User talk:Armon/Archive 1 May 2007

Cole's private faith?
Not sure I think the Religious Tolerance cite is very good. That site cites a discussion group, but nothing more — not even a date. (RT is not as rigorously edited as makes me comfortable with it as a reliable source.)

There's also very little, if anything, other than that. As prolific a blogger as Cole is, and as vitriolic as he was with Baha'i administration, you'd think he'd be eager to score points.

Also, his later work on Babi/Baha'i topics take a rather skeptical tone regarding these figures. I think Cole admires Baha'u'llah as a poet and thinker, but not as a divine messenger or prophet. MARussellPESE 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see what you mean about the cite being iffy. The website didn't seem to a have an axe to grind or anything, and they did seem to be attempting to document things, but it may not pass WP:V.
 * The other issue you raise I think is a tricky one. For example, I may think that people who don't accept the tenants of the nicean creed aren't properly called "Christians", but then there are those who don't, who say they are. So, I think that if there is a proper cite where Cole professes a "private faith in Baha'i", then we just have to take his word for it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * RT doesn't have an axe to grind. It's very Canadian in that it does it's level best to present an even-tempered and complete picture of it's subjects.


 * I think it has some short-comings though. One, is that it genuinely lacks the editorial resources to really pin down and cross-check it's sources. That cuts across WP:V, and is probably why it doesn't appear to be used as a WP source often, at least as I have observed.


 * Another is that it seems to rely very heavily on the internet as it's research library, so things that get a lot of play in blogs, listserves, etc. get sometimes disproportionate play.


 * A last is that I see at times some not insignificant editorial bias. The editors seem to set a suite of humanistic values as a standard against which to measure their subjects. It's like comparing a religion against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and assuming the Charter is the yard-stick. One can certainly do that as an individual, but one needs to recognize that doing so as a reporter is biased.


 * Frankly, this appears to be a rather Canadian thing too. An alternative is the rather American ideas that 1. everybody wants to be just like us, and 2. that we are preternaturally gifted with insight and righteous judgment. Any wonder why, four years on in Iraq, we are just now beginning to wonder what's happening. I'll take your biases over ours.


 * I also see the challenge presented by a self-professed Christian who doesn't take the Nicene Creed to heart. I feel that while its for an individual to identify themselves as a believer, it is for the faith community to define what that community basic beliefs are expected to be. So anyone can rightly call themselves Catholic; but it's the Catholic Church that defines what being "Catholic" means.


 * Agreed with respect to a Cole's private faith, and if he does so state, then it should be in his bio. But my observations about him are that other than the RT site, using an unverifiable third-hand reference, I've never seen him so state. My thinking that he admires Baha'u'llah, but isn't a believer, is based on observing his tone when treating him as a research subject. Modernity and the Millenium takes an almost clinical tone with his subject. Many of his papers do as well.


 * I'm pulling for ya. We're all in this together, MARussellPESE 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just saw your posting the genuine article to Cole's bio. (I checked my talk page before my watchlist.) Well done. MARussellPESE 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you didn't check first. I would have missed your argument and I think it's a good one. I'll need to watch out for that. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation?
Hi Armon. The Request for Mediation on the Juan Cole page is awaiting your agreement or disagreement. You have continued to be active on the Juan Cole page, so I assume you are interested in settling the issues that I have brought to mediation. I have stayed off of the page to show good faith but you have continued editing, as well as entered very contentious territory by editing one of the items I have asked to be mediated. We have both been asked by admins to stop edit warring and to enter mediation. I specifically asked you to reverse your own edit, where you deleted Cole's explicit response to some of the contentious claims by Karsh. Perhaps you missed these items; be sure to take a look at Talk:Juan Cole, where the discussion on these items is located. I look forward to your input. csloat 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm aware of your RfM. I'm still making up my mind about it. You're right that it was suggested by several admins and I was actually going to put in a request myself. The problem I'm having with the request as it's currently configured, is that I feel that it fails to address the core issue. For example, you've listed the "Yale issue". OK, but that's a relatively "new" one because I recently merged back in content from the old V&C page. My concern is that we can go through this entire process, and then be right back at square one when the next bit is merged -such as the "wipe off the map" controversy.
 * It will come as no surprise to you that think the core issue is your (and Will's -I'm disappointed that his block didn't help things) disruptive and tendentious editing, and behavior on the talk page -and likewise I'm sure. However I'm dubious that any real progress will happen unless this is addressed.
 * Anyway, have a think about it, and if you see my point, and would be willing to modify the request to include this issue, I'd have no problem signing on. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you should consider that your tendentious "merging" is the problem -- the V&C page was deleted for a good reason, and your attempt to make the Juan Cole page look the same is really not helpful. Complaining that I am being "disruptive" because I am resisting such changes is also not helpful.  If you are unable to respond to the arguments that I am making, perhaps you should consider that the problem is that you are wrong rather than claiming that I am "disruptive."  The fact that you are now threatening to start another revert war over the "wipe off the map" controversy suggests that we may have a behavior issue and not a content dispute, but it is hardly my behavior that is at issue -- as you are well aware, I backed off the page completely, refusing even to revert your abusive censorship of Cole's response to Karsh, whereas you have continued to revert and make other changes on the page without even paying attention to the comments on the discussion page or the RfM.  If you don't agree to mediation, state that clearly, and we can proceed to edit the page without it, but I fear we will find ourselves in the same predicament that we started with.  Sure, you will probably "win," since you have friends who agree with you that Cole is some kind of antichrist and who might even join you in your petty revert-wars, but to their credit, at least they agree that mediation would be helpful.  What is really sad here is that it seems to be all about "winning" to you and not about the truth.  It is also sad that I come off as the defender of Cole when the only thing I am trying to defend here is Wikipedia.  As I've said before, I am not even that interested in Cole. csloat 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I've signed on. And just for the record -I don't think Cole is the "Antichrist" -I think this guy is. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Carmon and Mossad
Yes, he served in Aman, military intelligence, but not Mossad. Isarig 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fish
Unfortunately, I had to delete your answer as it is incorrect. You are welcome to try again. Arrow740 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure? See Zen. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fisking
Are you in the habit of automatically reverting every change to the article Fisking? -- Doom 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, no. Did you see my suggestion on the talk page? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, it sure seems like it. I just commented on the talk page.  Is there some reason you think it's important to quote ESR's snipe at Fisk in the introduction?  I note that someone else is once again trying to make it clear that ESR isn't by any means an unbiased source.  -- Doom 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed ESR is an "unbiased" source -that's not the point. Please see the talk page. Cheers. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Your RFM
Should yourself and the other involved parties agree, I have decided to take the case. Could you please indicate your acceptance on the mediation page? Thanks M a rtinp23 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi - the difference between myself and an official mediator is really just the "official" bit. At the moment, I'm applying to become an official member of the MedCom, and as part of this process, it's recommended that I take a case.  I'll do the best I can!  About the extra issues - when we start mediation (when all the parties agree), I'll request statements from each of you on your wishes for the article and a description of your side of the dispute (this can help us to start afresh, and help all the parties fully understand each other.  I will, of course, be re-reading the article talk page before mediating!).  When we get to that stage, if you make your requests clear regarding the other issues, I'll try to get the dealt with.  Thanks, M a rtinp23 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi - could you please take a look at the mediation page here (and watchlist it), so we can move forward. Currently, we're awaiting your and Elizmr's comments on the issue as a whole.  Thanks, Mart inp23  13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Incorrect Comments on the Islam in the U.S. Talk Page
The section on demographics needs work. It is a listing of various studies that may or may not exist. There are some listed, for example a mysterious Cornell study, that have absolutely no information on how to learn more about the study. The Cornell study is listed as flatly stating that there are 7 million Muslims in the U.S. There is no link to the study. There is not even a journal entry reference. I'm not even sure that it exists. It is not the only one with this lack of information. I would ask that someone point me in the right way to find this study, I have done a Google search on it and I have not found a thing. If after a reasonable time, there is no confirmation of this study then I am going to remove any reference to it. Also, it very difficult to believe a large part of this information because all of the estimates are all over the place and they are always round numbers, e.g., 3 million exactly, 6 million exactly, 7 million exactly, not a range, but a nice round number. It sounds fake. And another issue is: How helpful is a list of studies with fake sounding numbers and no reference to where the find the original work?? I don't find the information helpful at all. I think the information confuses the reader more than just being honest about the debate that is going on concerning the size of the Muslim population in the U.S., point the reader in the direction of the studies themselves and then let the reader decide. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, it is NOT a seconday source, it is a teritary source and we need to keep that in mind.--Getaway 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes the section needs to be referenced, which is why there is a templete at the top of the section. As far as I can tell those figures were added over time, by several different editors.  If any of you are out there please help us find the references.  However, given that the templete is up and that we are discussing the matter here, I think we should also give people time to find the references, assuming that they were put up in good faith.  Also, lets not assume that a number is fake just because it is a nice old round number.  An editor may have rounded it, an editor may have reverse engineered it from a percentage and then rounded it in which case it should be removed (see above regarding the Hajj figure), the insitution conducting the research may have presented a round number with a large margin of error as opposed to a range, it may actually be fake as Getaway has suggested, etc. etc.  In other words there are many possibilities.  Lets try to find these studies and if we don't we'll have to get rid of them because they cannot be sourced.PelleSmith 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been waiting for someone to show me in good faith where this mysterious Cornell University study is that claims there are 7 million Muslims in the U.S. I have been waiting since 5 Dec, it is now 12 Dec, one week.  No one has pointed me in the right direction--especially the person who put the silly study in there.  I'm being unbelievably patient.  But time is running out and its removal is getting closer.--Getaway 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I tracked down the edit where this mysterious Cornell Univ study was jammed into the article. It was done by a anon Wikipedian.  You can review the edit here:  .  I have waited a week to hear where this propaganda is published but I have not received an answer and now I find out that it is an anon Wikipedian.  It shall be removed.--Getaway 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why not look yourself? I found this citing it in 30 seconds. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, Armon, you shouldn't take a wiseacre attitude, but especially you shouldn't take a wiseacre attitude when you are dead wrong. You are completely and totally wrong.  First of all, in your failed attempt to be a wiseacre, citing a secondary source.  You have cited a website that is citing other ESTIMATES of population and the lame website that you linked does NOT even refer to the Cornell University study that I have been talking about.  So your link is incorrect, you attitude is wrong and basically your whole response was an attempt to make me look like I should not be stating the things that I have been saying, but all you accomplished was pointing out how completely and totally wrong your link and your attitude is. Have a good day.  Oh, by the way, the Cornell University study that was cited will stay out of the article because your lame link does not in any way back up the existence or veracity of the mysterious Cornell University study. Have a good day!--Getaway 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what, I missed your statement at the top "I have done a Google search on it and I have not found a thing" so I apologize for that. I've noticed plenty examples in the past of people demanding cites, or claiming they exist to support their edits, but not making the effort to do the grunt work and find them. This is not what you did, so again, sorry, and you're right, I shouldn't have been a wise-ass about it anyway.
 * Two points about the actual issue though, secondary sources are actually preferred on WP, (not saying the link I offered was a particularly good one), and if we can't find the actual Cornell study to verify (which seems to be the case) then I suggest we use this cite and phrase it like "CAIR states that no scientific count of Muslims in the U.S. has been done but that six to seven million is the most commonly cited figure." &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments. However, the CAIR comments are just a comments.  They are not supported by any study whatsoever.  That list claims to be a list "studies". That is the word in the article and it was not put there by me.  Basically there is one editor who has fallen in love with his/her own editing and is unwilling to change the section.  I'm just trying to fix the issues one at a time.  Also, there have been "scientific" studies done on the topic, however, there has NOT been "scientific" studies that CAIR wants to cite.  So the CAIR website is merely the opinion of CAIR, an avowedly political organization and CAIR does not, in any way, provide "scientific" analysis to come up with their numbers.  It can go in the article, but not in that list.  Also, if you read further down there is a reference to CAIR's controversial claim and there used to be a link to a brutal dissection of CAIR's claim by the Washington Post.  However, that Wash Post article has been removed.  So I don't know if another reference to CAIR's claim is called for or needed. Have a good day!--Getaway 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff Article
I spent a lot of time today including some well cited references of what other Human Rights leaders say about Ignatieff. Octavious is deleting these topics with no discussion. Could you please have a look. Canuckster 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it in time......
To comment on the Fisking discussion. Been busy at work lately....... :( It appears to be *mostly* resolved?

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 07:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR on MEMRI
Hi Armon, You have made 4RR on the MEMRI article in less than 24hr, specifically the removal of the objectives part which you just removed. It is recommended that you self-revert to avoid being reported. Best. --64.230.123.128 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on January 2 2007 to Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that. I made it in error and went to sleep before seeing the msg to self revert (which may not have been enough anyway). Until further notice, I'm placing myself on WP:1RR because a) I can't seem to count reverts properly, especially when there is more than one contentious passage, and b) edit warring is counterproductive anyway. I don't think it's possible to be unblocked from talk pages but still blocked from articles and there's no basis for requesting an unblock, so discussions I'm involved in will have to wait 24 hours. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update
Sorry to talk page spam - I'm just informing you that we now have two items for discussion on the mediation page. Thanks, Mart inp23 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation question
You asked a question on the mediation page Re: "I think they agree that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, even though they violently disagree with the charges, but I think it would be well worth getting clarification from them."

As per request of the mediator, vis-a-vis non disputant interested parties I don't want to clutter that page with my response. I hope it's acceptable if I reply here.

I think your assessment of my opinion is generally fair, if by this you mean the "protocols" quote from Karsh. As for suitability of quotes from MEQ, I don't think I ever raised an objection to using it as a source of critical points of view (this has nothing to do with whatever opinion I may have expressed about it in the past, although I don't recall ever having said anything about it here) However, I trust that various WP guidelines should be followed for inclusion of whatever material is inserted. Particular care should be taken to make the article style dispassionately objective. Though hard to define, I think conformity to this principle can be adequately assessed by the idea "that I know non-conformity if I see it."

Note this still leaves unresolved the issue of what the appropriate Cole response should be. --CSTAR 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and understood. BTW it's perfectly acceptable to me for you to reply here -we might have to get some more clarification if we're breeching some protocol.
 * Actually, if I understand the proposal in that section, we're not even talking about the quote yet, just the notably of the criticisms for inclusion -period. The reason I brought you guys up is because, as I've pointed out before, I think csloat's intransigence on this point is untenable, and is in fact not shared by other editors who completely disagree Cole's critics. I hope (and expect) that once we finally get past this, we will be able to make progress towards a conforming article.
 * Anyway, FWIW I think your's is a perfectly reasonable position and one I agree with, where we differ however, is in some of the specifics of implementation. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 14:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replying here because it's related, I was wondering if the sources you provide in the Karsh section can be used reliably in the antisemitism section? I realise that my question was phrased appalingly, and apologise.  I may be completely wrong about the sources, in which case please do tell me! Mart inp23  23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry again, but "used reliably" how? If you mean are they WP:RSs -yes. Are you asking or suggesting that they might be not-so-good for some other reason? If so, you can be explicit -I won't take offense. I'm not trying to be dense, but if you suspect there's a problem, you may be wrong -on the other hand, I may be. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I honestly wasn't thinking along those lines - just whether they would serve, in your (more expert than me) opinion, as acceptable sources for the anti-semitism response rather than all of the arguing over the blog post? In your opinon, do the sources you provide give a fairer, more reliable response from Karsh?  I'm the one being dense - I've had a hard week! Mart inp23  00:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Hello, Armon. I've noticed you bring up a point several times on the different Juan Cole pages where the Karsh/Cole dispute has played out. You've been concerned that including a response to Karsh from Cole's blog would run into RS issues, because a blog does not have to hold itself to the same standards as a reputed published source. I disagreed with you on this and responded once to it, and then I posted a link to my response on the mediation page when you raised it again. Recently, you have again reiterated these RS concerns on the Mediation page in a parties-only section, so I'd probably be getting in the way if I responded there. It seems to me that Cole's response, even if on a blog, can be included and I felt my original comment explained this, and at least one participant agreed with my assessment. I'm guessing that you disagree, but I was wondering why, as I've never had a response from you over this. Abbenm 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ben, it's because your response didn't actually address the points I made. Even if it's "allowable" in one narrow sense, WP:RS attaches various caveats which I believe apply, and which will avoid turning the article into a soapbox -as has happened in the past. The solution I propose applies a consistent application of both RS and BLP to both sides of the debate in order to avoid this. As better, RS sources exist for Cole's response, I've yet to see an argument as to why a poor and problematic source is preferable other than "it's allowed" under some circumstances. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 07:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Computer crashed after I had spent an hour or more on a response, so I'll be brief. It seems to me that one response would be to disagree with your premise that Cole's blog is not an RS to begin with. Your assumption about the blog is far from agreed to, so it makes no sense to incorporate it into a question and then ask for that question to be answered.


 * Ouch, that's a piss-off. Sloat may not agree, but the general consensus in the citations, whether pro or con, is that his blog is not sober and scholarly, it's Cole's soapbox. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt;
 * Sorry, not quite sure what you mean by this. In the citations? Isn't that a bit of a backward and indirect measurement? Can't we just refer to the actual opinions of participating editors?


 * I've always thought citations point to the sources and it ends there. I haven't heard this used as a justification before (or read it in policy) and I don't think non blog citations have to be read as votes of agreement with a particular statement about Cole's blog. Especially not mandatorily binding ones thrust in the heart of a disputed issue. Abbenm 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On WP:RS and WP:V the basis for allowing a blog post like Cole's is established several times (it can be allowed from a well known, RS-published researcher; it can be allowed if the author is talking about himself). In fact it was a blog post of Cole's that Karsh and his supposed reliable source found worth commenting on in an article in the first place. I don't see how the source would consider Cole's comments on the same subject any less legitimate from one blog post to the next. Caveats like "fact checking" are hypothetical and irrelevant as Cole's post is merely responding to an argument that attempts to characterize him, it's not a report on real world events where fact checking is a necessary element. It should just be common sense that wikipedia's rules about blog posts depend very much on the circumstance, and with some compromise and reasonable judgment on each side, a blog post should be fine for this specific issue. (Unless we wanted to switch to generalized antisemitism section that's not about Karsh, wherein the alternative article would be more relevant.) I'd put this in the mediation section but in the interest of stability I don't want to go against the rules there. Abbenm 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he's not simply talking about himself, and neither is he addressing the issue. Even if there weren't the concerns I've set out, I think we're actually doing the guy a disservice -ad homs are poor arguments. In any case, a "generalized antisemitism section" reporting the charges is basically what I've argued for, previously, and on the med page. It's not simply a Karsh/Cole fight. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that goes back to CSTAR's argument, which is still ongoing. Well, if it can be shown to be notable, a generalized section would make more sense to me. Abbenm 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block
You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for deletion of cited material. Pursuant to discussion this block has come a bit slowly. Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL: if you wish to challenge an existing citation the usual step is to discuss your objections on the talk page and establish consensus before taking action. An article content WP:RFC may help. Durova Charge! 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration (private e-mail and other conversations) I withdraw this block. I can't take it out of the block history, so quote this retraction if necessary in the future. Regards, Durova Charge! 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From Durova's talk page -meant to post it here as well: I would like to state for record that I never saw your block as anything other than you acting in good faith and being bold. The discussion on talk:MEMRI was/is a mess, the "waters are muddy" and I take responsibility for my own actions, which weren't far enough above reproach to "clear" them. I'm sorry that I didn't participate in the discussion (I was ill) but I would have made the same point then. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 24 2007 to Middle East Media Research Institute
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Also, I don't see any discussion from you recently

William M. Connolley 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't breeched 3RR on the MEMRI page on the 24th -or since my last block as far as I can tell. In fact, I've been trying to stick to 1RR even if I make what's effectively a rv in a series of distinct edits which I explain in the edit summaries. I HAVE been reverting non RS cites and OR. I have discussed this on talk, ad nauseam, to no avail. In any case, I believe this was made in error so please unblock.


 * A thousand apologies - I got the dates wrong. Unblocked in a moment... William M. Connolley 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks William. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat
I haven't been paying much attentio to the Memri page. If he is being disruptive there as well feel free to block him. JoshuaZ 06:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, your comment that it was "my call" to block him sounded like another admin saying they wouldn't get involved. I've added the MEMRI article to my watchlist, if he does anything remotely disruptive I'm going to give him a general block for disruption. However, you have a few 3RR blocks yourself, therefore please do not see this as a liscence to edit war with him. JoshuaZ 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic ArbCom
Recently you were involved in a discussion about the Free Republic article on the WP:BLP Noticeboard. That article is now the subject of an Arbitration Committee proceeding here. You may comment there on the content dispute you discussed and its resolution if you choose to do so. Thank you. Dino 03:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-formal mediation attempt
I've put pages at User:JoshuaZ/Juan Cole and User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI. I'd like if for each disputed passage you would put your version and then right under it an explanation of your logic. Hopefully we can come to some agreements on these issues. JoshuaZ 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Which tags are you most concerned about? It might still help also if you gave your ideal version of the section. I'm starting to look at what Sloat has written and some points he has seem like they may be valid. JoshuaZ 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I objected to yet another tag on a section sloat had a problem with. He placed the other tag I removed and despite months of discussion and numerous rewrites, it is obvious that it's never coming off. I see this as sloat making a WP:POINT. I don't object to the ActiveDiscuss tag he also placed, and I left it. It's accurate.


 * As for other points he's made which seem valid, obviously my opinion is that they only seem so. So if you let me know which they are, I'll tell you why. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Joshua, Armon's account above is inaccurate. The tag was placed because there are POV problems with that section.  I stated those problems clearly in talk and attempted a good faith discussion of them.  Armon unilaterally removed the tags after reverting the text to his preferred version.  The only "point" I was making with the tag was that there are POV problems with the section.  Those problems, as I indicated, have not been resolved. csloat 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic
Dude, your user page says you are a liberal, yet you reverted my true addition to the Free Republic article saying they ban liberal users. Do you really believe they don't? Something doesn't compute.
 * I have no idea. I imagine that partisan websites of all stripes do the same, but that's not the point. The issue is that you need WP:RSs which state that fact. Answers.com is actually wikipedia so you can't use that as a source either because it's self-reference. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done. Free Republic is not notable enough to attract much attention other than from blogs. That is probably a blessing, but I guarantee they do ban liberal users. I will drop this matter, it just isn't important enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.51.101 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Online references
Just so you know in the future, print references are fine, they do not need to be online references. High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They are when there's no BLP issues and they're not put in by someone who has misrepresented offline sources in the past. Otherwise, we're going to need online refs. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's false, Armon - there are no BLP problems here, and I have never misrepresented offline sources. And, in fact, offline sources are easily checked; simply go to your local library.  Do not remove sourced and accurate information such as this again please. csloat 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sloat, you gave a false tally of the opinions expressed in an article to another editor which only you had in front of you -until I found it in the web archives. You've also misrepresented ON-line sources as well in a effort to pov-push. One example which springs to mind is on the Weekly Standard article were you presented an aside in a hit-piece on, ironically, Christopher Hitchens as a critique of the magazine. This was only corrected because other editors could easily check the cite. I'm not going to the library over every cite you present, and the burden of proof in on you for your edits. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 04:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I wasn't "tallying" anything except when Isarig demanded it, and my tally was accurate.  You were counting sources that were not relevant except as WP:OR.  I never misrepresented online or offline sources of which I am aware, and your nitpicking about my "tally" does not in any way change that basic fact.  The Cole vs. Weekly Standard item you cite is in no way a misrepresentation; there was simply a difference of opinion about whether the criticism was notable or accurate (it is accurate; I'm undecided about its notability, but your arguments on that page are not convincing to me).  In either case, stating that I was "caught misrepresenting sources" -- online or offline -- is a ridiculous personal attack that you are unable to support with any evidence. csloat 06:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism
Armon,

Could you please explain the rationale for your revert? I've explained my case on the talk page; SlimVirgin didn't raise an objection, and I didn't believe the deletion would be especially controversial. CJCurrie 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Responded on the article talk page. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Christopher Hitchens. Please note that the biographies of living persons exemption applies only to information which is unsourced or poorly sourced. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of lying
I am getting sick of your baseless accusations that I am "quote mining", lying, and "fudging facts." Your statements are false and they are exhorbitant violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Stop it please, I implore you. csloat 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.