![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I appreciate the collegial tone of your response to my comments. I hope it was clear that I was addressing MathSci's interactions with other parties to the mediation, and not with you. I am however disappointed that you really think my edits and proposals regarding the R&I article were motivated by my politics and not by my commitment to WP policies, and my understanding that WP = encyclopedia means we must represent scholarly views accurately. Ramdrake gives a very different portrait of the mediation and the general situation than you do, so I imagine you will not agree with him. For what it is worth, I agree with his account. Lest you think that this is just another case of "everyone thinks that they are right and the other side is wrong," I really do not lump all other people I disagree with in the same category. Some it is true I think are trolls, but some I think were acting in good faith but did not fully understand WP policy; others I think were acting in good faith but have a skewed experience/view of academia (a failing which by the way I find in academics across disciplines). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to be there's a template or form somewhere that clerks use to create the case pages, but for the life of me, I haven't any idea where they might be. You can always drop a line at the clerks noticeboard about the change to bring it to their attention. Shell babelfish 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is such a bad faith assumption that I am rendered speechless. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, you understand me perfectly and I don't understand your position at all. And it's me who is personalizing the dispute even although it's you who posted your comment right behind me below mine and in reference to an action I was referring to in that comment. You are the good guy and we are all obviously against you. I'm going to quote your own words "Plus, he thinks we're all too stupid to recognize that he's being uncivil when he does it indirectly like this. "
[2].
No, seriously, no. I think that I'll just add a comment to the evidence page of the R&I case on how you have a battleground mentality, how you advice other editors on assuming bad faith, how you insult other editors, and how you insist that you are always right. I have a thin hope that arbs may actually do something about this. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Added, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Enric_Naval. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig,
Arthur Rubin is making some pretty serious accusations against you in this thread. I thought I should let you know about this, just in case you want to respond to what he's said about you there. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 06:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
loved the "Didst thou bring thy I Pad?"...LOL what makes wikipedia interesting in the midst of such serious exhanges and sometimes angry exchanges too, is the presence of such healthy and sparkling humor... Thanks Ludwigs ... thanks to you I laughed out loud in the Emergency Room todayFragrantforever 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever ( talk • contribs)
I can't find the archives of the Race and Intelligence mediation. Any pointers? I want to look at people's opening statements and whatnot. David.Kane ( talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I did consider trying to think of something milder, but I've read the evidence page: "adversarial to" is an accurate descriptor, even if not a diplomatic one. Thanks again for putting together that summary of the content issue. Steve Smith ( talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Your last comment gave me a real LOL moment; I'm looking forward to working with you and Marie! I don't have as much free time during the week, but will do what I can. It seems that small changes to tighten the text and add refs won't be controversial at all, and larger issues we can bring up on the talkpage to work through together. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the IP that was posting over at the arbcom.
I would have posted this over there, but the whole section went nuts and somehow turned into a nasty debate about mathematics being a science or not.
To answer your question... Not really. Kinda anticlimatic, I know. Basically I stand by my assertion that claiming to be a science expert while simultaniously claiming it doesn't matter to you if people believe it is a bit of a headscratcher in terms of personal credibility. Mainly I wonder why the first needs to be said if the second is true. But then thats just me restating my original position more than saying anything new.
You should watch the temper though. I couldn't give a flying whatever about civility, but you did get baited into swearing on an Arbcom page (your post that included 'shitty'). It was roundabout sniping, but sniping nonetheless and the uptight folks that champion civility always seem to get blinded to the world in favor of lynching the uncivil guy. Just a thought. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, I think your input is needed in this discussion. Aprock is trying to remove several of the resolved points we agreed on at the end of mediation from the article FAQ, or modify them in order to claim that the discussion resulting in them involved nobody but me and Varoon Arya. I know that you based these points on more than just VA’s and my input, but I haven’t been able to get Aprock to understand this. Could you please try explaining it to him yourself?
The current version of the FAQ contains Aprock’s changes based on this assumption, so if you’re able to get him to understand what’s inaccurate about what he’s saying, I’d appreciate you also restoring the FAQ to a state that’s an accurate reflection of the mediation’s outcome. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Okay no problem, but I have no time these days, if you just tell me how to lower the effect, I'll do it. Thanks, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned | - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned |
This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI#Request for community ban of Darkstar1st. Thank you. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In one section, I agree with you when you say "Science may be pseudo-religion" That's because Religion the way it actually is is real science (if one accept that real science should relate to understanding things exactly as they are). Modern science is not real science.
I was discussing a question somewhere: Why do some people have 6 fingers/toes?
A: Anytime a baby is born, there is a chance of a mutation, or a change from his/her parents which would be considered "abnormal". If that mutation helps the baby survive, then that mutation will probably pass on to his/her children. Mutations occur when the DNA gets altered in some way either through natural or unnatural means. Having six fingers is like being born albino, or without legs or arms, etc.
I just thought of updating the answer by adding (I do such things very rarely):
Mutation is an answer to "how", and not "why". Mutation is NOT chance. There is no question of 'chance' in life. Everything is thoughtfully 'planned' by God. It is because of one's past karma (deeds, doings), one is born in a particular family, has certain features etc. however weird it may be. for example: Siamese (conjoined) twins are born that way because they had to suffer in some way in this life due to their bad karma (misdeeds) in some previous life. God wanted them to be born that way. This is actually common sense. But unfortunately the most advanced biologists lack common sense.
What do you think? Mayurvg ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to be the first to welcome you into the project! We're glad to have new members, and if you have any queries, just drop me a line. Once again, welcome! — mono 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you really want the Israeli Apartheid mess, please feel free to take it off of my hands. :) Ronk01 ( talk) 05:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I moved the "list of candidate titles" table in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy down from the "Opening statements" section to the "Discussion" section. From this point onward, you may wish to take ownership of the table (if you find it useful) and direct its progress. Good luck! -- Noleander ( talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Shall we go through all this again? It's certainly fascinating to see how you jump on the support of some dubious newly registered socket puppet, but if you still feel like having an axe to grind because of your ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taijitu, I am sorry but I thought you were over it. I am certainly willing to move on, but I won't shy from notifying all these user if you think you can reopen the whole debate. It would certainly take a lot of time from me away, especially during World Cup, but, trust me, since I spent much more time researching the material, I am willing to go all the way and you know so. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
How is this not duplicative of {{ details}}/{{ see}}/{{ main}}? Why do you feel another template is necessary? -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig: thanks for mediating that apartheid topic. It looks like the numbering of the vote-choices got messed up: The numbers start over again at 1 after a collapsed section. I would fix it but I dont know how. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant well, but recent consensus on the ref desk talk page is to not mess with headings just to fix grammar errors. There are two reasons. One is that it's impolite and unnecessary. More importantly, it breaks the links (the little arrows in the edit history) and thus causes problems for other users who rely on those arrows. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would answer you here rather than clutter up the mediation page but please feel free to move it there if you feel it appropriate. I'll say no more about it also if you'd rather. Or you can block me for expressing this opinion and "salt the earth" behind me. I hope not but it is your call. At the very least I should probably not be part of this particular mediation, since I have no faith in it. This is not to say that I do not respect some or all of the participants in it or because I don't believe in your ability to be impartial or fair or idealistic or intellectually honest. I have no doubt that you are all of the above. What I said was my evaluation of my personal experience on Wikipedia and which has been reported by RSs on both sides of the fence, not to mention various blogs, facebook pages, forums, and even throughout Wikipedia on personal editors' pages, etc.
Honestly, I am of the opinion that: "Editing Wikipedia is one of the many stratagems of both sides." Why wouldn't it be? Wikipedia is a great teaching tool, the most accessed encyclopedia in the world and accessible in the public school systems of western democracies. The facts need to be there. I think Wikipedia is a great concept but one that doesn't seem to work well at the edges, anymore than the peace movement has worked for Israel-Palestine in the last 60+ years. WP depends on consensus, and consensus depends on collaboration, and collaboration is impossible for the ideologically driven.
I appreciate the situation with your Turkish friend. The Turkish situation is not analogous to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, however. Israel has not committed a genocide against the Palestinian people, though that is the primary view of many (if not most) anti-Israel ("anti-Zionist") individuals and editors here who have no problem calling any action against the Palestinians a "massacre," any population shift an "ethnic cleansing" and who reserve to themselves the right eliminate the Jewish state as stated in the Hamas Charter, an article I just started a week or so ago. My own view is that the Jew in the world in the 1930's is analogous to the Jewish State in the 2000's. I hope you do not consider my views to be so egregious that I should be deprived of my right to edit Wikipedia. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI: regarding participants in Apartheid mediation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dajudem -- Noleander ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It is Mahatma Gandhi, not "Ghandi", please Jon Ascton (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This has been on my mind for a little while, so I thought I should ask you about it. I remember you saying at least once that Mathsci is friends with several members of ArbCom, and that you suspected this is part of why he feels able to get away with the behavior he’s been engaging in recently. With that in mind, do you think there’s any danger that when ArbCom makes their eventual ruling in the current case, they’ll end up showing favoritism towards him? I’d like to think that the arbitrators are professional enough that they won’t allow their personal feelings towards an editor to influence their decisions, but my experiences with non-aribtrator sysops haven’t given me a good impression about admin neutrality.
If you do think that this is a danger, I’d also like to know if there’s anything you think could be done to minimize the chance of this happening. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 08:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ludwigs2. I am a bit confused as to why you reverted the strikeout of Stellarkid's comments on the mediation page. Stellarkid was community banned at the time she made those comments, and per WP:BAN those comments should be removed. You say it is a "bad precedent" to strike out those comments, exactly what precedent do you think is being set and why is it "bad"? nableezy - 20:03, 12 July 2010 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I appreciate the collegial tone of your response to my comments. I hope it was clear that I was addressing MathSci's interactions with other parties to the mediation, and not with you. I am however disappointed that you really think my edits and proposals regarding the R&I article were motivated by my politics and not by my commitment to WP policies, and my understanding that WP = encyclopedia means we must represent scholarly views accurately. Ramdrake gives a very different portrait of the mediation and the general situation than you do, so I imagine you will not agree with him. For what it is worth, I agree with his account. Lest you think that this is just another case of "everyone thinks that they are right and the other side is wrong," I really do not lump all other people I disagree with in the same category. Some it is true I think are trolls, but some I think were acting in good faith but did not fully understand WP policy; others I think were acting in good faith but have a skewed experience/view of academia (a failing which by the way I find in academics across disciplines). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to be there's a template or form somewhere that clerks use to create the case pages, but for the life of me, I haven't any idea where they might be. You can always drop a line at the clerks noticeboard about the change to bring it to their attention. Shell babelfish 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is such a bad faith assumption that I am rendered speechless. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, you understand me perfectly and I don't understand your position at all. And it's me who is personalizing the dispute even although it's you who posted your comment right behind me below mine and in reference to an action I was referring to in that comment. You are the good guy and we are all obviously against you. I'm going to quote your own words "Plus, he thinks we're all too stupid to recognize that he's being uncivil when he does it indirectly like this. "
[2].
No, seriously, no. I think that I'll just add a comment to the evidence page of the R&I case on how you have a battleground mentality, how you advice other editors on assuming bad faith, how you insult other editors, and how you insist that you are always right. I have a thin hope that arbs may actually do something about this. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Added, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Enric_Naval. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig,
Arthur Rubin is making some pretty serious accusations against you in this thread. I thought I should let you know about this, just in case you want to respond to what he's said about you there. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 06:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
loved the "Didst thou bring thy I Pad?"...LOL what makes wikipedia interesting in the midst of such serious exhanges and sometimes angry exchanges too, is the presence of such healthy and sparkling humor... Thanks Ludwigs ... thanks to you I laughed out loud in the Emergency Room todayFragrantforever 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever ( talk • contribs)
I can't find the archives of the Race and Intelligence mediation. Any pointers? I want to look at people's opening statements and whatnot. David.Kane ( talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I did consider trying to think of something milder, but I've read the evidence page: "adversarial to" is an accurate descriptor, even if not a diplomatic one. Thanks again for putting together that summary of the content issue. Steve Smith ( talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Your last comment gave me a real LOL moment; I'm looking forward to working with you and Marie! I don't have as much free time during the week, but will do what I can. It seems that small changes to tighten the text and add refs won't be controversial at all, and larger issues we can bring up on the talkpage to work through together. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the IP that was posting over at the arbcom.
I would have posted this over there, but the whole section went nuts and somehow turned into a nasty debate about mathematics being a science or not.
To answer your question... Not really. Kinda anticlimatic, I know. Basically I stand by my assertion that claiming to be a science expert while simultaniously claiming it doesn't matter to you if people believe it is a bit of a headscratcher in terms of personal credibility. Mainly I wonder why the first needs to be said if the second is true. But then thats just me restating my original position more than saying anything new.
You should watch the temper though. I couldn't give a flying whatever about civility, but you did get baited into swearing on an Arbcom page (your post that included 'shitty'). It was roundabout sniping, but sniping nonetheless and the uptight folks that champion civility always seem to get blinded to the world in favor of lynching the uncivil guy. Just a thought. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, I think your input is needed in this discussion. Aprock is trying to remove several of the resolved points we agreed on at the end of mediation from the article FAQ, or modify them in order to claim that the discussion resulting in them involved nobody but me and Varoon Arya. I know that you based these points on more than just VA’s and my input, but I haven’t been able to get Aprock to understand this. Could you please try explaining it to him yourself?
The current version of the FAQ contains Aprock’s changes based on this assumption, so if you’re able to get him to understand what’s inaccurate about what he’s saying, I’d appreciate you also restoring the FAQ to a state that’s an accurate reflection of the mediation’s outcome. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Okay no problem, but I have no time these days, if you just tell me how to lower the effect, I'll do it. Thanks, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned | - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned |
This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI#Request for community ban of Darkstar1st. Thank you. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In one section, I agree with you when you say "Science may be pseudo-religion" That's because Religion the way it actually is is real science (if one accept that real science should relate to understanding things exactly as they are). Modern science is not real science.
I was discussing a question somewhere: Why do some people have 6 fingers/toes?
A: Anytime a baby is born, there is a chance of a mutation, or a change from his/her parents which would be considered "abnormal". If that mutation helps the baby survive, then that mutation will probably pass on to his/her children. Mutations occur when the DNA gets altered in some way either through natural or unnatural means. Having six fingers is like being born albino, or without legs or arms, etc.
I just thought of updating the answer by adding (I do such things very rarely):
Mutation is an answer to "how", and not "why". Mutation is NOT chance. There is no question of 'chance' in life. Everything is thoughtfully 'planned' by God. It is because of one's past karma (deeds, doings), one is born in a particular family, has certain features etc. however weird it may be. for example: Siamese (conjoined) twins are born that way because they had to suffer in some way in this life due to their bad karma (misdeeds) in some previous life. God wanted them to be born that way. This is actually common sense. But unfortunately the most advanced biologists lack common sense.
What do you think? Mayurvg ( talk) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to be the first to welcome you into the project! We're glad to have new members, and if you have any queries, just drop me a line. Once again, welcome! — mono 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you really want the Israeli Apartheid mess, please feel free to take it off of my hands. :) Ronk01 ( talk) 05:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I moved the "list of candidate titles" table in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy down from the "Opening statements" section to the "Discussion" section. From this point onward, you may wish to take ownership of the table (if you find it useful) and direct its progress. Good luck! -- Noleander ( talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Shall we go through all this again? It's certainly fascinating to see how you jump on the support of some dubious newly registered socket puppet, but if you still feel like having an axe to grind because of your ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taijitu, I am sorry but I thought you were over it. I am certainly willing to move on, but I won't shy from notifying all these user if you think you can reopen the whole debate. It would certainly take a lot of time from me away, especially during World Cup, but, trust me, since I spent much more time researching the material, I am willing to go all the way and you know so. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
How is this not duplicative of {{ details}}/{{ see}}/{{ main}}? Why do you feel another template is necessary? -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig: thanks for mediating that apartheid topic. It looks like the numbering of the vote-choices got messed up: The numbers start over again at 1 after a collapsed section. I would fix it but I dont know how. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant well, but recent consensus on the ref desk talk page is to not mess with headings just to fix grammar errors. There are two reasons. One is that it's impolite and unnecessary. More importantly, it breaks the links (the little arrows in the edit history) and thus causes problems for other users who rely on those arrows. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would answer you here rather than clutter up the mediation page but please feel free to move it there if you feel it appropriate. I'll say no more about it also if you'd rather. Or you can block me for expressing this opinion and "salt the earth" behind me. I hope not but it is your call. At the very least I should probably not be part of this particular mediation, since I have no faith in it. This is not to say that I do not respect some or all of the participants in it or because I don't believe in your ability to be impartial or fair or idealistic or intellectually honest. I have no doubt that you are all of the above. What I said was my evaluation of my personal experience on Wikipedia and which has been reported by RSs on both sides of the fence, not to mention various blogs, facebook pages, forums, and even throughout Wikipedia on personal editors' pages, etc.
Honestly, I am of the opinion that: "Editing Wikipedia is one of the many stratagems of both sides." Why wouldn't it be? Wikipedia is a great teaching tool, the most accessed encyclopedia in the world and accessible in the public school systems of western democracies. The facts need to be there. I think Wikipedia is a great concept but one that doesn't seem to work well at the edges, anymore than the peace movement has worked for Israel-Palestine in the last 60+ years. WP depends on consensus, and consensus depends on collaboration, and collaboration is impossible for the ideologically driven.
I appreciate the situation with your Turkish friend. The Turkish situation is not analogous to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, however. Israel has not committed a genocide against the Palestinian people, though that is the primary view of many (if not most) anti-Israel ("anti-Zionist") individuals and editors here who have no problem calling any action against the Palestinians a "massacre," any population shift an "ethnic cleansing" and who reserve to themselves the right eliminate the Jewish state as stated in the Hamas Charter, an article I just started a week or so ago. My own view is that the Jew in the world in the 1930's is analogous to the Jewish State in the 2000's. I hope you do not consider my views to be so egregious that I should be deprived of my right to edit Wikipedia. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI: regarding participants in Apartheid mediation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dajudem -- Noleander ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It is Mahatma Gandhi, not "Ghandi", please Jon Ascton (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This has been on my mind for a little while, so I thought I should ask you about it. I remember you saying at least once that Mathsci is friends with several members of ArbCom, and that you suspected this is part of why he feels able to get away with the behavior he’s been engaging in recently. With that in mind, do you think there’s any danger that when ArbCom makes their eventual ruling in the current case, they’ll end up showing favoritism towards him? I’d like to think that the arbitrators are professional enough that they won’t allow their personal feelings towards an editor to influence their decisions, but my experiences with non-aribtrator sysops haven’t given me a good impression about admin neutrality.
If you do think that this is a danger, I’d also like to know if there’s anything you think could be done to minimize the chance of this happening. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 08:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ludwigs2. I am a bit confused as to why you reverted the strikeout of Stellarkid's comments on the mediation page. Stellarkid was community banned at the time she made those comments, and per WP:BAN those comments should be removed. You say it is a "bad precedent" to strike out those comments, exactly what precedent do you think is being set and why is it "bad"? nableezy - 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)