 | If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. O Fenian ( talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
 |
all the old news
|
|---|
|
Re your report at WP:AE, I've recused myself from this one as I'm a UK resident. This is purely to avoid any allegations of bias being made and in no way reflects badly upon your report or suggests that you have done anything wrong in raising the issue. There are plenty of admins from outside the UK and RoI that can handle this issue. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Hi! I see you've reverted my edit on the 9M133 Kornet page. May I ask what exactly striked you as POV about it? I do think that shooting an ATM into a yellow school bus is a "terrorist attack" and ought to be labelled as such. At the very least, this is not a regular instance of a "combat history". What do you think? Maybe we can work out another formulation. Bazuz ( talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
2. As for whether the bus was the target, it's highly unlikely that it wasn't. Modern ATM's usually do not hit things by mistake - If it hit the bus it was directed either at the bus or at some other vehicle. Since the bus is large enough and presumably distinctly visible at the ATM operator's screen. The only other possibility I see is that Hamas tried to hit another civilian vehicle on the same stretch of road and took down the bus by mistake - but this possibility is neither likely nor serves to exculpate them from intentionally targeting civilians. 3. In support of the claim that this was indeed a terrorist attack, please consider the following text from the CNN article ( [1]):
4. Another passage from the same article:
May I ask what is yout opinion? Is firing an ATM at a school bus an act of terrorism or not? Best, Bazuz ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, it more or less clinches it, it's not as if Hamas claimed that they were shooting at something at else, although they could have. Besides, I am quite certain of my analysis in the previous post. Now, O' Fenian, I believe you have ignored my direct and simple question: do you personally regard ATM'ing a school bus as an act of terrorism or not? I have stated my own view on this above and would like to have yours. Is it too much to ask for in the context of this discussion? P.S. I feel you might be a bit too solecist about this. By your reasoning it seems that nothing can be labelled terrorist at all. Do I miss something? Best, Bazuz ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
|
all the 'new' post-May-2011 news goes here
|
|---|
|
As soon as it was taken off semi-protected, the sock showed up and started re-adding his stuff. He's got a new IP now. Is it possible to get the MM article permanently semi-protected, so only registered users can edit it? That will end his fun, and I am tired of reverting his stuff. His additions will be only a thin edge of a wedge, too, in my opinion. Subsequent edits will increase the apologetics, I've no doubt. I'm English, and while I'm not a nationalist, please don't worry about me being anti-English! On the other hand, as you will have seen before, I've repeatedly, prominently mentioned Mau Mau's unspeakable atrocities (I am certainly not pro-Mau Mau). I admit the article desperately needs finishing off, and reducing in size, but I will have some time next week again to do it. His stuff about being "rooted in tribalism" is simply wrong. There were pan-ethnic, anti-colonial political groups in Kenya years before the Mau Mau rebellion, so his suggestion that Kenyans were somehow incapable of comprehending a concept as simple and universal as nationalism is, demonstrably, absurd. Indeed, the apologist sock shoots her/himself in the foot, for such a claim detracts from the fact that the reason many Kikuyu didn't support the movement was because of its extreme violence. Anyway, if you can somehow get the article perma-protected, it would be good! Best wishes from London. Iloveandrea ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think he's back again - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) The 2011 Belfast riots needs to be expanded if you're available. Exiledone ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You have a much better eye for this sort of thing that I do. This account was dormant for a long period, then comes back targeting a specific article around the BI issue - and a small pattern of scottish editing. It feels like a sock but I can't put my finger on which. -- Snowded TALK 20:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Have you retired, old boy? --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Reinforcements needed over here. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
all the 'new' 2012+ news goes here
| |
|---|---|
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. The request for formal mediation concerning Liam Neeson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee,
WGFinley (
talk) 17:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello, noticed some article-talkpage conversations you were involved in back-in-the-day™ and came to ask you a question, about whether you still are in favor of a suggestion you made at one point. It looks like you may still be laid up in the BTI facilities however (Bonk Treatment Institute). Hope you're doing well, ping my talkpage if the nurses permit you to access the internet. :-) — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
| If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. O Fenian ( talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
all the old news
|
|---|
|
Re your report at WP:AE, I've recused myself from this one as I'm a UK resident. This is purely to avoid any allegations of bias being made and in no way reflects badly upon your report or suggests that you have done anything wrong in raising the issue. There are plenty of admins from outside the UK and RoI that can handle this issue. Mjroots ( talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Hi! I see you've reverted my edit on the 9M133 Kornet page. May I ask what exactly striked you as POV about it? I do think that shooting an ATM into a yellow school bus is a "terrorist attack" and ought to be labelled as such. At the very least, this is not a regular instance of a "combat history". What do you think? Maybe we can work out another formulation. Bazuz ( talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
2. As for whether the bus was the target, it's highly unlikely that it wasn't. Modern ATM's usually do not hit things by mistake - If it hit the bus it was directed either at the bus or at some other vehicle. Since the bus is large enough and presumably distinctly visible at the ATM operator's screen. The only other possibility I see is that Hamas tried to hit another civilian vehicle on the same stretch of road and took down the bus by mistake - but this possibility is neither likely nor serves to exculpate them from intentionally targeting civilians. 3. In support of the claim that this was indeed a terrorist attack, please consider the following text from the CNN article ( [1]):
4. Another passage from the same article:
May I ask what is yout opinion? Is firing an ATM at a school bus an act of terrorism or not? Best, Bazuz ( talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
For me, it more or less clinches it, it's not as if Hamas claimed that they were shooting at something at else, although they could have. Besides, I am quite certain of my analysis in the previous post. Now, O' Fenian, I believe you have ignored my direct and simple question: do you personally regard ATM'ing a school bus as an act of terrorism or not? I have stated my own view on this above and would like to have yours. Is it too much to ask for in the context of this discussion? P.S. I feel you might be a bit too solecist about this. By your reasoning it seems that nothing can be labelled terrorist at all. Do I miss something? Best, Bazuz ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
|
all the 'new' post-May-2011 news goes here
|
|---|
|
As soon as it was taken off semi-protected, the sock showed up and started re-adding his stuff. He's got a new IP now. Is it possible to get the MM article permanently semi-protected, so only registered users can edit it? That will end his fun, and I am tired of reverting his stuff. His additions will be only a thin edge of a wedge, too, in my opinion. Subsequent edits will increase the apologetics, I've no doubt. I'm English, and while I'm not a nationalist, please don't worry about me being anti-English! On the other hand, as you will have seen before, I've repeatedly, prominently mentioned Mau Mau's unspeakable atrocities (I am certainly not pro-Mau Mau). I admit the article desperately needs finishing off, and reducing in size, but I will have some time next week again to do it. His stuff about being "rooted in tribalism" is simply wrong. There were pan-ethnic, anti-colonial political groups in Kenya years before the Mau Mau rebellion, so his suggestion that Kenyans were somehow incapable of comprehending a concept as simple and universal as nationalism is, demonstrably, absurd. Indeed, the apologist sock shoots her/himself in the foot, for such a claim detracts from the fact that the reason many Kikuyu didn't support the movement was because of its extreme violence. Anyway, if you can somehow get the article perma-protected, it would be good! Best wishes from London. Iloveandrea ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I think he's back again - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) The 2011 Belfast riots needs to be expanded if you're available. Exiledone ( talk) 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) You have a much better eye for this sort of thing that I do. This account was dormant for a long period, then comes back targeting a specific article around the BI issue - and a small pattern of scottish editing. It feels like a sock but I can't put my finger on which. -- Snowded TALK 20:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Have you retired, old boy? --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Reinforcements needed over here. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
all the 'new' 2012+ news goes here
| |
|---|---|
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. The request for formal mediation concerning Liam Neeson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee,
WGFinley (
talk) 17:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello, noticed some article-talkpage conversations you were involved in back-in-the-day™ and came to ask you a question, about whether you still are in favor of a suggestion you made at one point. It looks like you may still be laid up in the BTI facilities however (Bonk Treatment Institute). Hope you're doing well, ping my talkpage if the nurses permit you to access the internet. :-) — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)