![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
it's not vandliasm, it's removal of the 6 month old welcome message ( 15:14, 8 August 2006 Crossmr). you should check the page. 195.27.20.35 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
full disucssion is here User_talk:195.27.20.35#195.27.20.35_is_used_by_user:artlondon
No, Chovain, I DID write a reason for deleting the page Erotic spanking , there was an edit conflict, and I, who has never faced an edit conflict before, did not know what to do, and my reason was deleted. I shall try again. Uioh 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I beg for your forgiveness, Chovain, if I am endlessly frustrating you, but I am not intentionally doing so. I am still quite a new user. Besides, if you go to Erotic Spanking, you will find the discussion page made and active. Thanks! Uioh 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Chovain, I thank you for your responses for my questions on the Erotic Spanking page, but I still persist with my opinion of strong deletion of the page. From a few of the messages I received, I received heavy implications that some of the users that object to my opinion wish to maintain the page in question because of its subject. Some even called be "foolish" or "clueless" because I nominated this article for deletion and some even sent me messages that informed me that they erotically spanked their "partner" just last night. I did not expect so many people to not wish to delete the article mainly because they were so entertained by its subject, as it seems. I at first thought they disagreed with me because of reasons such as it is a legitimate page and it is well supplied with sufficient information of its topic, but now I am troubled. When I joined Wikipedia, I did not expect all Wikipedians to be so interested in sexuality and erotic acts, as some of their messages implies, but now I wish to delete the article more than ever because of their quite unreasonable reasons. Thank you. Uioh 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Mart inp23 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Adopt me away :)
ShooterBoy 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
On the history page it shows you havn't even edited it before so why say you did revert that vandalism because unless you can prove it I will replace your warning with my own. Sam ov the blue sand 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In your recent edit to Little Britain you delinked a number of years. I'm interested in your reasoning here. The Manual of Style indicates that there is no consensus when it comes to the linking of bare years. Is there a reason beyond personal preference that you delinked these? Chovain 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm moslty interested to create articles on criminality, like street gangs but more locally specialized
ShooterBoy 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why hello there :)
I just noticed the message and currently, i restarted school so i'm gonna sparsely edit, but i'm gonna still be on wikipedia and are you on IRC?
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShooterBoy ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi there,
As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.
A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.
Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Chovain. I am sorry that you do not like the tone of my edits and "my perchant for drama". I would state in my defence that these comments were made to a specific user on hist private talk page some time ago, and that user never took offence to my remarks. As you have seen fit to comment on my talk page on this issue I would like to ask whether you think this [ [1]] warning is justified? [[[User:culverin]] has so far refused to substantiate his allegations against me. I would also like to ask if you know whether User:Brilliance is a sockpuppet for User:Isarig, User:Amoruso or User:SlimVirgin? Abu ali 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chovain, thanks for your thoughts. But I was wondering what you thought about this [ [2]] warning I recieved from a third user who was solicited by User:Brilliance. This third individual ( User:culverin) has accused me of "pushing racist extreme POV on wikipeida" and threatend to ban me indefinately. He has refused to substantiate or withdraw these attacks. You have rightly advised me not to see WP as a battleground. But my friends at WP:ISRAEL will use Culverin's warning to have me banned next time I make an edit which is not to their liking. What if anything do you think should be done about this warning? Thanks again for any thoughts on the matter Abu ali 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interject, but Culverin's warning strikes me as an extraordinary violation of WP:Civility. "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Also, listed as "more serious examples" is "Calling for bans or blocks." How can this staying on Abu Ali's page be conditioned on anything? Abu Ali can't possibly owe Culverin an apology, after Culverin makes this wildly aggressive attack on Abu Ali. This isn't some kind of witch hunt, where we extract confessions. If Abu Ali violated a policy, it should be dealt with by WP. He should not face wildly aggressive personal attacks on his talk page from another user. I completely respect the effort to deal with this delicately, and I think your attempt is admirable, but whether this is an inappropriate personal attack per WP has nothing to do with whether Abu Ali apologizes for his statement, and it shouldn't be tied together in any way. If an admin thinks Abu Ali needs to remove his own comment, that decision should be made by the admin. At most, Abu Ali should be made to remove his comment. He should not be made to apologize for anything, however, particularly to Culverin, any more than Culverin should be made to apologize for his attack. I think you should see that the idea of either is equally offensive. We shouldn't forget that we're all adults here. With great respect, Mackan79 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I originally saw Abu ali's original comment as overtly racist. On closer inspection (and admittedly without much knowledge surrounding the offline conflict), at no point does Abu ali refer to Israelis. He refers to Zionists. Zionists are a political movement, not a race. Not all jews are Zionists; not all Zionists are Jews. (Note difference of definition between Land of Israel and State of Israel). Israel's opponents do often use the term synonymously with "Jew" (that's the interpretation I originally took). We can't base our actions on an implicit interpretation of the comments. I'm going to make one last crack at this. There are two separate issues here:
I personally couldn't care less if you guys apologise or not. I would like to see this issue resolved though, and the only way I see that happening is if you both independently and unconditionally take the actions I've proposed. If neither of you are willing to budge an inch, then I'm all out of ideas. Chovain( t| c) 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure your interjections are really helping here, Roland. We're trying to resolve a dispute between two editors, not discover the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. I simply don't care who is to blame for the term "Zionism" being overloaded. The simple fact is that people are misinterpreting Abu ali's words. Neither his nor Culverin's comments were constructive with regards to our goal of building an encyclopedia, so have no place here. Let's not get into "What X did was worse than what Y did, so Y shouldn't have to fix their mistake"-type arguments.
Quite frankly, I see no reason why there should be any more discussion here! I've proposed a solution, and I've made it clear that this is going to be my last attempt at finding an amicable solution. Either the two involved parties accept my solution (which ironically involves them retracting something they've said unconditional of what the other editor does), or this will need to be solved in some other way. People can discuss this until the cows come home on someone else's talk page. Chovain( t| c) 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am getting so sick of this argument. Look here is my final proposition for a resolution:
I seriously hope an outcome can be reached soon!. Cheers Culv e rin ? Talk 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm going to be bold, and ignore the rules. It seems like we pretty much have in-principle agreement here; there's just few details to be ironed out. There's no reason why the two offending comments should need to remain while "declaraitions" are negotiated. I'm going to remove Abu ali's comment, and change Culverin's warning. This will never get resolved if each of you wait for the other to act first. Chovain( t| c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is getting out of control. Shall we take this to a higher power? Everybody has to back down. Culv e rin ? Talk 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it would necessarily work like that. It made sense in case of Abu's comment and the racism warning because the racism warning was based on an incorrect interpretation of Abu's comment. Basically, the warning was the wrong one, so shouldn't have been there in the first place. Abu was not really all that uncivil, either. Had his comments been directed against a Zionist, it would have been pretty incivil. Try rereading his comment, and replacing every instance of the word Zionist with "liberal", "libertarian", "conservative", "trade unionist" or any other political movement: It's just an aggressively voiced opinion.
The change of the racism warning was not conditional on him retracting his comment (well, it shouldn't have been, anyway). It was two separate issues: Abu's comment was offending people, and you gave him the wrong warning. The corrective actions should have been taken independently.
Warnings are not punishments. They are meant to remind editors of their responsibilities in terms of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. There's actually no real reason for Abu's warning to stay at all. He has accepted that his comment could be misinterpreted: lesson learnt.
There have been suggestions (mainly from you, I think), that Abu ali apologise. The problem is, Abu ali cannot really apologise for anything more than not thinking about his words better. We all say inappropriate things at different times though. His comment was not directed at the people who were being offended by it.
In Brilliance's case, Brilliance could reasonably remove the warning himself as soon as he accepts that his comments constituted a personal attack on Abu ali. So far, Brilliance has given no indication that he even understands he has done anything wrong. If Brilliance were a reasonable person, he would put himself in Abu's shoes for a moment and realise that his accusations caused hurt. I would think he would then strike the comment (but not remove it in this case), and apologise for the hurt he caused.
Note that removal of the warning is not conditional on retraction of his accusations. It is conditional on him understanding that he made a personal attack against another editor, and understanding that it is not appropriate behaviour here. It just so happens that retraction of the accusation, and apologising for the hurt he caused Abu is what I'd expect to see from an editor who has understood that. Chovain( t| c) 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the comments that you dislike. I except the warning to be removed. I shall return on Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
AfD is fairly hostile, and asking questions doesn't gain answers, for example, you didn't bother to explain how you got 8 citations, when one article in which he is listed as lead author, from Journal of Cell Science, gives 20. I asked direct questions about your nomination, that you may answer to help me understand why you are nominating this AfD. KP Botany 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
- For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
- If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
- Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the Speedy Deletion criteria and process.
- For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the Proposed Deletion process."
I'm not sure what your reason for quoting that piece of the AfD process was. Since my concern was with notability, the first point is irrelevant. The article wasn't copyvio, so that's point 2 out. The article asserted notability (although I questioned that notability), so speedy was out. Prod would be the perfect option if I was absolutely sure that the article shouldn't be there.
AfD nominators aren't hell-bent on deleting articles: You're just rubbing them up the wrong way. Nominators are clearly going in with the opinion that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but if you think the only way to argue against them is to belittle them and insult them, then good luck to you.
I answered your question about how I arrived at my results (and admitted fault). I ignored your question about why I chose the search terms I used: If you want to get answers, lose the sarcasm. If you think you have a better search than the nominator, then just link to it and say why you think it's better. Chovain( t| c) 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Chovain, I have been reading what you wrote on the user called User: Uioh's talk page, and I must point out similar writing style is no evidence of the user in question of being a sockpuppet. For all you know, he may be telling the truth. I am not saying he is, but you should not have just jumped to conclusions. The other users you spoke of may really be his brothers, or someone he may not even know at all! If the other users were his brothers, then naturally, they may share common interests and writing styles, but I repeat, they may be no one he knows at all. You should not have merely accused other users of being sockpuppets with no good piece of evidence that they are! Thanks very much! 24.193.35.176 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"On a note slightly related to the preceding section, a number of other editors have raised concerns that you are using sock puppets in the deletion debates. Now, I know that you are one of a number of people in your household using the same computer, but I've also noticed a pattern whereby both you and your IP address place entries in the debate with very similar wording." -- Chovain( t| c) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[ source
Yes, indeed, Chovain. However, from what you said, your words somehow did not exactly register in my mind as "valuable advice", and instead a strong implication that you agree with the Users in question. Hmmm... also, you seem to have accused other users of being sockpuppets too. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was rather offended by your words, and did not even dare edit wikipedia for quite a few days by your rather unkind comment, fearing I will no longer bw able to edit it ever again. Uioh 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand, Chovain, that you are trying to help me, and I thank you for that, but I did not lie in any of my statements. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the first section of this current archive on your talk page indicates that another user has, to, apparently believed you accused him of being a sock puppet. You may have been here longer than I have, but I am now quite familiar with the rules and regulations of wikipedia. Now, whom do you think that is forming a voting bloc with me, please? You are obviously a skilled and intelligent Wikipedian, and of course we are not foes. I was merely pointing out what I beleved was true. Thank you. Uioh 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yo - if you could adopt me that would be great. I'm not really on as much as i would like but any help you could give would be fantastic.--
James Naeger
07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm requesting help from any experienced wikipedian who wants to adopt me, I'm a total newb... Would you help me? KatKiller 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khu kri 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Just be careful how you use the term "vandal". I could just as easily argue that removing it without discussion is "vandalism". Actually, neither one is. It's a content "dispute". But if you insist, I won't add it back. The ones from a few weeks back who kept adding junk about urination... that was vandalism. Wahkeenah 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
UWO: Two points: 1) It's NOT for Medicine. It's the medical-doctoral ranking, not the medical ranking. In other word, it's not the ranking of medical schools, it's the ranking of (the overall qualities) of universities that have doctoral programs and a medical school, i.e. every big university.
The Harvard's article says Harvard is ranked second in the 2007 US News ranking without making clear which US News ranking they are talking about. The reason is simple: there is no confusion there. For the same reason, there's no confusion as to which Maclean's ranking I was talking about. When you say the Maclean's ranking, people understand it's the medical-doctoral ranking.
2) I did write "medical-doctoral" one time, then the other person deleted it. So if (s)he is saying that's the reason why my sentence was removed, (s)he is lying. Believe it or not, the sentence that is accepted now and that s(he) claimed to write, well, I WROTE THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE. Please choose 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for challenging those who vandalise the UserPages of others. Needless to say, there was nothing offensive there in the first place. PalestineRemembered 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Chovain. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 干什么? · VDemolitions 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Mark. I rather imprudently (retrospectively speaking) went ahead and posted my observations related to PalestineRemebered's arbcomm case directly on the page. I only just now realized that PalestineRemembered had requested on his/her talk that we post issues we wanted to raise there, here, first. I thought I would let you know that I had done so and grant you permission to summarize the points I have raised or remove them and place them here for discussion and revamping before reposting them again, if you feel that this is necessary. I have never posted to an arbcomm before and so am open to/welcoming of advice/critique regarding what is and is not appropriate to discuss there. Thank you. Tiamut 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
PR has been blocked for violations of the terms of his conditional unblocking. Discussion at WP:AN/I is here: [11]. nadav 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Is PalestineRemembered allowed to respond to comments on his own talk page? Thanks. PS. I am sorry for complicating things by prompting PR to respond to the comments I posted here above. My apologies. Tiamut 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you should consider putting in a finding of fact that "since his last [however months it was] block, PR has been contributing productively and in good faith to the encyclopedia," or something like that. Such a finding would unequivocally shake off many of the hazy allegations against him. An alternative wording would be "no evidence has been shown he has not been contributing in good faith etc." You should also consider a finding that some of PR's blocks were unduly harsh, though perhaps this finding is less necessary. nadav ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You say your PR's advocate in this matter, could you elaborate what exactly you mean by this? By that, I mean are you working as part of WP:AMA? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mark. It may be useful for you to know that the 1999 edition of Bitter Harvest has a different pagination (384 pages [12]) from the 1990 edition (351 pages [13]). This may be relevant because PR was accused of citing his material from a 1995 Holocaust-denial essay, and one of the reasons given for not retracting the accusation was that if PR wasn't lifting material from Holocaust deniers, then Hadawi was (scroll down for second block of text in this diff). PR's page citation (p.59) establishes that his edition was the 1990 one, which without bibliographic time-travel can't have plagiarized a 1995 essay. When this was pointed out to PR's accuser, it was insinuated that a) PR may have gotten his material from the 1999 edition, which b) in turn may have lifted from the toxic 1995 essay. [14] Pagination rules out a, just as the existence of the material in the 1990 edition rules out b. These red herrings were fileted and fried over a week ago.
It may also be useful for you to know that though portions of the 1990 edition are available online (through Amazon and Google Books), page 59 is not. Nor can I find any other online sources, scholarly or popular, that cite the p.59 material from Hadawi. Finally, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Jay's 1995 Holocaust-denial essay does not cite or mention Hadawi. In short, it is not conceivable that once PR "became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources" and found the Hadawi material, as was postulated yesterday in the arbitration workshop. To do this he would have had to physically rush himself to a research library and rifle through books looking for something citing the Evening Star material. As some seem inclined to daydream about such scenarios, it's worth noting that the time elapsed between PR's first being notified of the controversy and the time he produced the full Hadawi citation was 44 minutes.
My apologies if this recaps what you already know. All best, -- G-Dett 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
it's not vandliasm, it's removal of the 6 month old welcome message ( 15:14, 8 August 2006 Crossmr). you should check the page. 195.27.20.35 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
full disucssion is here User_talk:195.27.20.35#195.27.20.35_is_used_by_user:artlondon
No, Chovain, I DID write a reason for deleting the page Erotic spanking , there was an edit conflict, and I, who has never faced an edit conflict before, did not know what to do, and my reason was deleted. I shall try again. Uioh 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I beg for your forgiveness, Chovain, if I am endlessly frustrating you, but I am not intentionally doing so. I am still quite a new user. Besides, if you go to Erotic Spanking, you will find the discussion page made and active. Thanks! Uioh 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Chovain, I thank you for your responses for my questions on the Erotic Spanking page, but I still persist with my opinion of strong deletion of the page. From a few of the messages I received, I received heavy implications that some of the users that object to my opinion wish to maintain the page in question because of its subject. Some even called be "foolish" or "clueless" because I nominated this article for deletion and some even sent me messages that informed me that they erotically spanked their "partner" just last night. I did not expect so many people to not wish to delete the article mainly because they were so entertained by its subject, as it seems. I at first thought they disagreed with me because of reasons such as it is a legitimate page and it is well supplied with sufficient information of its topic, but now I am troubled. When I joined Wikipedia, I did not expect all Wikipedians to be so interested in sexuality and erotic acts, as some of their messages implies, but now I wish to delete the article more than ever because of their quite unreasonable reasons. Thank you. Uioh 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Mart inp23 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Adopt me away :)
ShooterBoy 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
On the history page it shows you havn't even edited it before so why say you did revert that vandalism because unless you can prove it I will replace your warning with my own. Sam ov the blue sand 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In your recent edit to Little Britain you delinked a number of years. I'm interested in your reasoning here. The Manual of Style indicates that there is no consensus when it comes to the linking of bare years. Is there a reason beyond personal preference that you delinked these? Chovain 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm moslty interested to create articles on criminality, like street gangs but more locally specialized
ShooterBoy 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why hello there :)
I just noticed the message and currently, i restarted school so i'm gonna sparsely edit, but i'm gonna still be on wikipedia and are you on IRC?
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShooterBoy ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi there,
As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.
A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.
Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.
Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Chovain. I am sorry that you do not like the tone of my edits and "my perchant for drama". I would state in my defence that these comments were made to a specific user on hist private talk page some time ago, and that user never took offence to my remarks. As you have seen fit to comment on my talk page on this issue I would like to ask whether you think this [ [1]] warning is justified? [[[User:culverin]] has so far refused to substantiate his allegations against me. I would also like to ask if you know whether User:Brilliance is a sockpuppet for User:Isarig, User:Amoruso or User:SlimVirgin? Abu ali 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chovain, thanks for your thoughts. But I was wondering what you thought about this [ [2]] warning I recieved from a third user who was solicited by User:Brilliance. This third individual ( User:culverin) has accused me of "pushing racist extreme POV on wikipeida" and threatend to ban me indefinately. He has refused to substantiate or withdraw these attacks. You have rightly advised me not to see WP as a battleground. But my friends at WP:ISRAEL will use Culverin's warning to have me banned next time I make an edit which is not to their liking. What if anything do you think should be done about this warning? Thanks again for any thoughts on the matter Abu ali 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interject, but Culverin's warning strikes me as an extraordinary violation of WP:Civility. "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Also, listed as "more serious examples" is "Calling for bans or blocks." How can this staying on Abu Ali's page be conditioned on anything? Abu Ali can't possibly owe Culverin an apology, after Culverin makes this wildly aggressive attack on Abu Ali. This isn't some kind of witch hunt, where we extract confessions. If Abu Ali violated a policy, it should be dealt with by WP. He should not face wildly aggressive personal attacks on his talk page from another user. I completely respect the effort to deal with this delicately, and I think your attempt is admirable, but whether this is an inappropriate personal attack per WP has nothing to do with whether Abu Ali apologizes for his statement, and it shouldn't be tied together in any way. If an admin thinks Abu Ali needs to remove his own comment, that decision should be made by the admin. At most, Abu Ali should be made to remove his comment. He should not be made to apologize for anything, however, particularly to Culverin, any more than Culverin should be made to apologize for his attack. I think you should see that the idea of either is equally offensive. We shouldn't forget that we're all adults here. With great respect, Mackan79 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I originally saw Abu ali's original comment as overtly racist. On closer inspection (and admittedly without much knowledge surrounding the offline conflict), at no point does Abu ali refer to Israelis. He refers to Zionists. Zionists are a political movement, not a race. Not all jews are Zionists; not all Zionists are Jews. (Note difference of definition between Land of Israel and State of Israel). Israel's opponents do often use the term synonymously with "Jew" (that's the interpretation I originally took). We can't base our actions on an implicit interpretation of the comments. I'm going to make one last crack at this. There are two separate issues here:
I personally couldn't care less if you guys apologise or not. I would like to see this issue resolved though, and the only way I see that happening is if you both independently and unconditionally take the actions I've proposed. If neither of you are willing to budge an inch, then I'm all out of ideas. Chovain( t| c) 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure your interjections are really helping here, Roland. We're trying to resolve a dispute between two editors, not discover the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. I simply don't care who is to blame for the term "Zionism" being overloaded. The simple fact is that people are misinterpreting Abu ali's words. Neither his nor Culverin's comments were constructive with regards to our goal of building an encyclopedia, so have no place here. Let's not get into "What X did was worse than what Y did, so Y shouldn't have to fix their mistake"-type arguments.
Quite frankly, I see no reason why there should be any more discussion here! I've proposed a solution, and I've made it clear that this is going to be my last attempt at finding an amicable solution. Either the two involved parties accept my solution (which ironically involves them retracting something they've said unconditional of what the other editor does), or this will need to be solved in some other way. People can discuss this until the cows come home on someone else's talk page. Chovain( t| c) 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am getting so sick of this argument. Look here is my final proposition for a resolution:
I seriously hope an outcome can be reached soon!. Cheers Culv e rin ? Talk 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm going to be bold, and ignore the rules. It seems like we pretty much have in-principle agreement here; there's just few details to be ironed out. There's no reason why the two offending comments should need to remain while "declaraitions" are negotiated. I'm going to remove Abu ali's comment, and change Culverin's warning. This will never get resolved if each of you wait for the other to act first. Chovain( t| c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is getting out of control. Shall we take this to a higher power? Everybody has to back down. Culv e rin ? Talk 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it would necessarily work like that. It made sense in case of Abu's comment and the racism warning because the racism warning was based on an incorrect interpretation of Abu's comment. Basically, the warning was the wrong one, so shouldn't have been there in the first place. Abu was not really all that uncivil, either. Had his comments been directed against a Zionist, it would have been pretty incivil. Try rereading his comment, and replacing every instance of the word Zionist with "liberal", "libertarian", "conservative", "trade unionist" or any other political movement: It's just an aggressively voiced opinion.
The change of the racism warning was not conditional on him retracting his comment (well, it shouldn't have been, anyway). It was two separate issues: Abu's comment was offending people, and you gave him the wrong warning. The corrective actions should have been taken independently.
Warnings are not punishments. They are meant to remind editors of their responsibilities in terms of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. There's actually no real reason for Abu's warning to stay at all. He has accepted that his comment could be misinterpreted: lesson learnt.
There have been suggestions (mainly from you, I think), that Abu ali apologise. The problem is, Abu ali cannot really apologise for anything more than not thinking about his words better. We all say inappropriate things at different times though. His comment was not directed at the people who were being offended by it.
In Brilliance's case, Brilliance could reasonably remove the warning himself as soon as he accepts that his comments constituted a personal attack on Abu ali. So far, Brilliance has given no indication that he even understands he has done anything wrong. If Brilliance were a reasonable person, he would put himself in Abu's shoes for a moment and realise that his accusations caused hurt. I would think he would then strike the comment (but not remove it in this case), and apologise for the hurt he caused.
Note that removal of the warning is not conditional on retraction of his accusations. It is conditional on him understanding that he made a personal attack against another editor, and understanding that it is not appropriate behaviour here. It just so happens that retraction of the accusation, and apologising for the hurt he caused Abu is what I'd expect to see from an editor who has understood that. Chovain( t| c) 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the comments that you dislike. I except the warning to be removed. I shall return on Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
AfD is fairly hostile, and asking questions doesn't gain answers, for example, you didn't bother to explain how you got 8 citations, when one article in which he is listed as lead author, from Journal of Cell Science, gives 20. I asked direct questions about your nomination, that you may answer to help me understand why you are nominating this AfD. KP Botany 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
- For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
- If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
- Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the Speedy Deletion criteria and process.
- For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the Proposed Deletion process."
I'm not sure what your reason for quoting that piece of the AfD process was. Since my concern was with notability, the first point is irrelevant. The article wasn't copyvio, so that's point 2 out. The article asserted notability (although I questioned that notability), so speedy was out. Prod would be the perfect option if I was absolutely sure that the article shouldn't be there.
AfD nominators aren't hell-bent on deleting articles: You're just rubbing them up the wrong way. Nominators are clearly going in with the opinion that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but if you think the only way to argue against them is to belittle them and insult them, then good luck to you.
I answered your question about how I arrived at my results (and admitted fault). I ignored your question about why I chose the search terms I used: If you want to get answers, lose the sarcasm. If you think you have a better search than the nominator, then just link to it and say why you think it's better. Chovain( t| c) 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Chovain, I have been reading what you wrote on the user called User: Uioh's talk page, and I must point out similar writing style is no evidence of the user in question of being a sockpuppet. For all you know, he may be telling the truth. I am not saying he is, but you should not have just jumped to conclusions. The other users you spoke of may really be his brothers, or someone he may not even know at all! If the other users were his brothers, then naturally, they may share common interests and writing styles, but I repeat, they may be no one he knows at all. You should not have merely accused other users of being sockpuppets with no good piece of evidence that they are! Thanks very much! 24.193.35.176 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"On a note slightly related to the preceding section, a number of other editors have raised concerns that you are using sock puppets in the deletion debates. Now, I know that you are one of a number of people in your household using the same computer, but I've also noticed a pattern whereby both you and your IP address place entries in the debate with very similar wording." -- Chovain( t| c) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[ source
Yes, indeed, Chovain. However, from what you said, your words somehow did not exactly register in my mind as "valuable advice", and instead a strong implication that you agree with the Users in question. Hmmm... also, you seem to have accused other users of being sockpuppets too. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was rather offended by your words, and did not even dare edit wikipedia for quite a few days by your rather unkind comment, fearing I will no longer bw able to edit it ever again. Uioh 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand, Chovain, that you are trying to help me, and I thank you for that, but I did not lie in any of my statements. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the first section of this current archive on your talk page indicates that another user has, to, apparently believed you accused him of being a sock puppet. You may have been here longer than I have, but I am now quite familiar with the rules and regulations of wikipedia. Now, whom do you think that is forming a voting bloc with me, please? You are obviously a skilled and intelligent Wikipedian, and of course we are not foes. I was merely pointing out what I beleved was true. Thank you. Uioh 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yo - if you could adopt me that would be great. I'm not really on as much as i would like but any help you could give would be fantastic.--
James Naeger
07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm requesting help from any experienced wikipedian who wants to adopt me, I'm a total newb... Would you help me? KatKiller 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khu kri 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Just be careful how you use the term "vandal". I could just as easily argue that removing it without discussion is "vandalism". Actually, neither one is. It's a content "dispute". But if you insist, I won't add it back. The ones from a few weeks back who kept adding junk about urination... that was vandalism. Wahkeenah 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
UWO: Two points: 1) It's NOT for Medicine. It's the medical-doctoral ranking, not the medical ranking. In other word, it's not the ranking of medical schools, it's the ranking of (the overall qualities) of universities that have doctoral programs and a medical school, i.e. every big university.
The Harvard's article says Harvard is ranked second in the 2007 US News ranking without making clear which US News ranking they are talking about. The reason is simple: there is no confusion there. For the same reason, there's no confusion as to which Maclean's ranking I was talking about. When you say the Maclean's ranking, people understand it's the medical-doctoral ranking.
2) I did write "medical-doctoral" one time, then the other person deleted it. So if (s)he is saying that's the reason why my sentence was removed, (s)he is lying. Believe it or not, the sentence that is accepted now and that s(he) claimed to write, well, I WROTE THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE. Please choose 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for challenging those who vandalise the UserPages of others. Needless to say, there was nothing offensive there in the first place. PalestineRemembered 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Chovain. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 干什么? · VDemolitions 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Mark. I rather imprudently (retrospectively speaking) went ahead and posted my observations related to PalestineRemebered's arbcomm case directly on the page. I only just now realized that PalestineRemembered had requested on his/her talk that we post issues we wanted to raise there, here, first. I thought I would let you know that I had done so and grant you permission to summarize the points I have raised or remove them and place them here for discussion and revamping before reposting them again, if you feel that this is necessary. I have never posted to an arbcomm before and so am open to/welcoming of advice/critique regarding what is and is not appropriate to discuss there. Thank you. Tiamut 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
PR has been blocked for violations of the terms of his conditional unblocking. Discussion at WP:AN/I is here: [11]. nadav 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Is PalestineRemembered allowed to respond to comments on his own talk page? Thanks. PS. I am sorry for complicating things by prompting PR to respond to the comments I posted here above. My apologies. Tiamut 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you should consider putting in a finding of fact that "since his last [however months it was] block, PR has been contributing productively and in good faith to the encyclopedia," or something like that. Such a finding would unequivocally shake off many of the hazy allegations against him. An alternative wording would be "no evidence has been shown he has not been contributing in good faith etc." You should also consider a finding that some of PR's blocks were unduly harsh, though perhaps this finding is less necessary. nadav ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You say your PR's advocate in this matter, could you elaborate what exactly you mean by this? By that, I mean are you working as part of WP:AMA? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mark. It may be useful for you to know that the 1999 edition of Bitter Harvest has a different pagination (384 pages [12]) from the 1990 edition (351 pages [13]). This may be relevant because PR was accused of citing his material from a 1995 Holocaust-denial essay, and one of the reasons given for not retracting the accusation was that if PR wasn't lifting material from Holocaust deniers, then Hadawi was (scroll down for second block of text in this diff). PR's page citation (p.59) establishes that his edition was the 1990 one, which without bibliographic time-travel can't have plagiarized a 1995 essay. When this was pointed out to PR's accuser, it was insinuated that a) PR may have gotten his material from the 1999 edition, which b) in turn may have lifted from the toxic 1995 essay. [14] Pagination rules out a, just as the existence of the material in the 1990 edition rules out b. These red herrings were fileted and fried over a week ago.
It may also be useful for you to know that though portions of the 1990 edition are available online (through Amazon and Google Books), page 59 is not. Nor can I find any other online sources, scholarly or popular, that cite the p.59 material from Hadawi. Finally, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Jay's 1995 Holocaust-denial essay does not cite or mention Hadawi. In short, it is not conceivable that once PR "became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources" and found the Hadawi material, as was postulated yesterday in the arbitration workshop. To do this he would have had to physically rush himself to a research library and rifle through books looking for something citing the Evening Star material. As some seem inclined to daydream about such scenarios, it's worth noting that the time elapsed between PR's first being notified of the controversy and the time he produced the full Hadawi citation was 44 minutes.
My apologies if this recaps what you already know. All best, -- G-Dett 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)