regarding the report abuse links, this page is useful: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Addhoc 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Even still, I am still left with the impression that no matter what I do, sometime later the text will be defaced by determined users (one or two in particular). Take for example the George W. Bush page, doesn't the wiki system require that someone is constantly "guarding" contributions, even if they are well written and well sourced but politically controversial? Thanks for your thoughts on this. --Historian2 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the wiki system does rely on editors who spend a considerable proportion of their time fighting vandalism and this would include guarding some pages. Personally, I contribute mostly to WP:AMA, WP:MEDCAB and WP:MISSING. However, for example I'm involved in a MedCab case concerning James I and have been involved in reverting vandalism to this article. That said, once a dispute is finished, I don't have to guard the edits. When I first started this was a genuine concren for me, but in practice, this hasn't been required. Addhoc 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you following Daniel575's attacks on me on Danezra's talk page? I really don't care what is written on a user's talk page, but read the talk page on Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and its archives to see a constant history of abuse and threats. I invite them to make what ever sourced changes they want, but all I get is abuse, and the threat of loss of anonymity. I tell you the truth, wikipedia is not worth it. I say let Daniel575 have it. Any suggestions? --Historian2 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, is Daniel575 usually that hostile? If that's what your having to put up with, I understand your sentiment. Could I suggest we set up a Request for Comment on his user conduct. Addhoc 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not always, but there have been four or five episodes like this one, and it sure feels constant. You can see the previous one on the current talk page and the rest in the archives. And it is not just with me, he's had run-ins with other wikipedians. I don't know what a "Request for Comment" is? Anything you recommend is fine with me.--Historian2 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, I've got time to set this up tomorrow, if that's ok with you. Addhoc 20:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fill out this, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Daniel575, did I do it correctly? Does it need more examples of misbehavior? Thanks for any help. Tomorrow is fine, anything is fine. --Historian2 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What happens now? --Historian2 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedians give their view. If you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, there are several open RfCs, a few of which I've commented on. After several weeks the RfC is closed by an admin, who interprets the views expressed. Really all that means is counting legitimate 'votes' and disregarding inappropriate comments. If the consensus support our interpretation of his behavior, WP:ARBCOM could then become involved and lead to either probation or permanent block, if required.Addhoc 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The next two weeks are filled with Jewish holidays. --Historian2 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tellng me, I didn't know. Addhoc 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your advice about Daniel's latest changes against consensus. To be quite honest he is wearing me out. I figure I will let him have his way, as long as he doesn't defame any well known Rabbis, it is not something that I have the luxury to worry about. If I do write a book on this subject, at least I will only be harassed by my editor :-) --Historian2 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My advice is not to be concerned. While the RfA is open, other users will look at his conduct and if he is ignoring consensus, they'll 'vote' against him. Addhoc 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying let him go and come back in a month? (Sorry about all these silly questions, but I just don't get the wiki system) --Historian2 17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, from my perspective there isn't any point with edit waring against someone who's probably going to get banned soon. Slimvirgin warned him against wikisuicide and since then he's said that all the involved admins are idiots. I would suggest that he's probably either going to leave or be pushed out if he continues with this attitude. Addhoc 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this an example of something? It never stops. Is it important to bring further examples to the RfC? --Historian2 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nixer has already included this example. At the moment there is a clear consensus that Daniel575 has been inappropriate, so I wouldn't be concerned about strengthening our case.Addhoc 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens now? --Historian2 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot depends on Daniel575's conduct from now on, if he is behaves, then we could just monitor the situation. However, if his conduct is further cause for concern, we could take the case to ArbCom. Addhoc 19:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)