Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 5 November 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: WP:AGF and defenestrations

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm already on it: . I'm still formulating the post, but it will appear soon.

Cheers and thanks again! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:05

Ta-da! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:27

are you serious?

you don't think that:

a) one of hezbollah's primary goals is to wipe israel off the map? b) that this fact should not be included in the fist paragraph?

I can provide ample proof if you don't accept this basic fact about the organization.

--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please go away and read

1) What I said on the article talk page, both about your edit and about people trying to write this article from one perspective.

2) Policies WP:OR & WP:SYNTH

3) The rest of the lead, where it both sets out what the organisations three main goals supposedly are in their own words (none of which refer to the destruction of Israel) and also covers the ground you are trying to repeat, but in a more sober, accurate and encyclopedic fashion.

4) The sources you have cited in support of your claim, none of which actually make this claim themselves (this should be quite a simple process, no?)

Please also understand that it makes no difference what you or I think about anything (although as it happens I disagree with you on both of your points). WP is based on proper, sourced, verifiable information in serious reliable sources, not on the whims and random opinions of its editors, even if they can find one or two things somewhere on the web which appear to back them up (and you haven't even managed to do that yet). Articles also need to be written so they are not repetitive or contradictory. Whenever editors start justifying subjective viewpoints and arguable interpretation with claims like "it's a basic fact" or "an undisputed truth", I know I am dealing with someone who is certainly not serious about contributing here in a neutral way. --Nickhh (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The UK's position on terrorist designation has not changed...It is still only the external security organisation...that is what is on the Homeoffice web page...The whole of hizb'allah military wing is not considered as a terrorist organisation...the change in the UK gov position has been on the emphasis....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yesterday morning it was the Hizb'allah ESO today it is the Hizb'allah military wing...yes I did check just prior to you putting the site address for the Homeoffice (which I already knew as I was the person that put it up on the Hizb'allah page)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the above and it sounds waspish....That was not the intent...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem .. --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I also want accurate and reliable information on wiki....If we only put one POV then you loose readers...as soon as they start looking up the "facts" for themselves it becomes apparent if there is only one POV. I looked at wiki about 3 years ago and very quickly stopped using it for that very reason. I only started editing to try and get a balanced view into wiki...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most I-P articles are off the scale in terms of bias, and half the time I think there's little point in trying to do anything about it. Any editor who suggests that those pages are biased against Israel in some way needs to stand back and do a quick count respectively of a) the number of Israeli and North American editors active here, and b) the number of Palestinian and other Arab editors active here. I know it's a pretty simplistic game (not least because not all Israeli and American editors subscribe to the narrow right-wing nationalist ideology expressed by some of them), but it's a starting point. The problem is that a lot of editors who make the complaint of anti-Israel bias, will, with a straight face, claim that CAMERA and HonestReporting etc are neutral organisations. I mean, you can agree with what they say and do or not, but it's flying in the face of reality to suggest that they are not partisan groups. Equally I have seen editors claim at times that Haaretz, The Guardian and the BBC are not reliable sources because they are "anti-Israel" (whatever that means), even though they are mainstream news organisations. Admittedly the first two are of a fairly open left-liberal persuasion, and that affects their reporting and comment pages up to a point - but it doesn't mean that they simply make up news stories, or that they are partisan propaganda sheets.

Having said that, when I do occasionally get involved, I don't see editing as a struggle between opposing points-of-view, which will somehow then lead to overall neutrality - that way the main articles just end up a battleground, and the talk pages as particularly vicious message boards or forums. And of course the numbers are stacked anyway. Instead the ideal scenario is everyone putting their individual views to one side, and just trying to contribute as neutrally as they can on the basis of verifiable fact, while avoiding loaded terminology and/or excessive analysis or interpretation (which will inevitably favour one side or the other). That way the more aggressive nationalists stand out more and reveal themselves for what they are. There's no such thing as truly neutral of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that I have a bias, this is why I stick it in my pocket when editing, but it does lead me to identify very quickly where there is the "opposing" bias... most aggressive nationalists seem to want to scream their POV out, while not realising that that method only turns reader off (another good reason for keeping POV out)....unfortunately I've never learnt the art of diplomacy thus I make comments on the talk pages that can appear as a bit..........I'm in too much of a hurry, I want the POV gone and I want it gone Now....I will always endeavour for a neutral article with as much information from RS as possible. My aim has always been for 1 RS ref for each sentence....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Hi, did you check your name here? They even quoted you, funny. Imad marie (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I knew they'd listed my name, but I didn't know they'd actually quoted something I'd said. I'm at a loss of course to understand what exactly is "anti-Israel" about asking people to use normal, factual terminology for things. But there you go, they're a weird lot. I mean they post "tribute" videos of men toting guns and balaclavas, as if that all rubs off on them by association. Kind of childish and pathetic really ... --Nickhh (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, so childish. Unfortunately some of their members are active here.Imad marie (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to take this to arbitration...Why are you higher on the list than me????...:)..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They did say it was "in no particular order" I think, so I'm sure they mean nothing by it ... --Nickhh (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb case

Hi, I was going to respond to a previous comment of yours, but it's been deleted already, so I'm just starting a new thread. In regards the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, despite the name of the case, it is still applicable here. When the ArbCom handed down their decision, they said, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)" So though the case may have just been about conspiracy theories, the arbs used it as a vehicle to authorize sanctions in a much wider topic area. They've done similar things in other areas too. For example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is used to authorize sanctions on any articles in the Eastern European topic area, and so forth. Just wanted to clear that up, --Elonka 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't read the whole case page, just scanned what the original filing party said, which kicked off with this phrase: "This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks". Anyway, it's not going to be a problem, as I really don't do much on most Sept 11th articles, and I don't of course spend my time here waiting for the opportunity to be offensive, disruptive or whatever. In fact in my view I'm far too accomodating most of the time to people who do act in that way, and generally indulge them by debating points with them until everyone is going round in circles. In reality I'd happily ignore most of the more contentious articles here, but sometimes I just see what I think is seriously awful content in them and try to deal with it occasionally. The problem often is that a lot of them are dominated by people with a pretty fixed world view one way or the other, rather than people who are at least trying to edit with some element of objective detachment. What should be simple common sense edits then become the cause of voluminous talk page debate, which very occasionally becomes a little fractious. As I've said I can only think of two comments on my part that were even approaching being out of line in all the time I've been here (and I very definitely do not include the one at issue here). Furthermore I never go running to an administrator each time I feel I've taken a knock from someone else, which happens far more often. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: I'm really not being smug at all (honest!) but I am pleased to note that my insistence that the al-Durrah conditions could be removed without a descent into chaos has more than been vindicated.

Yes, I too am very pleased that that article has stabilized.  :) --Elonka 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza

I don't know if you've had a chance yet to review Ariobarza's latest response on the Battle of the Tigris AfD, but it seems to be yet another personal attack against myself and other editors (including you, I guess) who have !voted to delete the article. This seems to be a habit of his. Having reviewed his edits systematically, I believe there are significant concerns about him that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll pop something in - not sure it will add much to what I've said already at the AFD. --Nickhh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh please read my message on the ANI page, and reframe from make more absurd and escalating comments on my ANI page, my personal attack was not against you in the first place, and I hope that you see all ChrisO wants is to gain support for blocking me, and eventually banning me. Ever since he has come here, disputes have begun. Please do not make things worse by involving yourself in this HYPOCRITICAL ANI (meaning Chriso has been here more than 3 times more than me, and has done what he is acccusing me of doing, plus he had gotten banned once), I am getting really tired of this.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

I did read your message (and managed to understand most of it). In turn please read what I have said on the ANI & other pages - your personal attacks, such as they are, are the least of the problems with what you get up to here. Your mainspace contributions here are mostly, to be quite honest, shoddy and incompetent. You insist on boring people with your extensive amateur analysis on talk pages, with the effect of diverting good editors from doing anything constructive with their time. You have also ignored all the helpful and generous advice you have received in your eight months of extensive editing, and even now show no intention of acknowledging any of the utterly legitimate issues people are raising. I and others are simply pointing out what the problems are. Your slightly bizarre rants, here and elsewhere, won't change the fact that those problems exist, or stop people from continuing to highlight them. --Nickhh (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, hi, I'm taking a look at Ariobarza's actions. In the meantime, could I ask you to please consider what you're saying, in an effort towards de-escalating the dispute? Accusing someone of fraud is a very serious statement, and per WP:NLT, you might want to consider refactoring your comment. Thanks, --Elonka 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that removing content from someone else's post, on two separate occasions, so that anyone who goes to the current version of the page cannot see it, is fraud as simply defined, one would assume? I'd be more than pleased to hear an explanation as to why this might not be the case. --Nickhh (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I've just gone to and actually read WP:NLT. Posting that on my talk page seems a little OTT, surely. --Nickhh (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend what Ariobarza is doing, but please, could you find other terms to use than "Fraud"? It's such a strong word, and I am not seeing any indication that that's what's going on here. More likely it's the case that Ariobarza is not a native English speaker, and the language difficulty is causing further difficulty with understanding of Misplaced Pages procedures. Which still may not be acceptable for Misplaced Pages, but it's a long way away from outright fraud. --Elonka 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraud as broadly construed simply suggests deceit for some form of advantage. Removing details from a case which is being made against you, especially in such a way that the removal would not be immediately obvious to a third party subsequently reviewing that case, seems to me to fit that description. This is a general observation, nothing to do with any WP procedures or any unique rules relating to ANI. I can change it to "tampering with the evidence" if you'd prefer .. --Nickhh (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, why continue to make it sound legalistic? There's no need to make it sound worse than it actually is, so why not just state what happened, "inappropriate tampering with other editors' posts". --Elonka 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fraud" is not exclusively a legal term. The point I was trying to make above of course - after you raised the allegation -was that my language could have been even more legalistic, given the circumstances. --Nickhh (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Nick, I make your appearance at Pat's talk page the third place you've followed me to. That you misrepresented the number and nature of my edits does not make me any gladder to have you tagging along after me. I'd like to ask you -- very, very firmly -- to stop. Okay? IronDuke 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalking you, where? I believe our paths crossed most recently on Second Intifada, an article I have been involved in from time to time in the past. You of course turned up on the talk page after me, not before me, as clear from this section. Subsequently I came across your attempts to insert the Dershowitz stuff into the Cynthia McKinney article. The reason I came across that was because, yes, I was having a bit of a trawl round for an especially egregious example of WP:UNDUE material, based on limited sources, being shoved into I-P pages or those with vague links to them, which I could use as a diff in a more general debate elsewhere. I commented on the talk page itself a day later I think, but did not become involved in editing the page itself. Then naturally, when I saw you had posted a 3RR complaint against another editor on account of the dispute there, but had not notified them, I did (ie yes, I did go to their talk page, but in fact precisely because you had NOT gone there to inform them, as procedure asks that you should - I take a poor view of editors who try to go behind others' backs and try to get them blocked).

As for misrepresenting the number of your edits on the McKinney page (which you have now accused me of twice), I'd advise you to review them. Four edits, all returning material removed by others, between 1704 & 1926 (my time) on the 4th. This one, this one and this one all involved the return of the Dershowitz quote (this is the earlier one, making four in total). I said "Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself, 2 of which were of the Dershowitz material", which you are right was incorrect, I apologise. It was 4, with 3 of them involving the Dershowitz material

Cheers, you're a funny guy. You can't read, you can't count, and you're rude with it. --Nickhh (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now you're just making this easy, aren't you? Check your diffs again. Your first and fourth diffs are part of the same edit I was making. That does not count as two reverts. There was no intervening edit. Are you telling me you really don't understand this? (I note alos that you split up those edits which occurred right next to each other, making it harder for someone to see you were wrong. Possibly you did not intend to do this.) Looking at Second Intifada, it appears I was there before you (on talk), but please do check me on that. The other article I was referring to was Urban Outfitters, an article you barged into having -- by your own admission -- no idea what you were talking about. You showed up very shortly after I did. That, combined with your recent behavior, suggests to me that you have an unhealthy fascination with my editing. And as for rudeness, you just got blocked a few weeks ago for incivility, no? But I've not been rude here at all. So again: willing to stay away? IronDuke 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy for myself, yes:

• McKinney - As usual, read what I said above. I said four edits (I have also referred to them as reverts). There are four edits, all of which are going back to a previous version of the page, even if the 1st and 2nd follow on directly from each other and therefore do not technically count as separate reverts for 3RR. I never accused you of a 3RR violation. Btw I split the 1st and 4th diffs above simply so that I would be highlighting all the Dershowitz reverts first, and then added the 1st at the end as an afterthought, since you asked.
• Second Intifada - I have checked; you either have not or have been misreading again. Prior to my October 30th comments here in response to points made by Nishidani & NoCal100, and here in response to Michael Safyan, your last appearance seems to have been way back on the 5th August. So perhaps delayed reaction stalking, who knows. However you then suddenly reappeared in the midst of one of the above discussions, to selectively quote the Mitchell report and to make a not-so-subtle (and misplaced as it happens) dig at one of my earlier observations
• Urban Outfitters - er, it was way back in May when our paths crossed there, so another 3 months previously. Nor do I recall admitting that I had "no idea what I was talking about", not that has any relevance to charges of stalking (and it would perhaps reflect better on you to be a bit more gracious when bringing up the fact that six months ago someone did accept some of your points on a talk page).
• Rudeness - you told me here that I needed to be "educated" and that you could point me in the direction of some books to read. That's kind of rude by any normal standard when all I did was raise a source/BLP query. And yes I was no-warning blocked recently for making one single mildly sarcastic but non-offensive remark in response to an editor who was accusing me of disruptive editing, and swiftly unblocked as well.

I come across other editors on a far more regular basis than I do you, and I'm not stalking them either. I'm adding paranoia to the list of problems - unless of course you edit here with more than one account, and I come across you more often than I realise. Post on my page again and I'm deleting it as trolling. --Nickhh (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)