User talk:Mishae/Archive 4

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

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2015[edit]

Delivered February 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hemicrepidius[edit]

Hi Mishae! Can you please categorize all the species of Hemicrepidius as part of the Category:Hemicrepidius? Gug01 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gug01: Will do, but first I will put the correct template in the talkpage, if its O.K. with you?--Mishae (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mishae: Of course it's OK with me! Thanks so much. Gug01 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, its better to remove WikiProject Insects and insert WikiProject beetles instead, since WikiProject Beetles is subsidiary project of WikiProject Insects. I will live WikiProject Insects for bugs, ants, and bees though.--Mishae (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

Thank You![edit]

I wanted to say thank you for welcoming me to the Wikipedia platform. I am happy to be here, and your warm wishes were much appreciated. Hope all is well. Thanks again! WeAreAllStars (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to David Luiz, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". This edit was not a minor edit. SLBedit (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new content is not a minor edit. Exactly because you are not a newbie you should know what a minor edit is. "experienced users don't need to be." It doesn't matter if a user is experienced. That is like saying that an experienced user can't receive a warning for vandalism if user vandalizes. SLBedit (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When not to mark an edit as a minor edit": "Adding or removing content in an article" "Adding or removing references or external links in an article" SLBedit (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that rule? SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't warn you for that. SLBedit (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to answer your question because I don't have to and because I don't want to. I warned your for a different thing, and you know it. You added completely new content and marked it as a minor edit. That is against the rules. If you still think you are right, then you don't know what a minor edit is. If you continue disturbing me by using the talk page I will report you for harassment. SLBedit (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template was added because Twinkle is handy and fast. It was not intention to label you as a newbie. SLBedit (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

Vote for Quality in WikiProject Beetles[edit]

Hi! We are beginning a vote on which articles to expand and improve for the week. Please vote for whatever article you wish to support, and oppose the articles you think are not as important to be improved. Gug01 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gug01: Hi! Can you give me a link to it? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2015[edit]

Delivered March 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phymatodes obliquus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Clara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Tagging[edit]

Hello! Can you please tag the species of Gnomidolon as part of WikiProject Beetles (since they are Cerambycidae)? I would do it myself but am too busy tagging the categories. Gug01 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gail Finney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southeast High School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2015[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2015[edit]

Delivered April 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Proposed deletion of Bernard Darke[edit]

The article Bernard Darke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a murder victim, known only for his murder in which he wasn't even the target, but a bystander caught up in the violence. There is nothing to indicate anything out of the ordinary about his life, let alone notable in Wikipedia terms.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  – iridescent 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: It is present on Dutch Wikipedia as of May 2012, which means that he is notable. My entry was written in 2013.--Mishae (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch article has no sources and other Wikipedia articles written in any language have no bearing on whether or not the subject of a specific article is notable. --NeilN talk to me 21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As NeilN says, whether another Wikipedia has an (equally problematic) article has no relevance as to whether it meets en-wiki's guidelines. I can see you're currently blocked and unable to remove the prod tag yourself, so if you can find any sources for any notability for him in Wikipedia terms, post them here and I'll deprod it myself. I very much doubt you'll find them.
Regarding the "Over 3,000 articles I have donated to this project" you mention above, having looked through them I'm not sure they're something you really want to be boasting about. On a quick dip-sample I haven't seen a single one without major issues (if an editor with six years experience thinks Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer has an appropriate level of detail, or George W. Mundy is an appropriately sourced biography, something is seriously wrong somewhere).
(Wikipedia pro-tip—you probably don't want to use the work "kike" and then demand an apology for being called a racist in the same post.) – iridescent 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: You are looking into the wrong field. Take a look at my ballet, music, and athletic articles. Those are sources more then once in some cases. People explained to me that its hard to find reliable sources for music, but I managed to find some. As for major issues, my native language is Russian so sorry, but that barrier do prevent me from writing a good article, but I am trying to improve on it by providing more sources, etc. As for Bernard Darke, the source that I provided I thought met GNG; International Catholic News. Like, its news, isn't it?--Mishae (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to pile-in on you when you're blocked, but you might want to give WP:GNG a good read before you quote it, as I don't think it says what you think it says. I'm not sure who told you that "it's hard to find reliable sources for music", but I suspect you misunderstood them—music is a major academic topic with a huge and varied literature covering all aspects. (FA/Music, where My Belarusy, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and Blood Sugar Sex Magik sit side-by-side, is one of the biggest categories at WP:FA.)
If reliable sources don't exist on any given topic, it's generally a glaring indicator that the topic itself is unlikely to warrant a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and if you can't find significant coverage of a topic in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, the burden is vkuyery much on you to justify why Wikipedia should be covering it. – iridescent 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: It is hard to find sources for music conductors, that what I meant by music. My other field that I write on is books which I hope are without major issues.--Mishae (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "it is hard to find sources", that generally means a topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, and if secondary sources aren't covering someone, that means Wikipedia shouldn't be covering them either.
I'm not sure your work on books is really something you want to be boasting about. There are currently six entries on your userpage under "Books". They are Running Home, which I'm about to propose for deletion as there's no earthly way it meets WP:N (the same deal as above applies: if you can provide any reliable sources that actually mention it, I'll deprod it); Hole in My Life which if you take out the plot summary is a total of two sentences long (and for obvious reasons, I question why an autobiography even has a "plot" section); Jinx which is 125 words long; Some Girls, Some Hats and Hitler which has some highly dubious sourcing ("Booking Mama"?); Stella Bain which is gibberish ("Later on, she begins to remember someone from Admiralty and demanded Dr. Bridge to go there because she had a hutch that she have someone there", "she doesn't remember it due to her concussion which turn out to be a hysteria that she got when she ran away"); and The Egyptian Peasant which is a legitimate topic but is 69 words long and sourced to this highly questionable-looking website.
As I say, I know it may look like the Wikipedia community is ganging up on you, but everyone above is trying to help. Wikipedia isn't a blog, and its fairly strict rules over what is and isn't appropriate content exist for a reason. Creating ultra-short stubs on topics of marginal interest, or bloated minute-by-minute plot summaries like Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer, is of very limited help. (I would go further and say that creating substubs is usually actively damaging, as thanks to WP:CITEVAR it makes it harder for anyone who wants to write a proper article on the subject later on, but that isn't a view shared by everyone.) Per Worm That Turned above, I strongly suggest you use this time off to study Wikipedia's policies, particularly on notability, sourcing and personal attacks, as despite your length of time here it appears either you don't understand them, or do understand them but feel they don't apply to you. – iridescent 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Iridescent:, if you want to change Plot to Synopsis in Hole in My Life I have no objection to it. As far as dubious source in The Egyptian Peasant, that one was one of my first articles about a book (which I didn't even read but thought it was notable). In fact that dubious source wasn't provided by me but rather by user @Dougweller:, so don't blame me for what I didn't do. As far as Booking Mama goes, every article can use at least one external link as a ref (as far as I seen on WikiProject Academics). The Running Home was another one of those books that I didn't read (and since then started looking into much notable ones). However, what caught notability for me (don't know why it slipped down on you) is the fact that it was ranked 25 on Amazon.com. Maybe I should change it to Amazon.com ref since it is widely used? Now, lets talk about personal attacks: I never said that that rule doesn't apply to me, I believe that every user (as I stated above) can overreact. After overreaction they apologize (which I did) and promise not to do it again (which I also did). I understand that Wikipedia is not a blog or directory, but you should look at articles which were written by me 2011-2012 and the ones that were written between 2013 and 2014. I hope you will see a difference.--Mishae (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What dubious source did I ad? Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: Well he called this source in The Egyptian Peasant article as dubious. Go figure.--Mishae (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I'd say it passes. It's an article by Henry Habib Ayrout whose work on the Egyptian peasant/fellaheen is used in reliable sources, see[1]. Here are details about the website itself. I'm happy if you want to take this to RSN. It is of course only about a non-contentious translation into Arabic. There are plenty of sources, that was probably the first I found. There's [2]. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I doubt that Darke would pass an AfD. As you've been told, having an article on another Wikipedia doesn't mean one is appropriate here. The manner of his death doesn't make him notable and evidently you haven't find any sources that will help him pass our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mariusz Malinowski[edit]

The article Mariusz Malinowski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ●Mehran Debate● 12:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehran: Since I'm blocked can you be kind to add this as an external link to the above article. Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mishae, unfortunately the above link would not be a proper source for Wikipedia since it is a personal profile. I suggest you to see WP:RS which has useful information about the sources can be make an article notable. ●Mehran Debate● 04:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehran:, it is indeed a personal profile, but one that cannot really be controlled by the person in question. All that person has done is create the GS profile and claim their publications. The citation data are added by GS, without any possible way of influencing them, and it is those citation data that in this case indicate a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. I only once saw an attempt to "falsify" a GS profile, where an author added highly-cited publications on which he was not an author. But as long as the articles are really authored by the person in question (which can easily be checked), a profile like this is usually enough to get an article kept at AfD. (To be exceedingly clear: it's not the fact that this profile exists that makes the person notable, nor the fact that they have published articles -all academics publish- but the fact that these articles have been heavily cited by others). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: I am aware what GS is, but my point was there are so many people have GS and that cannot be a good reason for notability. However it can be as an external, I wrongly thought Misha asked me to add it as a reference. And the number of citations could not be a reason for notability too, I am convinced now that an IEEE fellow is notable after I saw Eric's comment. Thank you all for your efforts. ●Mehran Debate● 16:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehran:, GS can be an excellent reason for notability. Not having a profile, that is trivial indeed. It depends on what that profile says. If a researcher has several articles with hundreds of citations like this one does (plus a high h-index of 25), that is invariably taken at AfD as sufficient reason to keep, even in the absence of IEEE Fellowships or other things. The link to this profile can be added to an article either as an external link or as a reference for a statement like "Mariusz Malinowski has been cited over 4500 times, giving him an h-index of 25". Hope this explaines better. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Thanks. I'm currently blocked so I can't edit the article. Can you please add GS for me?--Mishae (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Mehran: I think we are talking about two different actions. I want you to add Google Scholar profile as an external link, while I wont argue that it wasn't a reliable source, since I am blocked I can't add any. I will suggest to ask @Randykitty: for verification on academic notability.--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deprodded it. Regardless of his citation counts, he is an IEEE Fellow, which explicitly meets WP:NACADEMICS criterion #3. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EricEnfermero: Thanks, you are a saint.--Mishae (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denis Savin (dancer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legend of Love. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biologists[edit]

Hi Misahe, you asked for help with Pablo Visconti and William Jeffery. I'm responding here with advice for these and all other biographical articles you've written or will write. There are three things to keep in mind: 1) Notability (and clearly demonstrating it); 2) writing a fair and balanced balanced profile (even if a stub), in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP, and 3) factual accuracy.

Factual issues are the least relevant in these particular two articles, my main concerns are notability and balance. In these two cases, I believe notability exists but is not demonstrated (that is the job of us writers). It appears that you are again describing routine research, using primary sources (the scientific papers, and/or press releases that by their very nature are promotional), and thus notability is assumed but not established, and the "big picture" is misrepresented. That a paper is chosen as "paper of the week" is nice, but is a poor metric for basing an entire article on. I would strongly recommend that you try to exceed the basic notability criteria for scholars, (which personally, I think are too permissive) especially for living scientists. Even if bare notability is satisfied, using the other criteria as a checklist will help improve your articles. Rather than just pointing to Google Scholar or citation rates, try to clearly describe as notable aspects as possible (In some cases the subject's own CV, faculty page, or lab website are acceptable sources per WP:BLPSELFPUB). Notability sets the bar, but does not make for a well-written biography. When you write an article, don't cherry pick primary papers that say this or that (every paper says something, be it noteworthy or not, and we don't want WP:RECENTISM to distort a person's reputation), but seek sources that describe the overall significance of a person's work, collectively or even (less desirably) paper by paper. Regarding balance-and again this is most crucial to living people, whose Wikipedia article will be mirrored around the internet, assumed to be true by sloppy journalists, and read by students and colleagues of the subject- try to assert in most broadest terms, why and how a person is actually noteworthy without going into too much unwarranted detail. Is William Jeffery actually known to his peers and the world as the guy "who discovered that the OCA2 protein is responsible for albinism in Mexican cave tetra", or is this just one thing he did in one of his over 200 papers? From his Curriculum Vitae and website I would say he's likely more widely known as a developmental biologist and fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, whose studies focus on the evolution of development, especially blind cavefish and tunicates. Starting an article as such both clearly asserts notability, and provides context to all that follows. To put it another way, think of how you'd want your own biography written: would it start out "Mishae is a wikipedian who wrote the articles Robert N. Saveland and Athous apfelbecki, and many others"? Or would it be "Mishae is a wikipedian who has contributed over 3,000 articles to English Wikipedia..."? I hope these tips help. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for a tip @Animalparty:. I don't use CV since one time I wrote an article on a notable computer scientist and that article was deleted by user @Deb: because I used CV which is according to our guidelines is promotional. Or am I got confused? As for recentism well his most recent paper (which weas also highly cited) was about "discovery that the OCA2 protein is responsible for albinism in Mexican cave tetra". The other articles were talking about Mexican cave tetra but it was just stuff. Either way, I will give CV and personal website a shot...--Mishae (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend using CVs and lab websites as resources to help you find better sources, but articles certainly should not exclusively cite CVs, lab websites, etc. just as they should not exclusively cite primary literature by the subject. Often CVs and personal websites will point in you in the right direction for finding more reliable and independent sources. (e.g. a list of AAAS fellows on an official website). Again, per WP:BLPSPS, we can use self-published sources, within reason: an article should by no means resemble at CV (i.e. no excessive lists of awards, meetings, publications, etc.) If you were to simply copy and paste, or describe in prose, large chunks of a CV, (such as "in 1985 he went to a conference..." that would be promotional. It does concern me a little that you create many biographical articles and leave many as stubs for years. I would recommend focus more on improving biographical articles, and less on creating them. Quality is better than quantity, and articles about living people should be given more care than articles about insects, which don't care how they are presented to the world :) You might even try reading more biographical articles in encyclopedias outside of Wikipedia (e.g Encyclopedia Britannica, a Who's Who etc.), to see how even a short article is structured and written (by professionals) to give due weight to a person's career. It's very likely that in many cases individual studies should not even be mentioned, unless they themselves have risen far above the level of notice for most studies. Start general, and then, if the article becomes developed enough, specific studies might be included if they are especially noteworthy, again keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind. We as editors should be deciding as little as possible what is noteworthy to include: the third-party sources we cite should determine noteworthiness. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from New Editor[edit]

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I am beyond excited about creating my first article, Lumbee Regional Development Association. However, I ran into an issue already. I have already published my page, but the words in the title should all be capitalized. Currently, it's "Lumbee regional development association," but I need it to be "Lumbee Regional Development Association." Can you tell me how to do this? Thanks. --Qtatum--(talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015

I know it's not my business, but the answer is you move the page. On the header of Wikipedia, there is a "More" tab. Click on it, and "Move" appears. I've just moved the article anyway, assessed it, and took out a non-existent category. Gug01 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: I think you are mistaken. Can you point me the page or the issue you have with?--Mishae (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this wasn't meant for you, but User :YY1 FF2. Because you were the first person to edit User talk:YY1 FF2 (which the user is now using to attack users), Twinkle wrongly sent the "don't attack other users" message to you not them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Running Home (book) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Running Home (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running Home (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  – iridescent 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

A note on images[edit]

Hi Mishae. I've noticed you putting image request tags on insect articles. Maybe you've already tried this but a good place to find images is Biodiversity Heritage Library. You can often find original species descriptions and other images that are in public domain (e.g. published in the U.S. before 1923, or published anywhere and author has been dead for 70-100 years). If you find a suitable Public Domain image then it's just a matter of saving, cropping, and uploading to Commons. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: Its weird, but I didn't got notified. Either way, no, I haven't tried that site, and since I don't know if that image is copy protected or not, I would rather not try it. I don't want to have a second block after two weeks of convincing admins to unblock me. I hope you would understand my fear. Plus, its easier to request an image since not all of them will be present in the database as I seen with Pseudocalamobius strandi for example. So, O.K. I have found Leptura obliterata but there are no images, only texts. Besides, I don't have Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator to crop it out either way. All the best,--Mishae (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2015[edit]

Delivered May 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

April 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month per this this ANI discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I think I overreacted in the discussion as well as in some talkpages, and I am willing to change, and edit constructively. I also would like to apologize for any incivility. Plus, according to this discussion the consensus have been reached. So I would like to recruit some editors from other language Wikipedias, if its O.K? I promise I wont cause another disruption and will be civil from now on. Another reason why I need to be unblocked, is so that I can do archiving and write articles on plants and people. If this is not convincing enough, let me know. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will change, but given the response to Ironholds above that you were composing as you asked for an unblock, I'm not personally inclined to believe it. You are of course welcome to request an unblock, but it won't be me granting it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Why is that?--Mishae (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about: because you responded to people taking issue with your comparison of "not being able to edit Wikipedia" with being subject to racial cleansing by calling people "cry babies", while explaining at the same time that you'd calmed down and were deeply sorry. Because your entire attitude here has smacked of one long chain of not understanding why what you've done is a problem, and by digging ever-deeper every time you open your mouth. Because you believe that if you've offended someone, it's their fault. Because your response has been to demand an apology from those offended people. Because your response has been that people shouldn't be able to take issue with you because you've written a load of articles.
You know: just off the top of my head. I have absolutely no belief that you'll change, if and when your block expires. In fact, at the rate you're going, frankly I'd be amazed if you manage to get an entire 30 days without putting your foot in it enough to justify an extension. Ironholds (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds: Your first paragraph is pretty similar to my thoughts on the matter, but the second is really just gravedancing. I've asked you to step off on your interaction with respect to this unblock request once already—you are neither an administrator nor uninvolved, and it feels to me that you're just poking the bear.
@Mishae: As I said earlier, the discussion you had in the "Blocked" section above seems completely contrary to your promises that you will not overreact, disrupt, or be uncivil. You decided the best way forward was to use racist slurs to try to show that you're not a racist, then tried to claim that your contributions to Wikipedia somehow exempt you from being racist. You denigrated people who took issue with your comments as "cry babies," then demanded an apology from them. You are continuing to make racist comments, and you seem quite oblivious to the disruption you've caused or how to move forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I'll step back. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Perhaps if Ironholds wouldn't called me racist, non of it would have happened. Thanks for standing up against provocations though. Like, what would you have done if somebody called you a racist especially after you gave so much effort into improving encyclopedia? I bet you wont say thank you, since accusations are in violations of our AGF guidelines.--Mishae (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:DRC (Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment nor edit their comment in any other way), I've restored the portion of my comment above that you removed.
If somebody called me a racist, I would take it seriously: I would examine my past conduct to see if I had said something or acted in such a way that was racist, or at least could be perceived as such. If so, I would apologize and fix my actions. If not, I would brush it off and move on. What I wouldn't do is go on at length about how they were wrong and I wasn't actually a racist, continue to say racist things, or complain about how I felt attacked and demand an apology. I also wouldn't use my contributions to the encyclopedia to excuse racism, or claim they had any effect on whether or not I was racist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mishae (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my actions and am promise to be civil and not disruptive. I need unblock so that I can archive and write articles. Please unblock me!

Decline reason:

Block was made based on a consensus at ANI. Mishae, you need to address the issues at hand rather than just apologise. My recommendation is below. WormTT(talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Note: As a non-admin but a witness to all of the ANI events that led up to this block, I'd like to step in and say that Mishae has removed a large portion of these unblock-request discussions (viewable in the edit history of this page). This is important to note for the benefit of any admin(s) reviewing the case who have not been reading. On a personal note, I also personally believe that Mishae needs to serve out the full term of the one-month block, to allow time for personal reflection and understanding of what wiki behaviors he has been engaged in that led to the ANI and block. I'd like to remind all concerned that he has not being blocked (solely) for incivility; he has been blocked for the behaviors discussed in the ANI, and for refusing to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the removal of your comment. I believe that I changed my behavior and will be civil and competitive editor! Yes, I wasn't blocked solely on incivility, and since consensus have been reached on that project, I wont violate it, and I have no intention to violate others either. I hope that the admins will heed my promise on being civil and competitive editor. I'm thanking everyone in advance.--Mishae (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't remove my content (I have never posted here before yesterday), and you weren't blocked for not being "competitive". You have not changed your behavior, nor even indicated that you understand why you were blocked or that you understand what you were doing wrong. Your comments here are simply blithe, uncomprehending, and desperate pleas to be unblocked, not exhibiting any comprehension of the history that led up to the ANI and the subsequent block. All of this simply indicates either that your lack of comprehension means your presence on Wikipedia is not productive and is on the whole disruptive, and/or that you really do need at least a month off to review the ANI and the charges against you, and come to adequate understanding of them before you return. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: I was talking about WP:CIR rule (and regarding comment removal, I was talking about another editor's comment). Accusing me of not changing my behavior, is wrong, since unlike you I am at least being civil now. Your words like lack of comprehension is uncivil and wont be tolerated by any admin. Furhtermore, you need to read WP:Five pillars which states that Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules. Also, you need to be reminded that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. Since we are talking about blocks and unblock request, let me invite admins here manually; @Worm That Turned:, @Seraphimblade:, and @Writ Keeper:.--Mishae (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been pinged, I thought I'd pop by. I hate, hate, hate the whole "competence" phraseology. We may have gotten by with it back in the day, but Wikipedia is a very different place these days. But that's not what's going on here. We can operate a "live and let live" approach in these sorts of situations, with no harm. Unfortunately, sometimes we veer into disruption, and that's an actual problem.
So, here's my take. I don't think Mishae should be unblocked at present, one month seems like a reasonable break. Mishae, you yourself suggested a "break" for the rest of April, take this as one. When you come back, you'll need to add a couple more "rules" to your handbook.
  1. Do not attempt to invoke IAR again. Wikipedia's rules are there for a reason and should rarely be ignored - they're also far more mature than they were when IAR was first brought in.
  2. Do not draw parallels with history. This is one place where I am aware that your condition does play a significant role, I could go into depth as to why what you said was wrong, but the plain fact is that what you feel does not match what others feel and drawing those parallels is offensive to many. If you agree to not draw any such parallels again, I'm sure we can drop that matter.
Do let me know your thoughts. WormTT(talk) 11:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: O.K. Deal. I promise not to draw those parallels, since before your explanation I wasn't aware of offenses that it have caused.
If IAR is not suppose to be invoked, what's its purpose then? Its obviously here for a reason, weather I use it appropriately or not, that will be debatable. The reason why I used it is remember that incident with Kevin? You told him about IAR as I remember.
As for my break, I said I will take it in the end of April. I will go on vacation from April 30 to May 5. As for the competence rule, I wasn't aware of it existence. Wikipedia policies and guidelines change often, and nobody get notified about them (or at least nobody notifies me). I guess its my fault in not knowing every rule (old or new). :(--Mishae (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "If IAR is not suppose to be invoked, what's its purpose then?", it seems clear to me that WormTT is not saying it's not supposed to be invoked at all by anyone ever, just that you personally should not use it. I'd suggest that IAR should only be used by those who possess the subtlety of understanding and of judgment to use it well, and that you do not possess that subtlety of understanding or of judgment. In my opinion it's really not an approach that should be used by those who tend to interpret things in a very literal way, as you appear to (and I know from experience that an over-literal approach to understanding is a common characteristic of people with your condition). Squinge (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right Squinge. Mishae, I'm saying that you should not attempt to invoke IAR again. I personally believe that IAR should be subtle anyway and if you can say "I'm invoking IAR to..." then you're probably doing it wrong. WormTT(talk) 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: and @Squinge: So when exactly do IAR is used? Like, I guess even a normal editor will get confused here too. On one hand Wikipedia have rules and guidelines (some are basic like Five pillars, others are not). On the other hand we have IAR and at the same time WP:NOTANARCHY. If we don't have anarchy (since we have rules), then what does IAR doing in Wikipedia??? Like, it have purpose (I guess), but how should anyone implement it? I'm still baffled by the fact that you don't want to unblock me despite me agreeing with both points and promising on not repeating them again. Like, a block is not a punishment, but by keeping me for a month it feels like one. If I would have been resilient against my actions that would be a different story, but I am not. I already apologized and reapologized and I even admitted what I was blocked for (incivility and competence (disruption)). What else do I need to prove in order for the block to be lifted? Just because I go on vacation, doesn't mean that people should continue with the block. Like, I can take Wikibreak or I can request self block.--Mishae (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae, what you need to do is just forget all about IAR, and don't even think about how and when it should be used. I can see it's confusing you, but as you are being strongly advised not to even try to use IAR, it's just not something you need to even think about. Squinge (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Squinge: So if I will promise not to use it, then maybe I should be unblocked?--Mishae (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for me to decide on your block, I'm just making a few suggestions for helping you avoid further problems in future. Squinge (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I was invited, so I'll jump on the dogpile. Mishae, the thing is this: IAR is not about Wikipedia being an anarchy; far from it. The quote from WP:IAR? puts it well:

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

— George Pólya
IAR is about not letting the rules get in the way of situations to which they shouldn't apply; it's about not letting the rules get in the way of building an encyclopedia. As the quote puts it, it's about mastery of the rules, not pedantic devotion to their words. About respecting the spirit of the law, rather than being slave to the letter of the law. But it works both ways: it's also not about ignoring the rules just because you want to or because it's convenient, either. What I think WormTT meant is that if you ever need to defend yourself by saying "I used IAR", you're probably doing it wrong, because IAR is meant for situations that should need no defense. If you're doing things that other people object to, you're likely violating the spirit as well as the letter of the rules (the rule of consensus, if nothing else), and as I say, that's not what IAR is for. And if you're having trouble telling the difference, then you should err on the side of not using IAR. Since you consistently seem to be having that trouble, you should stop using it.
As for unblocking you...well, I'm not totally opposed, but the problem is that this isn't your first time. You've been blocked before for things like this, and you promised to change your behavior before, and yet here we are again. What's different this time? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: The difference is that the previous block was a long time ago and for couple of days, this one is for a month, and mean time an editor wrote 2 articles that I wanted to create. As far as there we go again I think that every editor makes a mistake (and not once) that doesn't mean that he should be blocked for a month. Like, I do sometimes chuckle to myself when I see userboxes saying this user is block free, eventually even those get blocked and then they are not as block free. Like, tell me this, how many times were you blocked before you became an admin?--Mishae (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None, but people probably think of me as a wet blanket for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: Perhaps its about who gets in the way. I get in the way due to my condition. I can't do anything about it though, I am just too active. What I can do is to minimize even further. Like, I promised you all not to do it again, and I was fine for 4 years (This is my second AN/I since 2011). So, I think you can unblock me since the time between my actions are huge. Another thing that is different this time is that I was charged with violating of a different rule: WP:CIR (previously it was disruptive editing). Do you see a difference?--Mishae (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: and @Squinge: Well according to this essay my competence borders between Intermediate and Advanced. :)--Mishae (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CIR isn't a rule, and neither is disruptive editing per se. Disruptive editing is a term used to describe, in a very general sense, what you were doing for all your blocks. It means little more than that what you were doing was a problem. CIR (shorthand for "competence is required") is a somewhat underhanded suggestion of why one might be editing disruptively and what to do about it: specifically, that one is unable to understand that what they are doing that is wrong, and so should be prevented from editing entirely despite their good-faith contributions, via a block, since they can't help themselves but be disruptive. The idea is that it's not the community's obligation to spend excess effort on accommodating people who aren't capable of editing well on their own, even if they want to, and if they're causing more harm than good, then it's better to prevent them from editing, even if they have the best of intentions. I don't particularly endorse that general idea, but it is an idea that people have.
Look, Mishae, the problem is that we're clearly not getting through to you. If that's what you took from all the discussion that has been going around for the past while, then you're just not understanding what we're trying to tell you. We're trying to tell you that there is a wider underlying problem with your editing that is the root of all your blocks, and until you realize that and fix it, people are going to be reluctant to unblock you, as it provides the opportunity for that problem to express itself in a different arena. And if you really are too active to avoid these pitfalls, then maybe it really is best that you took a month's break to slow down and think about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: Well, I apologized for my behavior, I promise again that I wont repeat it, and I was quite cool for the past 4 years. That's a huge milestone for me. Don't you think the same? Like, my sole purpose to get unblocked is so that I can continue write articles and fixing dead links, with which I didn't had a single issue (other then a small misunderstanding which got fixed). Like, I understand that my pitfall is my incivility toward editors whom I sometimes don't listen. But after you explained to me what IAR is about, I will heed it from now on. As I understood this rule is written so that users wont be afraid to edit Wikipedia, kindoff try it and see what will happen, if nothing will then its not against policies. Am I interpret it right?--Mishae (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no; that's more like what the whole "be bold" thing means (though still not quite right). For one thing, don't assume that something is okay just because nobody tells you it's wrong. This is a big encyclopedia, and not every part of it is watched 100% of the time; it's quite common for things not to get caught for quite a long time. For another, things like IAR and "be bold" were never intended for the kind of bulk editing that you do. We have the "be bold" as a policy because any one edit is easily undone, so mistakes are easily corrected. But when you're making edits to 25, 50, 100 pages at a time, it becomes *much* more time-consuming for any mistakes to be undone.
Anyway, it's a quibble, but the blocks I was referring to were in 2013, around two years ago; still a long time, but I'm not sure where you're getting four years from, and I'm not convinced either that those two years were totally unproblematic. But the broader point is that, while I appreciate your apology and understand that you're serious about your promise to never do it again, I'm just not totally convinced that you can deliver on your promise, or that you really even know what "it" is. But, y'know, I don't know. If I can get a commitment from you to a) not use IAR in the course of your edits (to which you've already committed), b) slow down your rate of editing (I don't want to have to be specific here, but in this latest bout, you were making like 4 edits a minute over a sustained period, which is just too fast), and most importantly c) to commit to stopping whatever you're doing immediately whenever anyone asks you to, then I guess I can work with that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Lets do it this way; If somebody will tell me to stop I will immediately stop, but I will ping you for understanding, since the way how you describe it I understand it better then someone who puts everything in caps assuming that I am death. I can minimize my edits though, but how many edits a minute do a gnome do? Like some users are WikiGnomes and not all gnomes are bad. My archiving for example got me a barnstar, because having less dead links is better then having a ton of them. Like, maybe speed is the factor why I get warned but there is no rule for speeding, especially if an editor is doing constructive edits. :)--Mishae (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with speed on its own, but if there's something already wrong with the thing you're doing, doing a lot of it all at once makes it worse, since it's that much harder to go back and fix. Like I say, I don't want to pin you down with "you can only make this many edits per minute" or anything; just try to take your time a little bit more. But yeah, stopping and asking for others' opinions is definitely a good idea; feel free to contact me, but I might not always be around, so don't depend on me too much. But yeah, that's more the kind of thing I'm looking for, and I think it'll help a lot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, with that said, will you unblock me?--Mishae (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll talk to GW (maybe WormTT too) about it; as the blocking admin, I'm supposed to at least contact her and let her know I'm thinking about an unblock, and besides, more opinions never hurt. Oh, and civility and all that is part of this, too, of course; when someone asks you to stop, you have to be willing to talk with them and be courteous to them, even if they seem unreasonable to you at first. We're all on the same team here, etc. etc. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with incivility was that after I ignored Kingofaces43 comment on my talkpage, he called my edits edit warring and vandalistic, which implied that he decided not to assume good faith with me. If an editor will accuse you of edit warring without providing a diff what would you think of him? Following that we had AN/I at which it continued because Ironholds brought incidents from not to long ago (but which were quickly and mostly civilly were taken care off). So, instead of creating a neutral AN/I on me Ironholds set everyone in this discussion against me. Although the diffs were right, I don't think he should have brought them up since they were minor incidents. Of course if somebody brings accusations in your name, how would you feel? O.K. After a long argument at AN/I I was about to calm down when user Softlavender decided to intervene and although he was uninvolved his bold and in some cases all caps post which read ADMINS: Now that we have a blatant admission that the user has no plans to either listen (much less respond) to other editors' input or to learn and/or abide by Wikipedia's policies, could we please get an indef WP:CIR block of this user (with WP:STANDARDOFFER)?. Like, you tell me, if a user that is not an admin comes in, and start screaming for indef block, even though he doesn't know me, how would you react? Like, I do think you will assume his comment to be meat puppetry. Moreover, Ironholds then decided to push for indef block just because of my comparison, which is an opinion, and then after a block calling me racist... How would you react to any of those statements: indef block, racist, edit warrior, vandal. Like, I bet you wont be civil after those words will be said right at you. That's what happened to me. :( And what's worse, after a block Ironholds continued to harass me on this talkpage by calling me racist with Softlavender adding her 2 cents and user @Iridescent: saying how my contributions were not helpful even in terms of article creations. Really? I have donated 3000 articles and all of them according to user Iridescent are worthless. :( (crying).
I have created at least 50 C class articles and as many Start class ones, and now I get the WikiLove for my creations! :( I won some barnstars for my archiving and article creations and now somebody dares to call it gibberish, unreliable, and in some cases even not notable and comparing some of my articles to a directory. Really? I wrote articles on notable athletes, scientists, writers, and now according to Iridescent they are not notable! How come?--Mishae (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is part of the problem. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you feel insulted. That's natural, of course, but you have to remember that this is a collaborative effort and that, again, we are all on the same side. People are different; they see things differently. Iridescent has a different understanding of notability and writing style than you do, which naturally leads them to different conclusions about your work. Neither one of you is necessarily right or wrong; you're just different. It's up to both of you to discuss it (civilly!), work together, and try to come to an understanding. If, after trying, you still can't come to an understanding, then you ask others for their opinions, and eventually, a consensus forms, and that consensus gets carried out. That's how Wikipedia works. People are always going to have opinions on your work, and sometimes they might not be as delicate as we might like in expressing it. C'est la vie; we still gotta do what we gotta do. I've written articles in the past that have been deleted; it's not a great feeling, but that's just how it goes. I got over it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain strongly opposed to an unblock.
  • Unfortunately, editors that are normal showed everybody who is not, identically to what Nazi's did to the Jews. [3]
  • Projects that treat their editors with blocks are no better then Nazi Germany, and that's my opinion. Yes, despite that feeling I found a few good friends, but majority of the community is just an angry mob. I personally feel sorry for Jimbo Wales who I thought is responsible for the project but it turned out that he is just a money grabber, a cash cow, whom I tried to politely intervene when no admin was around. If a founder is not responding, this is not a community, this is Donbass an anarchic state which probably just like this project will cease to exist. [4]
  • Firstly, I didn't called you a Nazi in particular, nor koavf, :) I called certain actions by some users of this discussion though that way. There is a difference. When people scream for a block, that to me is identical to the Nazi junta yelling all Jews must be gassed. So to me, being blocked is same way as being killed, especially when it comes to being blocked indefinitely [5]
  • O.K. Is it because you are part Jewish you took offence to it (I seen you photograph, no offence?)? [6]
  • Like really, having a gag in my mouth is identical top Nazism, sand your comment is another gag, therefore I wont apologize. I compared users' actions not users themselves. Is that clear [7]
  • I don't like people that come to my talkpage and cry that they were offended, just because it says in the rules that you can. And you know what? I didn't called you anything, not even a kike, so don't call me racist either. Consider this, I have donated 3000 articles to this project and that makes me a racist? [8]
  • I think it was an overreaction and you should stop feeling sorry for everyone here. I don't like people that come to my talkpage and cry that they were offended, just because it says in the rules that you can. And you know what? I didn't called you anything, not even a kike, so don't call me racist either. Consider this, I have donated 3000 articles to this project and that makes me a racist? I thought that this version of a project will be different, but it turns out that cry babies are everywhere. In Russian Wikipedia someone was offended by my wording too, and I was unfortunately indefinitely blocked for overreaction there too. I however do understand that Wikipedia is not for everybody, but I didn't knew that people would be so mean to an editor who donated 3000 articles and would like to donate more. [9]
  • Perhaps if Ironholds wouldn't called me racist, non of it would have happened. Thanks for standing up against provocations though. Like, what would you have done if somebody called you a racist especially after you gave so much effort into improving encyclopedia? I bet you wont say thank you, since accusations are in violations of our AGF guidelines. [10]
These reactions are completely out of line, and I have zero faith they won't continue. In fact, Mishae promised at least three times throughout the ANI and unblock discussions to start being civil and ([11], [12], [13]) while continuing to draw these parallels. I've seen no indication that he understands the gravity of the comments, nor that he will actually stop making comments like them. I also have seen no indication (rather, the opposite) that he understands that being described as racist somehow allows one to make personal attacks and racist comments, or that he understands that contributions to the encyclopedia excuse this incivility and racism.
It is also worth considering that there was more to this block than the comments that Mishae made about Nazis. There was a somewhat extensive discussion at ANI about the possibility of a month-long block, and I think you should take that into account when considering an unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: Thank you for explaining. Now to GorillaWarfare: I think I said several times that it was overreaction, nothing more, nothing less. But, lets Writ Keeper decided here, he is quite experienced in my opinion. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you did! Twice here and here, before you went on to make comments 3–8 above. Once here, where in the same breath you used racist slurs, claimed your contributions exempted you from being a racist, and implied he was a "crybaby". Once again here, before you went on to make comments such as I'm still waiting for an apology from you about calling me racist. I don't think you should treat me like that because I called the editor's actions racist term, or I can't judge editor's actions just like I can't judge editors themselves?([14]) and comment 8 above. You keep saying that you overreacted, while continuing to defend and make inappropriate comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was inappropriate about my previous post? Exactly, nothing! Besides, I don't see anything bad in 3 diffs under here that you provided. So, let me assume, you are defending Ironholds?--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which previous post? Which three diffs? You'll have to be more specific if you actually want to discuss them. As for your last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean by that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Those ones: here, here and here.--Mishae (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those three diffs are to show the many times you've apologized for overreacting, then continued to defend and make inappropriate comments. The ones I titled "here" only link to you saying that you overreacted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't defend my actions, I just accused others of provoking my behavior. Either way, lets wait for Writ Keeper to come back and weight in.--Mishae (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, I do agree that the Nazi comparisons are unacceptable, but on this (and this alone), the autism spectrum does cause issues. Autism diminishes empathy, meaning an individual sees the atrocities of the past without emotion. Combine that with the heightened emotion he feels regarding himself and you have these parallels drawn inappropriately. I've seen Mishae change his ways in the past and as he's said he will not draw parallels with historical events, I'd believe him on that. On that point, and that point alone, I do think we're done here - apologies will never be heartfelt. WormTT(talk) 07:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'm going to unblock. To be clear though, Mishae, your block is justified, so don't take this as support for all of your actions to date. The things I said before are going to be necessary:

  • don't invoke IAR anymore
  • slow down your editing a bit
  • immediately stop what you're doing whenever anyone asks you to, and do not resume what you were doing until you both have come to an agreement
  • engage in conversation with them civilly, asking for help from me or others as necessary, and avoiding any kind of personal reflections/speculations/comparisons to other things, no matter if it's about their person or their actions.

I'm still not totally convinced that you get it, but I'm willing to give it one more shot. If anything else happens, you're likely to get a much longer block, and much less willingness to unblock, so please tread carefully. Go, and disrupt no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Strange, why are you not totally convinced? No, I never treat an unblock as a support. I understand that my actions were uncivil. As, I said before, a provocation from certain users angered me and I overreacted. Like, I assume that overreaction is common in Wikipedia since there is a lot of heated debates. I usually don't get into them, but when my editing is a concern (and my mentor was the main accuser at that time), I was in shock and awe. Like, I bet that if you had a mentor who will suddenly take you to AN/I and will write a lot of stuff about you that happened not long ago but were not part of this AN/I to make a bad impression of your editing you will probably react the same. Like, this AN/I supposed to have been about my incivility toward Kingofaces43 not my misunderstanding of what dead link is.--Mishae (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems after unblock[edit]

@Writ Keeper:, you've been pinged already, but this conversation seems more appropriate in this section than scattered around the talk page. Could you revisit the issues coming up not long after the unblock? I'm starting to see a WP:ROPE problem here. Mishae started removing these tags again] even though those of us at Wikiproject Insects overall decided they should stay for now. That's what originally brought Mishae up at the original ANI. My more recent conversation with Mishae on this page is at the bottom of [15], and I'm leaving that part of the conversation alone to focus on it here. When approached to again stop removing tags, Mishae has engaged in aspersions about COI (at the bottom), paid editing, attacking other editors (wrong url previosly) because they agreed with me. and just can't seem to accept] that others disagree with what Mishae wants to do. As you mentioned above, it still doesn't look like Mishae really gets it since it doesn't look like these problems are improving at all compared to before the block. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: Can you kindly point me to a discussion where I am attacking you? I really don't see it.--Mishae (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: I personally believe that there is a problem with Kingofaces43 reverts. Every time he sees my edit on the beetle project he goes in and reverts it. Then, he accuses me of edit warring, and now he accuses me of attacking him. I would like to seek a dispute resolution here, because I believer that I wasn't disruptive, because you said that as long as you don't do it too much it will be fine. I might have misunderstood you. I am going on vacation tomorrow, so I wont be back till May.--Mishae (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This series of edits 1, 2, 3 was very much edit warring, especially when you were already made aware there was not support for those edits. Continuing to make edits in that kind of situation is the very definition of edit warring. It's apparent you just aren't seeing where your behavior is disruptive, so I'll let Writ Keeper hopefully point that out to you as they did above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely what we expected to happen – in other words, the precise behaviors that brought him into ANI in the first place. And why I am baffled that he was quickly unblocked and given free reign again to repeat those behaviors, and not only that, to accelerate into personal attacks and aspersions. There was strong community support from even uninvolved editors to block Mishae for at the very least one month, if not longer. I hope the admins watching this take into consideration that there is a deep, longterm, unheeding, unchanging, intransigent problem here, and do something to address or redress it. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K. @Kingofaces43: and @Softlavender: Can I apologize again? Like really, I didn't read about consensus being reached. As I read now, apparently you were right. O.K. So, let me explain why I did it. As I told @Writ Keeper: I will focus on writing articles and I did. Yet, @Animalparty: scared me off with accusations of using primary sources and POV. He did however reassured me that writing such articles are O.K. since academics do make notable discoveries that are not mentioned anywhere beyond the scientific journal. So, in other words, I knew that I would be blocked either way, either for being disruptive, or for writing POV articles. Wikipedia likes to get rid of their editors like it a whole bunch of fruit flies.--Mishae (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, Mishae uses enormous misdirection when any of his myriad problematical behaviors are brought to light. My suggestion to admins is not to focus at all on what Mishae says on his talk page or ANI, but rather on his actions/edits/behavior. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And since I am blocked again, everybody is happy. I at least was civil and didn't imposed WP:IAR on anyone. And for that @Writ Keeper: should give me a credit, because that was the terms on which I agreed with him.--Mishae (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

  • For continuing the behavior that you were blocked for earlier this month I have indefed your account. If you would like to appeal this block please use {{Unblock|}}. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mishae (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I over did it again, but at least I was civil, and that should be considered an improvement. I will promise again not to disrupt the project. Perhaps I shouldn't have edit warred either. So, I promise not to do it too. Also, if it will be better, is it possible to substitute indef block on topic ban? Like, I don't seem to have an issue with other projects. My main gripe is that this block prevents me from writing biographies and archiving, which this project is in huge need. I hope I will be understood this time. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, Mishae, but that's not going to cut it this time. I think I was fairly clear about how you should have changed your approach; evidently you weren't listening. You've made these promises many times before; frankly, they weren't very credible before, and they're even less so now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mishae, I'd recommend you take a significant break before appealing again, and significant should be measured in months, not days. WormTT(talk) 07:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Somebody told me earlier, that if I make a mistake and I will be civil, somebody will be there to unblock me. Or the rules have been changed as of 2 years ago?--Mishae (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than that. Making a mistake, remaining civil and learning from the mistake - not repeating it in future. Here, you apparently returned to the same behaviour (I believe, I haven't looked into it, to be honest) - that's not learning from the mistake. It's also difficult for Writ Keeper who extended a lot of good faith towards you in unblocking. So, I say again, take a break. WormTT(talk) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Just came back from my vacation. You know, yes, you are right, I repeated the same mistake again. But you know what? I believe there should be blocks for users who provoke blocks by ganging on blocked users. Such an example here.--Mishae (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gug01[edit]

Since I can't talk to you on your talkpage because those scums blocked me, lets talk here: Dear @Gug01: do not by any attempt listen to user Animalparty! This is one of those editors who wants every person to be blocked, and will do the same to you if he decides to do so. Keep in mind that although blocks in Wikipedia are meant for prevention, they don't prevent a thing, instead they used to block good faith editors like me and you. :(--Mishae (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: After a long editing with you I came to a feeling that we might understand each other somewhere, but I guess we just didn't. In my opinion, I think your post here clearly violated WP:NPA. Ganging up on blocked editors in my opinion is uncivil and should be persecuted by any admin. I for one, am offended by an accusation that I was trying to enflame something even though I never did that. As for filling guilt, I think you should let @Gug01: to decide on that. Currently you are being unsympathetic to a disabled editor who was just trying to help the project, just like everyone else here. Instead, he was accused of disruptive editing, POV and using primary sources by user Animalparty), and now is blamed for enflaming something. I am appalled by the fact that while I am being warned by all the scum here regarding various guidelines and fucking policies (including no personal attacks), its perfectly fine by another user to spread a rumour of me being here for enflaming stuff. Like, I see now what Wikipedia have become. Initially it was a great project full of good editors who were ready to help anyone even people with disabilities. Now though, you as admins have kicked out user ProudIrishAspie in 2014 and now are ready to grab me as well?--Mishae (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gug01: Since me and you know each other, you need to know that as of 2014 Wikipedia is actively fighting against disabled editors, by throwing at them WP:NOTTHERAPY, blocks, and other forms of punishments. Some of my friends already left this project because its just not what it look like. Somebody on the Russian Wikipedia have said that Wikipedia is hijacked by kikes, and you know what, while I at first was reluctant to agree with that blocked user here I came to realization that he is probably right. A black person or a Jew is treated as a Saint here, while a disabled individual is being treated like a piece of shit.--Mishae (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed[edit]

After your recent personal attacks and continued racism, I've removed your ability to edit your talk page. If you wish to appeal the block, you will need to use the Unblock Ticket Request System. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record, and for Mishae, I wholly endorse this action. WormTT(talk) 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

Improper behavior[edit]

Dear Mishae, I've been noticing behavior not in conformity with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. I urge for the help of senior editors to check the two talk pages for such misconducts: Talk Constructal Law] and [Talk Adrian Bejan]. Thank you.Mre env (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Samir Khuller[edit]

The article Samir Khuller has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Real Life Barnstar
Hello Mishae , just wanted to say THANK YOU & How Sincerely GRATEFUL I am for Enlightening me even more about ARMENIANS and their Historic Journey to where they are now ! Honestly I cannot say nearly enough to you for your efforts !

Sincerely 

    &

Gratefully

James M Wilson ... (JimmiReconn) GySgt. USMC JimmiReconn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mishae/Archive_4&oldid=1199758697"