Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pedrito (talk | contribs) at 08:38, 28 March 2008 (→WP:AE#User:Jaakobou, fresh off a one-week topic-ban, on a rampage again: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Do you want to discuss my editing? I do not often blank large sections, but on a few ocassions I have. In all cases it was speculative OR on political subjects. There was a yopic menu, clicking on it brought me to more editing work than I could do in a year. Do you agree that this is the way to edit, to remove speculative OR? I suggest checking the actual deletions if you are concerned enough.

In regard to far right, see the Talk Page, I discussed my change well in advance and you did not comment. Raggz 10:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we could use help with democracy, want to try summarizing it in four paragraphs? The first three attempts didn't go far. Raggz 10:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What is Democracy is a response to a consensual decision to work on an opening paragraph. It is not necessary to source "the sun rises in the east" unless challenged. The disagreement is if majority rule is a feature of democracy. I'm following the standard Jeffersonian Democracy theories, but there is resistance to any discussion of (1) majority voting, (2) the significance of voter inclusion or exclusion (sufferage) (3) the fundamental issue of what is and is not a liberal democracy. The pattern of rejection of these topics is not considered, nor deliberative, and there is no productive discussion. We have an individual who vetoes much and contributes little, who will not articulate their view except to simply oppose others. The article needs help, seriously, feel free to help. Anyone who contributes presently will get bashed, but we need an opening.

The Policy is to aggressively delete OR. I don't have the link, do you need it? I do not believe that I am actually inserting a "large amount of POV & OR material into articles". Are we just discussing the opening to democracy and a few words under liberal democracy? The section where I added it has no references at all, and the incluson seems no more controversial than the others. I considered entering the right of criminals not to be executed, a recognized outside of the US, but decided against it. The right to bear arms is a civil liberty within the US, and not widely otherwise.

We disagree on: "But blanking huge chunks of text from articles, including complete paragraphs, and sometimes nearly entire articles - which a lot of other editors have spent a lot of time working on and building up - is just bad practice and should always be a last resort." Policy says otherwise. If the material is POV-centered political essays, Policy says to aggessively delete it. Please help doing this? I deleted stuff I agreed with too. Look at human rights in the united states, it is being rebuilt by a motivated editor in San Diego, we will collaberate to make it better than it was. He agrees that it was bad, the sources misquotes, but he wants a good article to replace it. Soon we will joust over torture, he will use the word loosely and we will discover that US anti-torture laws and law enforcement are stronger than in the EU. So what's wrong with this? A blank page is turning into a good page that I don't agree with, but will tweak and help with NPOV? A lot of OR is gone, and no one cares to revert it.

Yes, my editing approach annoys people. Is this necessarily bad? There is a wiki-ecology of types of contributions, and among them are aggressive deletors. My goal is to delete more OR aggressively, but to do so in a way that increasingly helps the process. Presently I've slowed down to assess how these deletions impact the process. I'm observing and learning. You can really help by suggesting how I can be most effective in deleting large amounts of OR, not if I should. The present constructive work within human rights in the united states would not have occured without massive deletions. This s positive. The counterbalance is that large chunks of OR that no one cared about are missing? Raggz 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my questions about deleting OR, massively when necessary. They were sincere.

Thank you for contributing to democracy, I hope that you continue, perhaps even offering a draft opening section?

You said: "If you want to go somewhere and state how great and unimpeachable the US is, and how any criticism of it is mistaken or "unproven", please start a blog, invite people to leave comments on what you have to say, and leave a flawed, but at least consensual, encyclopedia alone--"Nickhh 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) First of all no one said anything like "how great and unimpeachable the US is". Am I mistaken on this?

What we have in that article are unsourced allegations about alleged human rights violations. There are others conceeded to be largely accurate, but all decades old, before the US reformed it's policies. What I requested on Talk was: (1) name the human rights law violated, (2) name the court case that made the finding - or alternatively label the claim an allegation. Is this a problem? What do you suggest?

The US is also widely regarded as having an exceptional (if spotted) human rights record. This view deserve to be also represented? Doesn't NPOV require this? Don't my edits help with NPOV? As for support, some will be challenged and I will then support them. It is a fact that the US is the only nation is the only nation that bans the beatings of terrorisim suspects as torture? Ireland vs. United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights is the present law in Europe, beating terrorism suspects is specifically not "torture". So what is wrong with this edit? Raggz 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello nickhh You said "I can only assume that this was deleted because it was an insane observation. Or more accurately, because it is not a "fact". Please read more about the history of the Philippines, Mexico, and Vietnam. Or about the second world war, where thousands of Russians made a difference too.--Nickhh 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)" What did you mean? These are some of the "dark chapters" in US history, is it your point that the US record on human rights has suffered since the reforms of 1981? If you have actual facts that support this, the article needs them. Raggz 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland vs. UK 1978

nickhh, you deleted the information about what the European Court of Human Rights found in Ireland v. UK. Why? Have you read this case? Do you dispute what you deleted, or are you on a pov campaign regardless of the facts. If you can explain why the five techniques are not torture in th EU, but are in the US, please do so. I will wait a bit before reverting. If you want to revise the text itself, feel free. Don't revert, edit. We can work toward a NPOV. If your objective is only to hide the European definition of torture, it won't work. Raggz 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In December 1977, the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, by the court, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court found that while their internment was a violation of the convention rights, it was justifiable in the circumstances; it however ruled that the practice of the five techniques and the practice of beating prisoners constituted inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of the convention, although not torture. Legally, Ireland v. United Kingdom is notable since the British government had already publicly admitted and promised to refrain from all the violations the court found it guilty of. The UK tried to argue that having done so, the Irish litigation was pointless, relying on principles of international law accepted by the ICJ; however, the ECHR held that even though the UK had already made these admissions and undertakings, the case could still be considered, since ruling on it would serve the purposes of the development of Convention law. European Court of Human Rights

If you want to edit in ""inhuman and degrading treatment" you may choose to do so. The US is generally not accused of ""inhuman and degrading treatment" but of torture, so I feel that this distinction makes the discussion of torture unclear. I like the present language, but I have a pov that differs from yours.

Note that the Human Rights violations found were based upon the European convention, an analog to the US Constitution, which does not offer dentical human rights. If that court had been nterpresting the US Constitution and not the Convention, it might not have found any present US policy to be violated. Raggz 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy article

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the Democracy article. I came across it last summer while tidying up the the Democracy (disambiguation) page, and sapped a lot of my enthusiasm for editing. The article has a surprising lack of general editors, one reason I haven't just taken it off my watch list altogether. There seem to a couple of recurring themes - either Ultramarine vs. another, or the arrival of a homebrew philosopher, both of which produce reams of relatively fruitless Talkpage discussion.

It would be nice if you could stick around and help out with the latest wave of, um, enthusiasm. - David Oberst 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Six-Day pre-emptive

response at User talk:Eleland Eleland 18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editing of comments at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Actually, the comments are clearly in violation of the policies on civility, assumption of good faith, and personal attacks. As for the other edits, I didn't 'follow round all of your recent edits and revert them', but when you left a message I looked at your contributions and saw two entries which I've edited previously, disagreed with your edits, and reverted them while stating my rationale for doing such. Tewfik 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Jenin

Thank you for pointing out that there were errors in the language, and do let me know if I've repaired them adequately. As for 'subsequently', it creates a causal argument that while implied in one of the reports, is not an objective idea. Tewfik 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page relating to this article. The feelings are entirely reciprocated, I know all too well the loneliness of combating anti-Palestinian bias on this site. Keep up the good work, it's always badly needed.Nwe 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Funding

I read your pathetic back pedaling on the Talk page. It is more than a tad hypocritical to advise me "not to assume ignorance on the part of other users", when it precisely what you had done in your own post which prompted my response. Isarig 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea of course if you have seen it yet, but just to let you know, I have responded to your kind attempts to educate me about how the BBC and the World Service are funded on the September 11th Celebration article talk page. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully both what other users, and what you yourself, have actually posted on talk pages before launching into a long response, complete with redundant links and quotes (redundant because I am already well aware of what they contain). I'd also advise you not to assume ignorance on the part of other users, when you have no idea of course of who they are, what they do for a living and what areas of expertise they have. We didn't even get into the "Hamas line" point, although I'm assuming that was in part a joke --Nickhh 15:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to - "I read your pathetic back pedaling on the Talk page. It is more than a tad hypocritical to advise me "not to assume ignorance on the part of other users", when it precisely what you had done in your own post which prompted my response. Isarig 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you now for your gratuitous insult. I am not back-pedalling, and nor did I simply assume ignorance on your part - I actually read your original post of 20th July and assessed your level of knowledge by reference to the words you used. That post claimed - do I have to repeat the point here? - that the BBC is "funded by the British FO" (I have copied the key parts of that exchange with another editor below just to remind you of that). If you meant that literally, you did not know what you were talking about. If it was sloppy writing, and you actually meant to refer to the World Service as you did earlier in the exchange, you can hardly blame me for taking your words at face value and commenting accordingly --Nickhh 06:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

the BBC is by so many considered the emodiedment of unbiased reporting (Liftarn) .. and it is considered by others to be the epitome of biased reporting. It is funded by the British FO, which sets is goals (Isarig response)

RFC

Can you help more directly with this? smb 15:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an RfC? Raggz 07:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Look it up. In fact, please do a lot more looking up before inserting your rubbish into this encyclopedia, and relying on other editors to constantly correct your errors. Nickhh 07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the RfC material. Might you be willing to tell me where and when we have had past conflicts? I only recall working with you from today. I thought we had resolved the Downing Street Memo article questions.

The policy says "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." Have you really done this?

A WP review might show that Sideshow BobRoberts is communicating privately with you about this? You and I, (and the other editor on my page an hour back) have no history. You mentioned that I accuse other editors of being a "pov warrior", a charge that I made privately to Sideshow BobRoberts on his page because this is how he interacts and it needs to stop. I also used that phrase about Ultramarine in May, after he was found by WP to be a WP Warrior. Which of these were claims were you referring to?

I expect that WP will find communications with Sideshow BobRoberts and you. If this is discovered to be the case, it will be up to WP to decide if Sideshow BobRoberts should have approached me directly - and if you have made a sustained effort to "to find a resolution or compromise". I don't mind review, although I doubt that either of us will be found to be perfect WP editors and we will both get constructive criticism.. I said nothing about your personal attacks today, but the review will find these. So, do what you think best. Raggz 08:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FFS! The past interactions between us are at the top of this page; your accusation that Sideshow Bob Roberts is a "POV warrior" were not "private" - they were on his talk page (or rather, on his user page, where you oddly dedided to put them), which can be seen by every other user; in turn you can of course also see any communication between me and Sideshow Bob Roberts about the RfC without any formal review. Do you even have the most basic understanding of how Misplaced Pages works? As for the RfC itself, or any other complaint, several editors waste an inordinate amount of time reasoning with you and clearing up your messes. However your disruptive edits just keep coming - that is the problem. Nickhh 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Downing Street Memos Article still needs a great deal of work. I'm fine with you doing it, so would you like to work on the introduction, or have me do it? How can we work together to improve the Article? It still needs work. Raggz 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very gracious of you to be "fine with doing it". I have replied on the article's talk page. --Nickhh 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you NickH. I have replied on the talk page, and I will try to respect your sensitivities. I don't really understand your sensitivities, so more information would help me. I lost a lot of brain function in Iraq, and sometimes miss things that may seem so obvious that you presume that I know them. After some thought, I'm pleased that you are filing an RfC. I likely require the input that will result, so that I may become a better editor. I want you to know this, this is why I don't mind you ripping on me, and I don't take your personal comments personally. As you say, you know Misplaced Pages far better than I. Don't hesitate to advise me if your time permits. Raggz 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry about any health issues you might have. All I - and anyone else - can do on this encyclopedia is go on the edits other users make, and comment accordingly. You have persistently entered blatantly false facts into articles (eg recently about the European Parliament into the Democracy article, as I've pointed out to you separately). Other editors who do have relevant expertise shouldn't have to run around reverting those - you should check your facts before you start amending articles, not wait for other more knowledgeable editors to educate you in public, and at great length, on the talk pages. In the meantime of course inaccurate and misleading information remains posted in this encyclopedia thanks to you - which is odd since you claim to be so concerned about making sure Misplaced Pages helps inform its readers.

I only edit occasionally for two reasons - 1) because I don't have the time or inclination; & 2) because I will only make changes, in terms of adding or deleting information, when I am 100% sure about what I am doing. In addition I want to be sure I am genuinely improving something, rather than just messing around with it until it better suits my prejudices. I'd advise you to follow the same rules. Then your contributions may well be useful rather than disruptive, as they so often are at the moment. --Nickhh 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

I assumed so, no offence taken or harm done :) Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.11.2007 10:36

Hi Nick! There's another round of "occupation" vs. "humanitarian and harmoniously good-willed military presence" going on at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Care to toss in you two cents? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 13:14

Oh, you're already on it... Thanks :) pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 13:28

I also try to edit from a distance, but it's not always that easy... Anyway, thanks for the revised intro. I guess resetting the whole thing as you did is better -- and more efficient -- than trying to change it phrase by phrase.

Regarding the "occupied" vs. "disputed/captured" issue, I have been thinking about starting a WP:RFAR on the topic to get some last word spoken. However, I have not yet found the time to get to it. Since you seem to be the wiser editor here, how would you go about it?

Cheers and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 14:08

Well, there's a mediation going on regarding Finkelstein as a source: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, but I don't think it's getting anywhere and might well land on WP:RFAR eventually. I would be against mediation and for arbitration since this issue has been talked about enough and the last thing I want is even more talk on it.

Would you mind being added as an involved party in an eventual WP:RFAR regaring the "occupied" issue?

pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 14:32

Well, I've gone and done it anyway... Here's the link, please feel free to add comments/corrections. I'm curious as to what might happen with it :) Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 16:04

You were correct in your prediction of the outcome :) I've started an RfC on the article talk page... Cheers! pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 11:27

Hi Nick. Glad to make your acquaintance a bit. I think civility issues don't need to be discussed much, if at all, in the midst of an article Talk dispute. So, as I'm doing here, maybe better to deal with it thru user Talk. Accordingly, I'd like to ask if you would consider removing the following: Nor do I understand the implied reference to incivility. All I have pointed out in respect of your behaviour as an editor is that a) your understanding of the subtleties of the English sometimes lets you down; and that b) you re-ignited an old war, over a single word, without initially engaging even with people who were being sympathetic to you. Both of these facts are uncontroversial. If I was really going to depart from basic civility I would not be wasting yet more space on a talk page. Or alternatively I would use that space to accuse you of deliberately picking a fight for the sake of it, or in order to start my own ridiculous debate elsewhere about how Misplaced Pages articles should regularly give weight to the viewpoint that describes Israel as the "Zionist Entity", or Tel Aviv as a "Settlement" . Mind you, I'm not trying to disagree/agree with you, just would rather you raise this in a different forum, if you feel it's necessary. Or, I can remove them, if that would be fine with you. Either way, thanks for your substantive thinking on the dispute. Take care, HG | Talk 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick -- I also asked you a substance question on the Talk page-- about the wording of the disputed sentence. Please look and reply at your earliest convenience. (My q is after your analysis of the sentence wording. You can find it in history, just dated slightly before this note.) Be well, HG | Talk 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being stubborn on this point, I don't want my comments refactored. I thought the behaviour on display there by Jaakabou was pretty shoddy - and then it's them who has the gall to turn round and start complaining about people breaching civility guidelines! I've been on the receiving end of some of their aggression before (eg "apparently you only care for dead militants, comparing them to your neighbors, and not for people who are unsuspectingly targeted while they eat their holiday meals", after I simply tried to point out that some of the dead in Jenin were NOT militants, but ordinary civilians), and while I'm not going to pursue the point above, equally I'm happy for what I've already said on that talk page to stand as record, and as a totally valid rebuttal of a totally ridiculous allegation. --Nickhh (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

civility

i actually kept a portion of the edits, despite some more than obvious problems - your blind revert which included some of the issues discussed on talk was, in my opinion, uncivil and also a tad disruptive. Jaakobou 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you did the first mass revert of quite a lot of disparate material, and I just reverted that, after explaining why on the talk page in some detail. I'm not sure that I've been any more disruptive or uncivil than you have. --Nickhh (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

there was a mass change of numerous non-consensus topics without discussion, some clearly against consesnsus . i allowed some of them to stay and reverted the more problematic ones; and, opened a subsection to one of the changes which had some merit but lacked some direction . you on the other hand, just reverted to the previous version not addressing the main POV edits you brought back into the article. i.e. a tad disruptive. Jaakobou 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The irony here is that you always accuse even the most painstakingly neutral edit of being "POV", if it doesn't set out a right-wing Israeli POV. To repeat a point on the talk page, you wiped an edit of mine that included observation that settlements are an "issue". I'm not sure you can get a more neutral and factual observation than that. If I'd said - as I happen to believe is the case - that the settlements probably need to be dismantled as a condition for peace, that would be POV. But I didn't say that, precisely because it would have been a personal view about the situation, even if it is one shared by a lot of people. The problem with you and a lot of other editors is that, illogically, they seem to believe that something is only NPOV when it directly matches their POV. That's not how it works. --Nickhh (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

invite

you're invited to comment here and here . Jaakobou 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Nickhh (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Post at WP:AN/I

Hi Nick, you might be interested by this.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 13:55

Thanks. Not sure I can cope with another dispute to be honest! Good luck though. Are you aware of the recent "Allegations of Apartheid .." farce, where a whole gang of editors created a series of articles such as "Allegations of Apartheid in Costa Rica, Ireland etc", in a bid to use them as bargaining chips to secure the deletion of the "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" page? I'm not good at finding archives here, but there was a massive Admins' Noticeboard debate on this. There is history with this kind of thing I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked around and found this, which is probably what you were referring to... I read most of the comments and it seems there was no final decision on the case. It makes for interesting reading though :) Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 14:50

Discussion at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi Nick,

Well, it had to happen... After avoiding the discussion for more than a week, it looks like the pro-"disputed" side has snuck back to turn a sleeping debate into some kind of fake consensus. I'm kind of alone there and would really appreciate a helping hand!

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.12.2007 08:50

Hello again,

Looks like the issue has been resolved. Would be nice to have you back there editing!

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 17:11

Unfun editing

Got your note, yes I have been editing on the same page as (I would not say "with" necessarily) Raggz and have found it extremely frustrating. I'm about ready to give up quite frankly. I think Raggz' heart is in the right place but this user needs a mentor or editing restrictions or something similar. A user RFC would probably be the logical way to proceed but I'm not sure it would do any good and I don't think I have the strength to deal with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy

Hello

You just reverted text that was deleted for policy violations carefully outlined in talk. You wrote: ": Do not delete this paragraph, which is well sourced with research by reputable, mainstream human rights organisations. If you want balance, find additional material which reflects a different view. --Nickhh (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please read WP:NPOV, you are responsible for ensuring NPOV compliance with text that YOU add to this article. Take responsibility for your own edits. Raggz (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No Raggz, I reverted text into the death penalty section which you had deleted for spurious reasons, based on your wrong-headed interpetation of policy guidelines. And the talk page comment you have quoted back at me was in relation to a totally separate part of the article about police brutality, where you were announcing your intention to delete a paragraph of text and I was pointing out to you that there were no grounds for you to do that. I have not made any changes to that part of the article itself, you are getting mixed up.

And don't come on my talk page and shout at me, order me to read guidelines and tell me to take responsibility for my edits. Reading guidelines and taking responsibility is something that you need to be doing, not me. --Nickhh (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on Human rights and the United States "I have reverted some of the recent edits in the death penalty section. I'm not sure they need further justifying on talk pages, but please note Raggz that some of the changes you made were classic examples of your selective approach to "original research", as I referred to above. For example, you added a sentence saying that certain human rights treaties are inapplicable to the United States "unless imposed by the United Nations Security Council". I'm no expert on international law, but I don't think that the UNSC can "impose" treaties on sovereign nations. You also added this sentence - "the General Assembly did not find enough merit to endorse this recommendation and forward it to the UN Security Council which could have ordered changes in the US death penalty". How do you know that the UNGA did not "find enough merit" in the recommendation? And again, can the UNSC really "ordered changes in the US death penalty"? You spend ages on talk pages discussing things in great detail and endlessly quoting your latest favourite wiki-rule - and then still go ahead and try to insert nonsense and pretty brazen original research into articles. --Nickhh (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

I am not shouting.Perhaps a bit of mediation might help, you seem to have issues.

Do you believe that every statement edited in needs to have a source? I don't, and if there is such a policy would you tell me about it?

Now that you have challenged it as OR, now I need a reliable source to revert it. You just reverted ""The United States, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore are the only developed nations to use capital punishment in practice during peacetime." This is OR. It needs a reliable source. You did not edit in the required source. Why are you editing in OR?

Would it help to build trust if I prove to you that my edits were valid? Your claim that I "insert nonsense and pretty brazen original research into articles" can be proven incorrect pretty effectively. Would doing so help us work better together?

You may have missed most of the detailed reasons for the edits. From your comments, I doubt that you read these. You addressed none of them. Did you even read it?

Do not further revert text that violates WP policy, unless you really are confident that it does comply with the policies. Raggz (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's like explaining things to a child. You get so much, so wrong. And you can't fail to have noticed that other editors find you incredibly frustrating to deal with - has it occurred to you that the problem might lie with you, not me? Anyway, to address some of your points ..

1) You did "shout" at me. Using capitals in text, as you did when you said "text that YOU add to this article", is considered shouting. Now you are also telling me on my talk page that I "have issues"

2) No I don't believe that every single statement needs a source, nor have I ever said that. However I do happen to think that false or incorrect statements shouldn't be pushed into articles by editors who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

3) I did not revert the statement about the Japan, South Korea and Singapore. You are talking sh*t again - look at the diff. I deliberately let your removal of that sentence stand precisely because I am not sure if it is true or not.

4) I see your original research everywhere. I explained some of it in the talk page comment you have just quoted at me. Anyone reading it will see that you are just making stuff up and putting it into articles, eg that the UNSC can impose treaties on nations.

5) I read most of your talk page dissertations and gave brief counter-explanations for the changes I made. I also gave a succint explanation as to why your proposed changes to the police brutality section were unwarranted. Just because you claim that everything you do is in "accordance with policy" doesn't mean that it is. --Nickhh (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We agree on 1 and 3. I thought you had reverted that. I was wrong. I'm sorry. Yes, there is a pattern, and I work on being easier to work with - but still am holding firm for what I believe to be good edits. I am sometimes wrong, and like WP:5P says to, I don't worry too much, I fix them, and then move on. It's like explaining things to a child. Sorry about that, a bit of brain damage. I am not aware of this until people tell me.

I doubt that I said "UNSC can impose treaties on nations", because I know better. It is an interesting issue, perhaps boring, but the US courts cannot enforce that treaty, even though ratified. The Senate made it "non-self executing" and did not ratify the specific death penalty part.. The UNSC technically can end the death penalty, because the UDHR is fully binding upon the US by the UNSC. Of course there is the veto ... but the UNSC can order the end of the death penalty everywhere based upon the UDHR. (Well North Korea and a few nations never ratified it)

Mostly I agreed with your edits when I read them the second time. They were very different the second time, odd...

Just let me know the next time you see my OR. I never intend such. If I cannot support it, I will withdraw it, if you don't do that first. Raggz (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#core_issues_section.2C_intro

Hi there, I am trying to coordinate some editors to help me rewrite the intro of the article. Your thoughts/additions would be appreciated. Suicup (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the work is basically done now. I might add a couple of other things, however IMO it is much much better than before. Given the effort though (over a week of talk page discussion) I don't think I can handle any more of this for a while. Not to mention the fact that here I am doing real work on the article, and asking people to help me, but instead people go off on stupid tangents to bitch about the word 'modern' or whether the Telegraph is a reliable source. Or you do all that discussion, make a largish edit, and then people who have said nothing come in an edit your work after the fact! I'm getting the impression that people are happy to leave Misplaced Pages in a state of crapness, as long as their 'turf' doesn't get infringed upon. Its enough to make you throw in the towel and just say FUCK IT! NOTE: this is just me venting, it has no implications for you at all :) Cheers Suicup (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I started off just making minor edits to film and wine articles here .. I tried to avoid the Middle East pages and other political articles, despite it being something I have an interest in, since you just know how it's going to end up. But sometimes you spot appalling writing, egregious propaganda or an editor's random musings in articles, along with the selective deployment of sources and Misplaced Pages guidelines, and feel obliged to change a couple of things. Whatever your own views happen to be, you try to do this in as balanced a way as possible, and hopefully in a way that genuinely improves the article. But of course then you get reverted, accused of bias by people who seem to utterly lack self-awareness of their own partiality, and end up in lengthy talk page debates about relative trivia or points that you would have thought should be obvious. Often the article ends up worse than it was before. A lot of editors here - myself included at times - should probably set up their own blog or register on a forum, rather than devoting all their energies to fighting over content here. Ultimately I just think you have to accept that any sensible passing reader is going to know that Misplaced Pages articles generally are going to include errors and omissions, and that articles on contentious topics are going to be full of subjective viewpoints inserted by a variety of editors, which leads to bias and/or messy and garbled pages. One person can never remove all the crapness by themselves anyway of course ... --Nickhh (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What WILL be interesting is how long my new intro/article restructure lasts. I'll give it a week :P I agree with all your points though. It just shits me that once articles get to a certain level of content (and this is wikipedia wide) it is so hard to change/improve that article in a meaningful way due to the political bullshit which you have to go through with the 'old school' editors who have the page on their watchlist and will stop at nothing to protect their shitty version of the article. I mean, i did a little analysis using this tool and it seems i am in the top 5 contributors of this article, and despite this I have to have ridiculously long and pointless talk discussions to change the word 'the'. Suicup (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

article note

thanks for all your input. please feel free to keep an eye on things, and to let me know what happens. I can't always follow the ins and outs of these discussion; I don't mean i'm too busy, i just mean I really find it hard to do so sometimes. I don't mean to delegate things to you for one side or the other. however, i already told tiamut the same things. if things are bogged down now, let's simply keep an eye on which alternate versions are emerging, and how many have voted for each. hopefully we can move towards some sort of reolsution over the course of time. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what to do really. I only pop in occasionally anyway. The problem is - and I'm stating this as a matter of fact rather than making a direct attack - but the moment Jaakobou turns up on an I-P talk page, a debate which until them might have been robust and detailed suddenly turns into an all out slugfest that generates more heat than light, as they say. All of us have our views, prejudices and even direct interests sometimes, but most of us try to remain conscious that we have that bias, and to remain as objective as we can. And at the end of the day you've got 5,000 words on a talk page for 1 word in the article. Why would anyone sane want to get involved in that?! --Nickhh (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh, Thank you for coming by to express those thoughts personally. I really appreciated your ardent defense of the need for equanimity when admins are considering the appropriateness of talk page comments, particularly those that disparage a group of people based on their ethnic and/or religious affiliation. Often, you took the words right out of my mouth. And that means a lot because it's usually not enough for a person who is subject to those kind of comments to stand alone in facing them since people might think one's judgement is being impaired by an emotional reaction. I can't say I've been without emotion through this process and I definitely was disturbed more than once, but I think I've developed some pretty thick skin over the years when it comes to generalizations that put-down my peeps. It's kind of necessary since if I did actually let it get to me every time I've had the pleasure of hearing such comments, I'd be writing letters to the editor, phoning politicians and telling people off, all the live long day. :) Anyway, your support throughout the process has been deeply appreciated and I do hope that we see each other around at articles more often from now on. I noticed from your talk page that you have some reservations about editing in the subject area because of the high level of tension on some pages there. But it's not necessarily the case on every page and with every editor. I've found that since the Arbcomm, people have generally either made an effort to be more self-aware and polite or they have dropped out of editing altogether, perhaps unable to handle the extra scrutiny that now accompanies editing at those pages. Whatever the case, I'm hopeful that the general atmosphere will continue to improve as time goes on. Thanks again. Tiamut 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE#User:Jaakobou, fresh off a one-week topic-ban, on a rampage again

Here we go again... Just thought you should know :)

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 08:38