User talk:Bibigon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:19, 27 March 2006 editNetscott (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits →Islamophobia ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:49, 5 April 2006 edit undo69.196.139.250 (talk) →Islamophobia Next edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	: Hello again, I'm curious, have you had a chance to actually familarize yourself with some of that details of the U.N. seminar I've cited? ] 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)		: Hello again, I'm curious, have you had a chance to actually familarize yourself with some of that details of the U.N. seminar I've cited? ] 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

			==Islamaphobia, anti-Semetic views (the hate of Arabs) and anti-Iranianism are all linked==

			Read user:Diyako and several other users edits in relations to Arabs and Iranians or Iraq or Kurdistan. It looks like they, these Israeli editors are trting to create a clash between Iranians and Arabs. ] 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:49, 5 April 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Bibigon, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ISM

Those are fair points you make, Bibigon, and I didn't even notice the bold. The quote should definitely not be bolded. Feel free to revert me, or I can revert myself, as you see fit. I'm sorry I didn't look at it carefully enough. SlimVirgin 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Hamas quote and the bolded sections from the other quotes, and left a note on the talk page. My apologies again for not paying closer attention. Cheers, SlimVirgin 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism edit

You said Motivation of the assailaint is unclear, as per citation. Can't be called Anti-Arab, could just be a random attack

The victim was shot after he recieved a written death threat with anti-Arab slurs just the day before he was killed (I mentioned it in the article) it is not a random act of violence. --Inahet 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see where the confusion is. The cited article is of two shootings, one where the motivation was unclear and the other is believed to be a hate crime. The latter one is what I had mentioned in the anti-Arabism article. I'll find another article that is written on just the shooting of Ali Ahmed to avoid any further confusion. --Inahet 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

According to some sources, the shooting was being investigated as a hate crime . But since the motivation has not yet been declared a hate crime by the "authorities" (even though it is apparent), I will leave the omission as is, I will just place in something else. --Inahet 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. That's all I was asking for. I'm not opposed to citing incidents, just that that one is a bit weak. I see no evidence to be certain that it was a hate crime. Bibigon 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

RE: Howard Zinn

Some could consider your edits as article blanking. There is no real need to edit down the length and details. --8bitJake 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty irrelevant whether some "could" consider my edits as article blanking. I justify them, and if some consider it blanking, let them revert. I wasn't paring down the article for the sake of making it shorter. I was paring it down for the sake of removing huge swaths of quotes, which belong over at Wikiquote rather than here, and add nothing to the respective sections in which they were placed. Bibigon 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right - regardless of anyone's political point of view, this article needs heavy editing to make it readable. Unfortunately, it's one of those topics where editing will be seen as a political act. Is there any way I can back up your point in the mediation thing? --Liquidindian 06:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Irreducible complexity

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

Shortcuts

Hello, and thank you for your interest in assisting with dispute resolution. The dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) is one of the informal steps in the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages. The main purpose of DRN is to resolve content-oriented disputes between editors. Resolutions obtained at DRN are not formally binding, but are often found to be a useful point of reference for subsequent discussions and actions on the disputed article.

This page is a guide for volunteers who want to assist in dispute resolution at DRN. There are no formal requirements so feel free to begin your participation right away as any editor may comment on any discussion. You are not required to add your name to the list of DRN volunteers before commenting at a dispute, but adding your name to the list below is recommended and helpful for the DRN bot that monitors the status of each case.

How to start

Add your name to the list of DRN volunteers below - the DRN bot uses this list to perform some housekeeping chores. You may also, if you like, add information about yourself to our "social" page, but doing so is not required.

Consider adding Template:DRN case status to your watchlist, so you can keep track of the disputes listed on DRN. This page keeps a listing of all cases currently at DRN, and is updated by a robot every half-hour. It sorts cases by age, and lists the amount of time since a volunteer edited a thread, and the current status of a dispute.

Pick a case from the list of DRN cases - The list is at the top of the WP:DRN page. Select a case that is marked as 'new', meaning no volunteer has yet volunteered for that case. Where possible, consider volunteering older case submissions first, but it's also good to begin your DRN work with a case that interests you and doesn't look too complex regardless of its age. You can volunteer on any 'new' case provided that you are not involved with the case and that you have no strong conflicts of interest with the case or with the involved parties.

Review Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines - Volunteers should be familiar with relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, most notably WP:Dispute resolution, WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Neutral point of view (particularly WP:UNDUE), and WP:Biographies of living persons.

If you don't want to commit to being the volunteer of a specific case, you can help at DRN by adding comments to a case or participating at the DRN Talk page. Additionally, one may assist with maintenance tasks such as making sure all parties in the dispute have been notified on their talk page. More experienced users may also make procedural closings, attend to formatting repairs and correct page links and user names.

Volunteering to handle a DRN case

Summary

Locate a case without a DRN volunteer.
Check to see that there has been sufficient prior discussion and that the dispute is not active on other pages or content or conduct dispute resolution venues. If not then you may need to close the case using these instructions.
Confirm that each participant listed in the case has been notified on their user talk page. If not, then you can manually add this template to their talk page: {{subst:Template:DRN-notice}}.
If all parties have posted their opening comments you can introduce yourself as the DRN volunteer in the case's Discussion section.
Guide the discussion utilizing the suggestions below.
After the case has run its course, close the case either as failed, resolved or closed.

Notifications to case participants

The filing party is responsible for notifying all participants on their user talk page but the filing party may need to be reminded. Additional reminders may be needed as the case progresses. To remind participants that a DRN case needs their input, post the {{DRN participation ping}} template on their user talk page as follows:

== DRN case reminder ==

Refer to the DRN participation ping template page for options and details.

Opening

Don't open a case unless you're fairly certain that other matters in your online or offline life will not prevent you from giving it daily or near-daily attention until it is resolved or closed. Remember that though the ordinary lifespan of a DRN case is 14 days from the date it was filed that they can sometimes run longer.
Locate a case marked 'new' (see below).

– New.

Make sure the filing party has notified all the listed parties using the {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} template.
Make sure that there has been extensive talk page discussion about the content matter in dispute (discounting all discussion about procedure and conduct); close the case for lack of discussion if there has not. Remember that while we prefer discussion at the article talk page that discussion on user talk pages or elsewhere will usually suffice.
Change the cases status by replacing the word "new" with the word "open" in the case status template at the top of the case filing.
Add a comment in the case's Discussion section introducing yourself as a DRN volunteer.
Be alert for excessive or personalized opening comments and gently correct these tendencies by alerting the participant(s) in a patient and friendly manner.
Review the case information and any related talk page discussions.
Make sure all the necessary information has been provided by the filing party. Make corrections or request additional information as needed.
Disallow discussion by participants until all parties have made opening comments.
The DRN bot will automatically change the case's status in the summary box at the top of the DRN page after you have manually changed the case status in the case status template. It will also list you as having made the last volunteer edit if your name is listed on the list of volunteers. The case status bar will then look like this:

– Discussion in progress.

Processing

See also WP:Consensus

As a volunteer, your role is to assist the participants in obtaining a mutually satisfactory resolution of their underlying content dispute. Some suggestions:

Be cordial and welcoming. Many editors involved in DRN cases are new to Misplaced Pages and may not be fully aware of all of its policies and guidelines.

If you're not going to give attention to the case at least once a day, let the parties know your schedule.

Be neutral and professional. Being opinionated or flippant may undermine your credibility as a neutral volunteer. If you have a strong opinion about the underlying topic in a case it may be better to allow another volunteer handle the case.

No particular method of dispute resolution is required. Mediation was used by the now-defunct Mediation Committee, but other methods such as opinion-giving, such as is done at Third Opinion, may be appropriate.

Guide the discussion by referencing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and avoid making value judgments and getting caught up in the content dispute. When policies and guidelines give a clear resolution, it is fine to advance them (but be sure that you're right before doing so); when they are unclear or their application to the particular facts of the case is unclear, then propose them for discussion and help to narrow the conversation to the most relevant points or issues.

Avoid becoming a co-party by directly editing the article under discussion.

Discourage resolutions which violate Misplaced Pages's content policies such as WP:Verifiablity or WP:Biographies of living persons.

If you have had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, its best to leave the case to other, uninvolved, DRN volunteers. If someone objects to your involvement in a case, you should either withdraw from the case or initiate a discussion on the DRN talk page so the community can discuss the objection.

When starting a case, focus on asking questions rather than making pronouncements.

Make sure that everyone agrees to the details of the dispute. Sometimes, a simple misunderstanding can be the source of the problem.

Consensus does not mean that all the parties are fully satisfied with the resolution, it merely means that all the parties can live with the resolution as that is the nature of compromise.

If the parties are making progress without your assistance, avoid the temptation to comment and sidetrack their progress.

In complex cases, imposing a structure (such as a step-by-step process) may be useful to avoid chaos and circular discussions.

If you find that real world or other matters have come up which may prevent you from giving regular attention to the case please do not simply abandon it or let it hang while you seek to resolve those matters. Let the parties know and either get their consent to whatever attention you can give to the case or resign from the case and put a note on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the case.

Ground rules for parties

In contentious disputes, establishing ground rules may help structure the discussion. Such ground rules might include:

Keeping comments focused on the issue at hand.
Insisting on civility and no personal attacks. DRN volunteers may want to 'collapse' comments that personalize the discussion. An explanation for the collapse and a gentle warning will help communicate to the participants your ground rules and expectations. If a volunteer's collapse or removal of content is reverted by a participant, the volunteer should not revert the reversion. If the collapse or warning is disputed then the DRN volunteer may want to discuss and explain the issue further on the participant's talk page.
Let the participants know that resolution often comes only through compromise which is an integral part of the Misplaced Pages collaborative process.
When there are multiple issues suggest that they be discussed one at a time. Discussion that veers off course may be 'collapsed' by the volunteer to keep the discussion productive and on track.
DRN is not a formal dispute resolution process, and does not result in binding decisions. Nevertheless, participants should generally agree that they will abide by the outcome of the case.

Closing

Volunteers should close their cases when they have concluded. A case may be closed as 'resolved' or 'failed' (or 'closed' when there is no clear outcome). To close a case, first set the case status to either "resolved" or "failed" or "closed" within the {{DR case status}} template. Second, collapse the entire case by enclosing it in an archive box with a comment explaining the reasons for the closure. Example:

== History of Russia case ==

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Reason for closing. ~~~~}}

Filing request and discussion.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

There are three ways to close a case: "resolved", "failed" and "closed". It is also important to remove the {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|0123456789}} line when closing a thread so that the bot can archive the closed discussion.

Resolved

When all involved parties have agreed on a resolution in an unambiguous manner, the case filing may be closed and the DRN case status template changed to "resolved":

{{DR case status|resolved}}

The case status bar should then look like this:

- Dispute resolved successfully.

Failed

If it becomes apparent that resolution is not possible at this time, mark the case status as "failed". Advise the parties to continue discussing the issue in the article talk page, and/or pursue other methods of dispute resolution such as Request for Comment or WP:ANI. To close a case as "failed" set the DRN case status template as follows:

{{DR case status|failed}}

The case status bar will look like this after closed:

– Closed as failed.

General close

Some cases never reach a clear degree of success or failure and may qualify for a 'general' close. For example the involved parties may lose interest during the dispute resolution process etc. In some instances a case may need to be closed preemptively even before a DRN volunteer accepts the case for discussion. Reasons for a preemptive close may include:

Parties have not had extensive discussion on an article or user talk page.
The case is currently being discussed in a Request For Comment or in a Misplaced Pages noticeboard such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, or WP:RSN.
There is already a consensus at another venue such as WP:RFC, and the DRN case has been filed by an editor who is unhappy with the outcome (see WP:Forum shopping).
Involved parties have indicated they are not willing to participate (or they are blocked etc.).
The dispute was resolved on the article talk page while the case was awaiting dispute resolution.
The dispute is primarily about user conduct not content.

To close a case, edit the DRN case section and place the word "closed" in the case status template, and archive the case with the {{DRN archive top}} template, as shown in this example:

== Moon landing conspiracy case==

{{DRN archive top|reason=The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. ~~~~}}

Filing request and discussion.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

After closing the case status box will look like this:

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

In closing cases that are not ready for dispute resolution here, volunteers should consider whether the requesting editor is very new and would benefit from some instruction as to the ways of Misplaced Pages. Volunteers should consider whether we need to try to explain to new editors what talk pages are for and guide them to the relevant areas for discussion.

Joining a case already in progress

If you would like to contribute to a case that already has a volunteer, feel free to add your insights regarding the content under discussion. Identify yourself and state that you are merely contributing as a regular editor, not as a volunteer.

If you wish to assist in leading the resolution process, it may be best to contact the DRN volunteer on their talk page and express your desire to help. A case is not "owned" by any one volunteer. However, this is one way of showing respect for the current volunteer and avoiding an interruption of the resolution strategy already underway. If you feel that a case is not being handled properly by another DRN volunteer then bring your concerns to their talk page or to the DRN talk page for community discussion. If you are assisting with a case but cannot continue for some reason, post a notice in the case's Discussion section and on the DRN talk page asking for another volunteer to take over the discussion you have started.

Sometimes a case will be opened by a volunteer, and then become inactive. Sometimes the parties may be stuck and need another opinion or the involved parties may have lost interest. In those situations, additional help from other volunteers may be desirable. Likewise the case may have stalled because the volunteer has not followed through. In this situation you may want to read through the case and comment or even assume the role of DRN volunteer.

Alternately a case may have been resolved or the parties have lost interest and the case is stale. Any volunteer may close a stale dispute, as long as a warning has been given that the case will be closing in 24 hrs if no further comments are made.

Awards

Awards are available for faithful and meritorious service, and one award is also available to give to participants in a dispute who deserve special praise. See the award page for details. Volunteers are encouraged to distribute awards to those who deserve them.

Templates

While serving as a volunteer at DRN, the following templates may be useful:

{{V note}}: Used as a general volunteer note.
{{DRN-volunteer-note}} and/or {{V-note}}: Used by a DRN volunteer to add a volunteer note with information for the participants of the dispute.
{{DRN-volunteer-note-to-volunteer}}: Used by a DRN volunteer to add a volunteer note to other DRN volunteers.
Template:Done/See_also: A list of other helpful symbols and signs to assist with a DRN case.

Case status options

Full DRN status details

The state of each case is indicated by a rectangular status box at the top of the case. The bot will maintain the status on all but three, which require a volunteer to manually do so (see "Closing a dispute filing" below). The status boxes include the following. The parameter can be used in {{DR case status|parameter}} to change the status of a dispute:

Parameter	Returns	Usage
none	– New discussion.	If the parameter is empty it will default to this tag; this is the case status automatically assigned to a new case when it is filed by an editor but before being taken up by a volunteer or being "closed" as a malformed or premature request (see below)
active, open or inprogress	– Discussion in progress.	Once a volunteer has begun the task of discussing the content of the case with the involved editors, the case status template at the top of the discussion should be modified to one of these in order to assist other volunteers in assessing which discussions still need to be formally opened
needassist, relist or relisted	– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.	This case status may be assigned if a volunteer decides he/ she would like additional assistance with a given case; if a volunteer finds him/ herself over his/her head in a discussion or feels one or more involved editors is being disruptive, the case status may be changed to this
review	– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.	This is used to mark an older conversation still awaiting the attention of a volunteer to formally open the discussion
resolve or resolved	Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.	If the involved editors come to some kind of agreement or the filing party appears to abandon the conversation, the case should be marked as resolved
fail or failed	– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.	If the involved editors are unable to come to an agreement after a volunteer has opened the case, the volunteer may decide that dispute resolution has not worked and may mark the case as "failed"; This will clear the way for the filing party to seek formal mediation
hold	– This request has been placed on hold.	Once a volunteer has formally opened a case, it is possible that the volunteer or one of the involved parties may need to place a temporary hold on a discussion for one or more days (perhaps while traveling or completing exams); a "hold" may be placed to let others know that the discussion is not over, but that no further comments should be added until the case is returned to "active"
close	– General close. See comments for reasoning.	If a filing party generates a malformed request or if a volunteer looks at a case and decides it does not meet the case prerequisites for some technical reason, the case may be marked as "closed"; this effectively terminates the discussion unless it is refiled (appropriately)

stale and inactive are deprecated parameter per Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 17#DRN_Case Status Template updating now mapping to needassist, and should not be used on active cases.

List of the DRN volunteers

Shortcut

WP:DRVOLUNTEERS

If you volunteer at the noticeboard, even if only for a short period of time, add yourself to the list of volunteers below. This list helps the DRN bot do its job. The list may also be used by editors to find someone willing to help with a DRN case or other dispute resolution issues. If you list your name here, please do so with the intention of taking a case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative chores here at least one time per calendar month unless you are new to dispute resolution and are indicating that you wish to help here after observing for a month or two.

If you later choose not to participate, please remove your name from this list.

In addition to the adding your name to the list, consider adding the {{User DRN}} userbox to your user page, or including yourself in Category:Wikipedians who assist at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

If you list yourself here, and later become a party to a DRN case, please specify that you are participating solely as an involved party and not in you usual role of DRN volunteer. This may be done either in your response section of the case filing, and/or in the discussion section of the case filing.

In order to determine the number of current potentially active volunteers, this list may be purged from time to time (but not more often than one time per six months) by any regularly active volunteer calling a roll call and removing the editors who do not respond to that call. A copy of the volunteer list immediately prior to the purge may either be found in the page history here or on the roll calls page. Individuals whose names are removed should feel free to re-add their names to the list, but are requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part in handling cases or assisting in administration at least one time per month. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we do respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the list.

To volunteer, please add your name by copying and pasting # {{User|CrafterNova}} in the most alphabetically appropriate location below. Your support is very much appreciated.

Active

Editors who have been active for about the last month (last updated 12 Jan 2024 - feel free to update).

Semi-active

Achar Sva (talk · contribs)
AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs)
Asparagusus (talk · contribs)
Biblioworm (talk · contribs)
BJackJS (talk · contribs)
AGreatUsernameChoice (talk · contribs)
1. Brownlowe.2 (talk · contribs)
Casualdejekyll (talk · contribs)
Digital20 (talk · contribs)
Doncram (talk · contribs)
Editor760 (talk · contribs)
Iazyges (talk · contribs)
ImmortalWizard (talk · contribs)
Lalalalala7 (talk · contribs)
Levonscott (talk · contribs)
MarkC20 (talk · contribs)
MrClog (talk · contribs)
Nightenbelle (talk · contribs)
Novanglusva (talk · contribs)
Punch4321 (talk · contribs)
Seemplez (talk · contribs)
Signimu (talk · contribs)
Simonm223 (talk · contribs)
sleddog116 (talk · contribs)
Smahwk (talk · contribs)
Snowycats (talk · contribs)
Donnchadh4 (talk · contribs)
1. Styx & Stones (talk · contribs)
TransporterMan (talk · contribs)
VeritasSapientia (talk · contribs)
Vincentvikram (talk · contribs)
Xavexgoem (talk · contribs)
Thparkth (talk · contribs)
IWorshipDemons (talk · contribs)

In training

Volunteers who are learning the ropes about the dispute resolution process in this noticeboard. Feel free to move your name to the active section when you feel ready.

Inactive

Editors who have been inactive for a year (last updated 12 January 2024 - feel free to update).

Alfie (talk · contribs)
Amadeus1999 (talk · contribs)
Celestina007 (talk · contribs)
CommonSenseEdit (talk · contribs)
Cyberwolf (talk · contribs)
DiplomaticImmortality (talk · contribs)
DocFreeman24 (talk · contribs)
EchidnaLives (talk · contribs)
Excutient (talk · contribs)
Fentoneditor (talk · contribs)
Feynstein (talk · contribs)
Fortniter2728 (talk · contribs)
Hanford4162 (talk · contribs)
Keith Johnston (talk · contribs)
Kim Jong Undo (talk · contribs)
Littleb2009 (talk · contribs)
LocalPunk (talk · contribs)
MathIsMusic (talk · contribs)
MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)
MPants at work (talk · contribs)
MrAgentSochi (talk · contribs)
MrTiger0307 (talk · contribs)
O-dog222 (talk · contribs)
OscarTGreat (talk · contribs)
OwenwongHY (talk · contribs)
PeanutHat (talk · contribs)
ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs)
RobbieM13 (talk · contribs)
Simbioz (talk · contribs)
SpoonLuv (talk · contribs)
Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs)
SuperGoose007 (talk · contribs)
Thragukk (talk · contribs)
Turtlewong (talk · contribs)
Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)

--Fasten 13:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You would have been well served to read the above comments, especially 4, 6, 11, 12 and 15. Taking a side in a dispute without actually reading the history of the dispute and without trying to involve (or even inform) the other involved parties (a note at Talk:Irreducible complexity would have been nice) does not create confidence in your ability or willingness to mediate. Please remember that the job of a mediator is to try to get people to agree on things, not to simply take the word of a trouble-maker at face value. Guettarda 07:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

While I did read comments 4,6, 11, 12 and 15 beforehand, and did try to take them into account, the complaints you mentioned here are valid nonetheless, insofar as I didn't approach things from the proper perspecitve as a mediator. I will be withdrawing from the mediation process, as I am too inexperienced with these matters to be particularly helpful, as my bungled attempts here demonstrate. Please accept my apologies. I did give things an honest effort, however, I misunderstood the process in spite of that, and it showed. Again, I'm quite sorry for how I approached this. Bibigon 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Misplaced Pages prohibits persistently reverting pages, and we have a three revert rule to ensure that edit wars do not escalate. Because you made four reverts within 24 hours on Islamophobia, you are blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for three hours. Please try to discuss changes rather than just reverting. Thanks. Stifle 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The fourth revert, while perhaps unwarranted, was done in response to what seemed to me to be likely sock puppetry going on, and not a real user suggesting a change. It was the IP's first edit, and it was without an edit summary, or an entry in the talk page. Fair enough however, I'll refrain from this in the future. Bibigon 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

what do you want?

bibigon, what you are doing on the zinn page is akin to bomb throwing. you whine, you carry on, you fight, and then when you fail to convince collegues, you take your gripes outside the page. And yet, you don't do the one concrete thing that could bring about change, and that is, to offer alternative viewpoints for the article. it is difficult to take you seriously, though of course we try. they have this thing in court where judges dismiss cases because the plaintiff does not ask for something that can be granted. that is what is happening here. instead of attacking people, and being aggressive, say what you want and say it specifically. don't order other people around. say what you are willing to do to bring about change and consensus, that is, if that is what you want. you pissed off a lot of people, without discussion on talk page, deleting vast swaths of material from the article. that showed an enormous amount of hostility. and then you said you know nothing about the subject. gee, why are you bothering? why do you have such a strong viewpoint given that you say you know nothing about the topic? where do your opinions derive? maybe i can help you come up with some alternative viewpoints to add to the article. skywriter 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What I want? I want an article on Howard Zinn that introduces who he is, then moves into his biography, and in that biographical sketch, presents the facts of his life rather than using text to give his political views throughout. After the factual and NPOV biopgraphy, I'd like a section on his political views, where a few of the aforementioned biographical quotes could go. Then, after that a section on his critics, of which he has many. This in addition to describing "A People's History" seperately, as well as his playwriting. I would like this to be written in encyclopedic style rather than that of a book report, I would like for this to not be a piece where here you can ascribe motivations and use unsourced adjectives at will, but rather something resemebling a real entry of an encyclopeia.

I also want for you to back off of the personal attacks, which are both a violation of Misplaced Pages ettiquette, as well as being fundamentally baseless. You have repeatedly mischaracterized what I have done, and you have done so in a malicious manner. I have ignored it up to now, but now that you've brought these same tendancies to my talk page, I feel the need to address this. Your behaviour here is not particularly helpful, and you don't seem to be interested in actually improving this article. Rather, you seem to be here spoiling for a fight without any real basis for your arguments or claims. Other editors have given some substance behind their claims, yet you have refrained from doing as much. Rather you employ strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. I plead with you, please stay on issue. It's the only way that Misplaced Pages can survive. What have enganged in here is exactly the kind of behaviour which is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, the kind of behaviour which doesn't help anyone. Focus on the facts and you'll be a significantly more productive member of the community. Bibigon 04:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Greetings thanks for writing on the Islamophobia talk page. I'm curious, did you get a chance to look at Talk:Islamophobia#Properly_defining_the_term_.22Islamophobia.22_.28Continued_from_previous_section_of_talk.29? Thanks! Netscott 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm curious, have you had a chance to actually familarize yourself with some of that details of the U.N. seminar I've cited? Netscott 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamaphobia, anti-Semetic views (the hate of Arabs) and anti-Iranianism are all linked

Read user:Diyako and several other users edits in relations to Arabs and Iranians or Iraq or Kurdistan. It looks like they, these Israeli editors are trting to create a clash between Iranians and Arabs. 69.196.139.250 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)