User talk:Cerejota/Archives/2007/August

RFAR comment
Cerejota, you comments that a number of "Keep" voters seem to have little interest in the topics of the various AfDs outside those AfDs. However, that applies equally well to many of the "Delete" voters. It doesn't seem fair to note one but not the other. Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Counting on both side would be a good thing. (Anyway, I don't think that this in particular will affect the eventual decision. But trying to be fair may affect things...) NicDumZ ~  18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to centralized discussion in template
After reading the various discussions about this, including what is on the AN board, it has occurred to me that when this centralized discussion page was very active the first time (June-July 2006), there was a special template for the centralized discussion itself, right on the article page itself, see for example this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&oldid=60595870. I suspect that this template was on other related articles as well, though there have been so many merges/moves/renames of the related articles (such as the late unlamented Apartheid (disambiguation) and Apartheid outside South Africa) that I wouldn't be sure where to look for the history. The bottom line is, I don't recall anyone claiming that this template was improper as a "self-reference", nor was it. This would seem to support your position on the current template issue, and perhaps suggests an even better template. 6SJ7 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did find another example, pointing to the same centralized discussion, from a different article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=63028469 (That article was later made a redirect.) 6SJ7 05:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
--Ideogram 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your effort to have ArbCom reconsider taking the Allegations of Apartheid case. I added my 2 cents; I agree with you that there are very important non-content issues at hand. In my experience, once the train has left there's no turning it back, but still I appreciate your effort to have them reconsider. I agree that if ArbCom doesn't step in now, things will worsen and they'll get dragged in later. Take care. MastCell Talk 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On deleting the Wittgenstein/Hitler photograph from the Wittgenstein article
Please read the Wittgenstein discussion page first before making any more unilateral deletes from the Wittgenstein article. Should you then wish to proceed with the deletion, offer reasons on the discussion page and allow a reasonable period for public response first. I have reverted the article to how it was. Should you think this unreasonable, please register the reasons on the Wittgenstein discussion page.Kimberley Cornish 01:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an error, I was trying to reformat and somehow I didn't paste. However your attitude here and in the talk page is very negative, perhaps you should read WP:AGF a bit more... Thanks!--Cerejota 11:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My attitude was only negative over what I took to be vandalism. (After all, the wasn't any discussion over the delete and the article has in fact been vandalised on many other occasions.) Since this particular delete was done in error, there isn't any issue here at all.210.49.121.35 12:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be true, but I have no history of vandalism or of not discussing my edits, so you failed to assume good faith. A history of vandalism in the page doesn't excuse your attitude. Even first time vandals shouldn't be bitten. BTW, I know did the edit I really wnated to do, and you can see it is clearly superior to the previous formatting. Now the section edit links work, and the picture looks better not bunched up with the info box. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I edit from both IP addresses
There's nothing wrong with that, is there? I don't believe I've violated WP:3RR.... -- 146.115.58.152 04:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sock puppetry is not about WP:3RR but about all behavior policy, including WP:POINT. If you didn't anonymously edit in controversial pages with controversial edits that can be construed as WP:POINT, there would be no problem. If you want to step into the fire, get an account, its easy, its free, and it won't reveal your identity more than an anon IP does, if you use an anon email. So this isn't about revealing your identity, but about being decent enough to sign your edits. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You should resist this notion that IP editors are second class wikipedians. Sorry for any confusion over the different IPs addresses, but you could have just asked regarding this matter. What do you expect them to do over at WP:SSP, run a checkuser? :P -- 146.115.58.152 04:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think anon editor are second class wikipedians. However, in the middle of a controversial article, doing a controversial edit, doing disruptive anon edits using sock puppets against consensus... not really civil behavior.


 * Your last comment is really an example of what is probably going on. I am in fact requesting a checkuser, which would demonstrate further sock puppets you might have (as you admit having two sock puppets). Thanks!--Cerejota 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion that attempting to make Template:Allegations of apartheid conform to guidelines is disruptive, but if you don't consider IP editors second class wikipedians, you are are certainly going to great lengths to decry me for editing anonymously. I don't admit to having any sockpuppets under the definition of WP:SOCK and I'm not using any WP:Username to edit wikipedia at this time, which would need to be occurring in conjunction with my alleged "disruptions" for WP:SOCK to come into play. Sorry if you missed the joke -- but a WP:CHECKUSER of 146.115.58.152 is going to reveal that my IP address is -- 146.115.58.152 (shocking I know) 20:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll let the process flow. Please do not post about this in my talk page again. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you don't want to give this matter up, but please see this for some reasons some editors are just plain tired of logging in anymore. Some people get just plain tired of this. -- 146.115.58.152 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is relevant. That two evils do not make one good. I am no choosing to pursue anything, it was you with your comments who leads me in this road. I am very sensitive to issues of WP:SOCK around AoIA et al, because they have been a great source of disruption. The matter is not helped by the fact that false flag socks have been used. Once you created in me the suspicion that rather than a multiple-ip anon user you are in fact a puppet master, I cannot let it go until this suspicion is assuaged by a neutral third party. It is nothing personal, and I thank you for being civil now. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you could name names, if you think there is a puppet master involved here. The whole "fishing expedition" is what I reject. -- 146.115.58.152 05:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not fishing because I have named a puppetmaster already User:67.98.206.2. I am simply requesting that additional possible socks be found via RfCU. See my comments in the Sockcase. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you've clearly further asserted that these IP's are being used by some third user ("he admits to having two sockpuppets" etc.) -- 146.115.58.152 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, lets talk about these issues in the correct place, not here. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exploring the grounds for a consensus
Thanks for your comment! I want to ask you some questions here first because, as I try to get better informed, I don't want to detract from the purpose of the discussion. Please reply on my Talk, if you'd be so kind.

You said: "I disagree with using titles to resolve POV issues, as does for that matter wikipedia policy."
 * I also do not believe that titles alone can solve this POV dispute, but I do think it will play a constructive role. It would help me if you could point me to the relevant sections of Wikipedia policy you had in mind. Thanks!

You said: "Allegations" is a stupid title, but it is the consensus.
 * In your personal assessment, is Allegations a POV and not a neutral term in this context?
 * By "consensus" -- I think here you mean the outcome of various AfD closures to retain the word, but you don't mean consensus in the sense of -- the underlying willingness of folks to accept this term graciously, even if it's not their first choice. Right?

Please give me a specific diff for your proposed course of action. Wasn't obvious from the link. Thanks very much.HG | Talk 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm wondering if any of the people who feel comfortably with the grounds (G1-2) we've discussed, might entertain the possibility of proposing a Requested Move. That is, provided we can narrow in on a better Article Name. If you might entertain this possibility, what else might be helpful in deciding? Thanks for replying when you have a chance. HG | Talk 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC) cc: Tiamut, G-Dett

I wish there were an easier way to send messages. Anyway, you might want to strikeout "G-Dett might be a bit one-sided" as unnecessarily personalizing. Meanwhile, I appreciate the exchange and you knowledge. HG | Talk 04:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was categorizing the bibliography not G-Dett. I will clarify. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being responsive (and not touchy, as some folks get)! Oh, but speaking of touchy. Well, listen, I know you are trying to make a point, and I recognize that your point may be valid (though I don't happen to agree), especially since there are so many precedents in WP (I'd say, wrongly decided). However, I really do feel that it's important not to inject into a conversation like ours, which is going fairly well, a slur that is so offensive to me, my family and my friends. We don't want to hear it, we don't want to be called this. If you want to provide a link (to demonstrate your precedent), then in public discourse (or private with me), I would prefer you write the N-word  or something like that. I suppose I could ask you to use insulting language about other people, who probably aren't reading along so closely with me, but it would be out there to disturb them. My 2+2 cents. Please take this as a request, because the term is normally such a conversation stopper for me, and I really want to continue exploring this q with you, thanks! HG | Talk 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My intention, of course is not to offend, however, after much controversy and much debate, the community decide that N-word was going to be a re-direct to another page. While in conversation off an article page I will certainly respect your wishes, and the word is as offensive to me, my family, and my friends as it is to you and yours, I have no option but to use it to clearly illustrate the point. This is about systemic continuity: the same people who argue for deletion/merge are the ones who say nothing about the article towards which N-word redirects, or say nothing or support Pallywood (a highly derogatory portmanteau of "pally" - anti-palestinian slur - and hollywood) or New antisemitism. My point is if the article towards which N-word redirects exists as the main topic, then why is Israeli apartheid even more offensive than that and merits deletion? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My view is: We should not compromise our core principles. If a case is wrongly decided, it should be overturned, not used as precedent. In the real world, it can take decades and wars to overturn bad cases. But for some wrong decisions, we never rest, do we? ... and minor clarification, I am NOT! arguing for deletion, but rather the NPOV need for retitling and then moving to further decisions unimpeded. Don't delete the N-word article, rather give the non-euphemistic text within the article body and change the title and subheadings.HG | Talk 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Backchannel attempt. You said: "BTW, I disagree with the implication that titles should be neutral, ...." However, I don't quite see how the WP:NPOV and WP:NCON support your position. For instance, the 3rd criterion in NCON is this: "3. Current self-identifying name of entity" However, on public discourse like Wikipedia, most Africa Americans do NO describe themselves with the  the N-word. So, wouldn't that word be less satisfactory than "Racial epithets against African Americans"? Would you rather I copy this onto the Talk page, and you could clarify how you interpret key sections of NPOV and NCON? Thanks very much for taking my questions seriously and in good faith. HG | Talk 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not want to repeat myself, I provided extensive quotes on applicable policy already in the article's talk page. As to N-word, you can go there and try to debate it. But policy-wise it is clear titles are much less important as vehicles of NPOV than actual contents themselves. WP:NPOV specifically says: If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. In other words, leave the controversial title, but explain it is controversial and why (which is subject to OR and RS rules). So you can't just out of the blue say it is controversial, you must also sourced. Why quoting policy is boring, NPOV is the one non-negotiable policy, and one that WP:OFFICE defends, so it is as close to a golden rule as we have. THis is why I say without equivocation that titles should never be used to resolve NPOV, because the policy says so. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have great patience w/me. Pls tell me when you'd like to end for now. With all due respect, (1) your own sources mention the self-identifying criterion, so how do you explain it's application to the n-word? (2) You may be reading too much into the above quote, insofar as it applies here. In the call for a neutral title, we are NOT claiming that this will settle a POV dispute. We are merely saying that it is one step in resolving the dispupte, which surely does need to extend throughout the editing of the body. You say that this means: "In other words, leave the controversial title". But please read the continuation of that paragraph: "They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute." By objective basis, the article then uses three criteria, including self-identification. The n-word article itself (per my blockquote in Talk) gives the reliable sources to demonstrate the the n-word is an inadequate self-identification. Even if you don't agree, do you see where we differ in interpreting NCON? That NCON may be interpreted differently than you've insisted? Appreciatively, HG | Talk 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you are misunderstanding me. I have no problem with changing the title of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and have in fact provided relevant alternatives. However, I do refuse to change it into a title that changes the meaning of the page simply to satisfy some "offense" taken by some editors. If you go to the talk page you will see ample examples of what I mean by this. In the concrete, I oppose attempts to eliminate what the article is actually about, which is the comparative study of the current and recent past of Israel, and South Africa during the apartheid era. This is why the article towards which N-word redirects is relevant: it is about that topic, so it cannot be worded differently without losing meaning. If we eliminate the words "Israel" and "apartheid" from the title, then we are in effect changing what the article is about, would constitute a POV fork. I oppose that: if wikipedians can stomach having the article towards which N-word redirects, we can surely tolerate an article with  "apartheid" and "Israel" in the title, because that is the topic. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand you want to change the title but you are not willing to justify it on neutrality grounds (yet?). Let me parse your text above:
 * "satisfy some "offense" taken by some editors" -- with scarequotes you diminish the reality of the offense. However, the phrase is experienced as a slur by people, their families and friends. You are denying their reality. (Indeed, you may have less grounds to do so than the n-word, which some Whites justify by saying that African Americans use it frequently.) I don't need to trace statements of various User personalities, because I do not doubt and assume good faith when Israelis, Jews and the Israeli govt take offense. Until you can somehow find a way to connect to their pain, as you do for other peoples, you may find it difficult reaching a satisfactory agreement on this issue. (Because you won't feel the need for change, as you might for other epithets.)
 * I fully sympathize with your strong grounds for wanting to keep the article.
 * "If wikipedians can stomach..." -- I think you know that this kind of argument is disfavored specifically by our guidelines. We need to rely on policy in determining what is right.
 * Thanks again. I am trying to put some of this on the Talk page, because you are presenting such an important analytical interpretation... and I am trying to counter-argue... that is relevant there. Anyway, let's work a bit more on the Title options themselves, ok? Then I need to call it a night soon. Thanks!! HG | Talk 06:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) WP:WAX ~ WP:ALLORNOTHING

Oh, I completely agree with you we need a policy based approach. If policy supports the article towards which N-word redirects, in spite of it being offensive, then why not Israeli apartheid? The crux of the matter is that those who want title change argue that it is not a neutral title, whereas there is no other alternative that keeps the topic, as policy requires. Ask yourself why after a year we are still stuck with a WP:WTA violating title? For another article subjected to the same treatment by pretty much the same set of editors, try Zionism and racism allegations. Welcome to the thankless job of trying to move wikipedia forward inspite of the POV pushers... Thanks! --Cerejota 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You argue hard, then emphasize agreement and give me a welcome. You're great. I've got to chill out and try to sleep. If you want to respond now to my intepretive rebuttal to your "If policy supports...." (above) approach, then I would stay up (msg my Talk). Because I would love for you to start saying "If the AfD decisions support..." and thereby differentiate the value of precedent vs. the WP policy. Otherwise, I'll retire for the night (ie early morning) and read later whether you'd be open to the possibility that policy is not set in stone here (even if the judges are making admittedly systematic decisions). P.S. What we really need is to stabilize all these arguments onto a stable wiki page (not a Talk), presenting claims, counter-claims and defenses, so everybody can see the structured content of this debate. Thanks! HG | Talk 07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean like this Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/ProposedChange? Look at the creation date... Thanks!--Cerejota 07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry! I was referring to OUR debate! Set up a wiki page to explain and represent for folks our argument about the grounds for a name change. For example:
 * Proposed: Rename AoIA to a synonymous name based on the...
 * Grounds (G3 in Talk) that an Article Name ought to be neutral
 * Counter-argument (C1) to G3: Names do not need to be neutral because of NCON. Why? Because interpretation of evidencemeans that: Controversial names are valid during POV disputes....
 * Agreed upon evidence(s): NCON Policy quotation(s)
 * G3's Rebuttal (see my proposed interpretation ....)
 * Defense against rebuttal (shoe's on your foot....)
 * Counter-argument (C2) to G3: If there are precedents to keep epithets, this epithet also should be kept.
 * G3's rebuttal (e.g., AfD guideline on "If a lousy X article exists, so should this one") WP:WAX ~ WP:ALLORNOTHING
 * So, our argument gets present clearly for others to read and edit and raise new evidence/reasons. Similar argument could be presented, say, on all the rehashed discussion of Merge proposals. I just want to see the argumentation recorded, not simply repeated over and over on long talk/AfD pages.

Also, what do you think of this draft (I'm too tired to put in on the Talk...)
 * Third, on interpreting NCON. This point may be helpful in figuring out how to get out of this mess. Yes, there is an intense POV dispute. A POV dispute "means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not." NCON says don't settle the dispute through the name. I agree. Some folks no doubt have tried improperly to promote their POV thru biased re/naming. However, as far as I know, nobody claims that the current name is neutral. The disputing parties "simply" can't agree on a less biased, more neutral name. So, let's give them a more neutral name which NOT settle their POV dispute about content. What kind of name can ensure that the POV dispute will continue?! Answer: a title that is a roughly synonymous name(s) with AoIA -- and more neutral via objective criteria. Indeed, in the Requested Move to a synonymous name, the proposal could ask voters to affirm that the new name is not intended to strengthen any side of the POV-dispute over article contents. /thanks C! HG | Talk 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ... and au revoir for now

Greetings. Thanks again for your time yesterday. You've helped me refine my thinking. Anyway, my latest version of the argument outline (above) I've just added as a draft Request Move in Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. You'll see your influences, though I'm afraid I still won't convince you. Thanks! HG | Talk 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your supporting note about the AoIA list of candidate titles. Since I'll be on the road for a couple of weeks, I'm curious -- What do you think might happen? Do you think there's a core group that could request a move, or at least a straw pole, in the near future? You, G-Dett, now Jossi too. Or does something else need to happen? Anything else I can help out with before I leave? Take care, HG | Talk 06:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, but I hope jossi's "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" formulation wins over people, if not in my preferred version, in some other similar version. It is simply the best proposal to deal with the sensitive issue of "Israeli apartheid", and I think it can't be beat.


 * I also must thank you for your contributions, as they seem to have put us in the right track.


 * Also note that the ArbCom has reversed itself: it went from 5 to 1 for decline to 7 to 1 to accept. This is a very rare occurrence, and it is not without concern that I look to its beginning. I just hope the result is productive. This might affect how the editing goes. It can also distract editors from editing or participating in discussions. I certainly hope this is not the case, but that can happen. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a quiet aside, I note that you have been adding some comments on the proposals page under the headings reserved for arbitrators. You might want to move them.  Risker 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake, I have reversed some and are going over them to fix them. Thanks anyways!--Cerejota 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was actually two total. Hardly a blip in my dozens of comments, thanks anyways! --Cerejota 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I recognize you were adding quite a bit of information, as is appropriate for a party. As this issue has generated so much heat, however, I figured you'd rather have the opportunity to do that tidying yourself rather than have another party or one of the arbitrators pointedly correct you. Risker 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I dully understand, better safe than sorry. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you are moving an article without consensus?
Or should I say, in spite of consensus? BYT 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool down... I misread you, and felt emmboldened... please see the talk page of the article... Thanks!--Cerejota 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazil
If there's any consensus it's that the article shouldn't have the phrase "Brazilian apartheid" in the title under any circumstances as that is an original research phrase. Lothar of the Hill People 01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There might or might not be consensus, but it is entirely incorrect to state it is OR. I provided a reliable academic secondary source in Portuguese titled "Apartheid Brasileiro" (Brazilian apartheid), and the phrase returns over 550 google hits. Hardly OR. So you can disagree, but please do not do so under false pretenses. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the google hits for "Brazilian apartheid" are references to a single article, "Brazilian apartheid: street kids and the struggle for urban space". Also, Crejota, when you are arguing or disagreeing with someone ending each post with "Thanks!" looks sarcastic and rude. Lothar of the Hill People 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, my "Thanks!" are because even if we disagree, we are in this project together, and I assume we share the same goals of bulding an encyclopedia. I apologize if you find it offensive, but I find it gives me hope and reminds me that no matter how hard the situation, my fellow wikipedians are for the most part smart, dedicated people trying to create the world's largest information resource. A per content issues, I would rather discuss them in the talk page were other editors can become engaged. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should use the Spanish word then since, quite honestly, when you use "thanks" in that way it looks sarcastic to native English speakers. Eg "I let you baby sit my cat for a week and now it's dead. Thanks!" Lothar of the Hill People 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should have a better opinion of people, and don't assume they are all sarcastic trolls. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be frank, I was somewhat annoyed at your suggestion that I was trying to "force a merge" particularly when I oppose the merge in question. Lothar of the Hill People 02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for getting angry with you, I think we're generally on the same side. I think there's enough material there for an article on "apartheid" in Brazil. I just found what I took as a personal accusation irritating, especially given the facts. Lothar of the Hill People 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, apology accepted. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing Chabad
I tried editing the Chabad article, just before the current edit war. The problem is that there is a group of Chabad editors who intend to prevent the participation of even other Jews if they are not Chabad. The net result is an article that is using Wikipedia as a free web host for the promotion of the Chabad movement's activities. I do not believe that Wikipedia has the internal mechanisms to prevent this sort of misuse, and in frustration over the futility of editing the Chabad article I had my user page deleted. Kwork 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saddened you took such an extreme measure, but I disagree that wikipedia doesn't have internal mechanisms to deal with these situations, WP:DR actually describes the process to follow in this case. I think that you are suggesting that single-pupose meatpuppets are owning the article based on religion. Is this correct?


 * However, have you considered that perhaps this is only a set of interested parties who wish to retain a self-descriptive article on their own religion? While I am still looking into the issues at hand, and its history, involved editors, etc, I think wikipedia has had enough debates around religion to see that a consensus emerge that self-description, with separate sections/sub-pages for criticism/branches/related topics.


 * A clear example is Scientology/Scientology controversy/Free Zone (Scientology) et al. They are still controversial pages, but the solution has considerably settled down disruptiveness, and increased article quality.


 * I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but I do think considering this perspective is important. I also ask that you consider WP:DR process if you feel you can aproach it assuming good faith. Be advised however that an informal mediation effort exists already, in which the issues you are raising are being touched upon. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that the Chabad editors of the Chabad article(s) have the best of intentions, as they see it. They have studied, and understand, the rules of Wikipedia very well (far better than I ever will), but not with the intention of following them but rather with the intention of using them to gain their own ends. I do not blame them for this because they genuinely believe their success in their project could effect the destiny of the world if they succeed. Chabad rabbis have told me that "Chasidus is life!" It is not possible to overestimate their commitment to their project. The problem is that, in their religious efforts here, they are misusing Wikipedia to achieve what they believe is best. They know they are doing that, but do not care because doing the work indicated by their Rebbe, promoting the teaching of Chabad Chasidut, comes before everything else. I think that approach is understandable, but it is misguided....and it certainly is not good for Wikipedia.

Savlanoot! ('patience', which you will certainly need in mediating this dispute) Kwork 17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will respond to the mediation as soon as I can. Real Life has jumped me the past two days.  Thanks.  Abe Froman 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do so in the mediation page. This editor has establish his disinterest in continuing to edit, and his comments, while deserving response, are relevant on to the case. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian apartheid
I see Lothar has engaged you about this above. But I have to say, man, it really pissed me off when you called us "meat puppets", claimed we don't "know jack" about this subject, et cetera. I may have expected such harsh words from others involved in this debate, but certainly not from you.

The bottom line is, whether there is useful material here or not, Wikipedia is only stuck with this article because it's about a non-English speaking, developing country whose citizens do not have a major presence in our project (Editors in the US quickly called bullshit on the American apartheid article, for example). You can claim I have some ulterior motive in relation to the "allegations of apartheid" debate, but in reality, my involvement in that stems entirely from this article. This originates in my interest in New World topics, not that I should have to justify that to you.

In other words, if this is a truly important topic, why wasn't it at least mentioned at Human rights in Brazil? Or at least, why did it take so long to create that it had to be started by two random editors for political reasons? If Urthogie and Jayjg actually thought this topic was notable in and of itself, they sure didn't try to link it to other Brazilian society articles, but only the other manufactured "allegations of aparthedeid" articles. My point (and I'd imagine the other editors' points) in moving the page to "Social apartheid..." was that this at least has some secondary sources discussing it. Invoking the other styles of alleged apartheid in Brazil seems like an attempt to justify a periferally-relevant article created in bad faith.

At any rate, I hope we can move past this, and achieve actual progress.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to justify, but I did WP:POTted you, so I think you are addressing that. I apologize if I was harsh, but I do not think I was uncivil, simply forceful.


 * As to why it was not included in that article, I don't know.


 * Perhaps the editors didn't care to look for the sources?


 * In the case of the Lula quote, it has indeed existed at some other point. As you point out, Brazil is pretty under-represented, and this might be why. Just to give you an example, in Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid one of the sources was not web available, but I looked it up in real life, and it reminded me of highly notable allegation regarding a political controversy. This is why I went keep or merge in its AfD.


 * But my main problem with "Social apartheid" is that it ignores other forms that are equally sourced. And the article was actually heavily edited for purpose of fitting this WP:SYNTH model. Thanks! --Cerejota 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For one, I didn't say you were being uncivil, but rather, not assuming good faith. For instance, assuming I didn't "know jack" about the subject, and making claims about my motivations. That is unacceptible. I did make statements about the creators of the article, true, but it was after months of dealing with them and considering their words and actions.


 * As to the "real life" source on Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid, well fine, you may have wanted it kept, but I assume you accept the consensus that saw it deleted. Consensus is harder to gather on articles on other places, for instance countries which don't have a large presence on Wikipedia. If we continued the way it's going, we will be left with a bunch of manufactured articles on such countries, while articles on English speaking, developed countries will be deleted by consensus. Perhaps there is more merit to the Brazilian apartheid article than, say, Scottish apartheid or Canadian apartheid, but consensus on that point will never be determined if you brush off the opinions of editors who happen to disagree with you without reason to do so.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Meat puppets
Crejota, a meat puppet is someone who is editing on instructions of someone else. This is why your words were so offensive. What actually are you implyling when you are accusing us of being "almost-meat puppets"? On whose behalf are you accusing us of working? Please do not throw out inflammatory accusations like this again - it is uncivil. Lothar of the Hill People 03:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A bunch of editors who had never had any interest on a topic that all of the sudden edit in unison? How do you call that? I said almost, but please review: A spade is a. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained to you above why your interpretation of this is incorrect, and yet you insist on assuming bad faith. Lothar and I have never had any contact beyond this discussion, and I have edited numerous articles on Latin America, as well as other articles in this manufactured allegations of apartheid "series". I'm sure there are more productive lines of dialogue we could be following. If anything, please drop the language, I'm sure you know it's provocative and distracting.--Cúchullain t/ c 09:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then stop cluttering my talk page. Its funny how even in my talk page you guys act in unison. I mean, I can assume all the good faith in the world, but look at how you guys are behaving... Thanks!--Cerejota 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Untenable allegations are even less productive than your quoting Wikipedia essays to illustrate your point. Your talk page is the place to discuss this; if you insult several editors, it doesn't mean they are a cabal just because they all get insulted. But this is getting us nowhere, if you have anything useful to contribute, we can discuss on article's talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 09:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * .*Yawn* It took you this long to realize "this is getting us nowhere"? Thanks! --Cerejota 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Crejota, "meat puppet" does not mean editors who act in unison, it means editors who are controlled by someone else. To be an "almost meat puppet" there needs to be a puppeteer or an "almost puppeteer" and there isn't one. If you want to insult people who are united in disagreeing with you, fine, but at least use an epithet that actually applies. Lothar of the Hill People 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Productive
I am not convinced by your last explanation concerning the words I copied/pasted here. Nevertheless, your last comments are quite clear : Unfortunately, experience learns that when people claim for justice, it is very difficult for them to agree dealing with compromise. Don't forget that wikipedia is not an essay for a new kind of society and that we are not trying to show people how to behave to solve the israeli-palestinian conflict but we are writing an encyclopaedia. Alithien 10:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever the quality of any choice, when some/many others disagree deeply with it, we have to suggest alternatives. That is indeed the only issue WP offers today, unless some decide to become freedom's fighters/terrorists such as our WP:POINTers on a WP:Battlefield.


 * Alithien, I didn't write the text you are quoting, I think you posted it in the wrong userpage. I do agree with "wikipedia is not an essay for a new kind of society and that we are not trying to show people how to behave to solve the israeli-palestinian conflict but we are writing an encyclopaedia." Thanks!--Cerejota 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ? Alithien 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, unrelated diff. Why are you quoting me as saying "whatever the quality of any choice, when some/many others disagree deeply with it, we have to suggest alternatives. That is indeed the only issue WP offers today, unless some decide to become freedom's fighters/terrorists such as our WP:POINTers on a WP:Battlefield.". I didn't say this. I do not understand? What is your point? --Cerejota 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When you wrote "I didn't write the text you are quoting", I thought you were talking about the diff I have just given to you and for which your explanation doesn't convince me.
 * Concerning the alleged quoting : it is not a quote. It is the way I understand your point :
 * Don't you think that whatever the quality of any choice, when some/many others disagree deeply with it, we have to suggest alternatives ?
 * After, it was my own comments about what I understand as your point.
 * Alithien 12:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand now, however, you should have stated so when you first posted, and included the diff. I truly had no idea what you were talking about. That said, I do not want to talk about issues surrounding an ongoing ArbCOm case outside of the ArbCom Workshop. If you have concerns, discuss them there. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the ArbCom case. This has to do with your current behaviour on the talk page of allegations of Israeli apartheid. Go on assuming good faith and be civil and don't insult people who consider merging is the best solution (for an encyclopaedia) even if it is not maybe the best for a good social experience. I keep in mind that "merging" should not bring any consensus. Alithien 12:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alithien, you provided a diff from the arbitration case, however now you claim this has nothing to do with it? And now you claim something else? And claiming I am being uncivil? In the Talk page of allegations of Israeli apartheid? You are obviously trolling. Please do not post in my talk page again. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trolling. Sorry if you don't understand. Alithien 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI
It is not me who say that but I fully understand why he says that. The best way to manipulate a discussion is to move comments away, where it become nearly impossible to understand them. Alithien 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * Oh. And don't make as if you would not understand, please. Alithien 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alithien, your inflammatory, bad faith comment on me not understanding is very unproductive. Anyone whould have been as confused as I was by your comment and the unstructured way it was presented.
 * However, I ask you again to not comment on an ongoing arbitration case in my talk page. Comment in the corresponding section in the Workshop of the arbitration. I think I have repeated myself, and that it should be clear by now. Any further comments from you regarding this matter will be met with AN/I. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not of bad faith ! Thank you. Alithien 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I requested you don't post again in my talk page. Sorry but you give no other choice.. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comps et al
Gracias por tu mensaje y que te vaya bien, SqueakBox 01:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * gracias a ti por ofrecer a ayudar por encima de las diferencias, the project wins that way ;)--Cerejota 01:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and AAB goes way back with me, pues mucho más que el español, SqueakBox 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Good points on that evidence. Clearly, we need more pirates to combat global warming. But, you are supposed to put your evidence in your own section. -- 146.115.58.152 08:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop it!
Cerejota, there is a clear consensus at Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid to rename the page. You are the ONLY editor who disagrees and you have NO right to veto consensus. If you revert again I can predict that your edit-warring and contempt for consensus at the Brazilian page will be added to the existing ArbComm page and since your behavior has already resulted in one complaint I think you should avoid breaching the rules any further. Lothar of the Hill People 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I deeply disagree with you assessment. Compare the process of discussion at AoIA with the joke "process" in Brazil. My objections ar ebased on clear content matters. There is no consensus, the discussion has been basically "I don't like it". That is not a legitimate process. Railroading consensus taking advantage of the ArbCom is very pointy. I will remain within 3RR etc, but what you people are doing is incredibly harmful. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Query for you
I posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:Revocation_of_GFDL_is_not_permitted for you. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article
Cerejota, since you seem very clear headed in dealing with difficult disputes (as in the Chabad mediation) I wonder if I could get some help from you in what is becoming an increasingly chaotic editing situation. Or if not, if you could suggest a course to take. There is a mediation request, but in the mean time the situation is becoming more difficult rather quickly. Thanks. Kwork 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and advice. The problem is I really should not be allowed to use a computer, because I have no idea of how to get the necessary computer commands to work. I would not dream of editing in an article if I did not know the subject very well, but with this computer stuff I am at a loss. I will try to figure out the request for mediation tomorrow. Thanks again. Kwork 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"provide diffs"?! It took me some searching to figure out what a diff is. I can explain myself in sentences and paragraphs, but I am too out of place in this Wikipedia world of computer experts. Although I was offered some kind help by another editor of the article, I really don't think I can do it. I do appreciate your helpfulness. Kwork 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses a system whereas pretty much everything ever stored is kept, forever. It also stored changes ina sequential order, so that you can go back to previous versions. You can see how that works by clicking on the "history" link on the top of the page. A "diff" is usually a link provided to a previous version of a page that highlights the items in question. If you need assitance with this, you can always put helpme in your talk page wiht brief description of what you need. Someone will eventually help you. Thanks! --Cerejota 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks. I will do some work on it. There is an RfC (not requested by me), I know you are busy, but if you get a chance you're taking a look would be appreciated. Kwork 01:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As the result of a rapidly changing situation, with new editors arriving and old editors returning, I have not done anything about requesting mediation, and probably will not. The article is a example of how cultists concerned with their own article make anything honest impossible. Statements are added that are distortions (at best), but no one who reads the article will have any way of knowing that. And, of course, the editors distorting Alice Bailey's writing are all good people who believe that a whitewash is justifiable for the good of the Teaching. The "neutral" person there for the RfC has admitted to loving Alice Bailey's books. The situation is hopeless, but I have no justification to complain since I already said that the overall situation at Wikipedia is hopeless and beyond correction.

It will be the same with the Chabad article. Your patience will do much to resolve the animosity between two individual editors; but, in the end, the article itself will remain be a piece of Chabad self promotion, using Wikipedia as a free web host, and the editors will feel that is justified because their intentions are good.

I do not know if I will continue to edit the article or not. Its probably pointless because the numbers are against me, and I lack the Wikipedia skills necessary to fight this effectively....but I do hate to give up on something I have started. Kwork 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. I'm sorry we did not get along all that well. I don't think I'll do much more here on agriculture. Actually, I've been looking for an excuse to find a new hobby other than wikipedia for a while now, so maybe I'll have little to do with wikipedia on any topic for a while. I do want to leave you with two things though. First, my idea of what wikipedia should be is exampled in articles like: Neutrino, Gauge theory, and Influenza. I was hoping to have agriculture articles based on the best sources. Newspapers are a very poor source for accurate data on management, history, science, and technology. Second, part of the reason the article was deleted was said to be that people did not know what parts I wrote and what parts I copied. So I'll provide you here with what I did not copy from elsewhere in wikipedia, and you can choose to use it or not as you see fit. WAS 4.250 11:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WAS, I also am sorry we do not get along well. However, it is you who launches insult after insult, and makes it impossible to engage in dialog.


 * I do appreciate your concerns and have described some of your contribution as valuable, including your lists. However, there is no deadline in wikipedia, and content needs to has community discussions, and follow procedures etc. You just cannot go around putting things up because you think it is right.


 * Furthermore, the content issues you refer to are subject to continues revision and debate, and mainstream sources are not limited to newspapers, but include respected popular scientific journals like Discover and Scientific America. Yet, as I have mentioned before, your refusal to engage in a mediation process is the key issue here: a mediation is good-faith effort to resolve conflicts, and the refusal to engage in it is looked upon by some in the community as a sign of bad faith. Had you engaged in this process, perhaps a lot more of your suggestions would have been implemented.


 * Lastly, you appear to feign ignorance and even claim a stance of being a simple editor whose best intentions where crushed under the weight of the amaterur community in wikipedia. This is sheer disingeneousness. You are an editor who has been exposed, byt third parties neutral to any disputes to a number of behavioral and content policies, and have chosen to ignore them. You cabnnot blame the community for protecting itself from people who do not heed warnings. It is unfortunate that experienced editors have urged you on instead of trying to educate you as part of their efforts to push POV, but thats another matter. Again, I hope you join mediation, and I hope you continue to contribute, but I also hope you cool down and learn to follow WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal?
I think you'll actually find on closer inspection that was not vandalism, and that using an automated tool to revert me was the single most inappropriate move you could have made. The page as you left is wrong, inaccurate and badly written to boot. Splash - tk 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cool down. Where did I accuse you of vandalism? As to why I reverted you, I just put in an explanation. Thanks! --Cerejota 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You used an automated reversion tool. The administrator version of this is used only for the reversal of simply vandalism, I'm surprised you don't know that (see WP:REVERT for example). Clearly, you're not an admin, but using the tools you do have properly is still quite nice. Writing someone an edit summary, or editing their work rather than replacing it with writing that contains actual errors is simply common courtesy. The page as you left it, is wrong, inaccurate, and badly-written to boot. Splash - tk 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * UNSUBSCRIBE. Go to the talk page and kindly explain why. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear me, that doesn't strike me as a terribly nice way to speak to someone. I have explained why, in that section your talking about hyperbole in, and here I thought I'd talk to you about the way you carried out a particular edit. I think that's the right way to divide up the conversation. Still, if you have 'unsubscribed', I suppose you're not open to discussion any more. Ah well. Splash - tk 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As if someone who writes the header "what a bloody mess" is expected to be a profoundly reasonable, civil, and erudite person. Please, WP:POTty training for you! :P --Cerejota 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Prwolverine
Congratulations for reverting Prwolverine's politically-motivated edits. A review of his recent contributions suggests he only focuses on articles relating to his political party in Puerto Rico and all his unsourced and biased edits are evidently geared to defend the current party president and lash out against the two party leaders who oppose him. Wikipedia shouldn't be a political battlefield. Thanks for preventing that it becomes one.Pr4ever 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of British Chinese people. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corpx 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice
To those interested, the article "Puerto Ricans in NASA" has been placed for deletion: Articles for deletion/Puerto Ricans in NASA Tony the Marine 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Friendy chat
About Puerto Ricans in NASA. It seems to me that these guys who oppose have a little gang that gets it "kicks" from deletions, see:. They do not contribute anyting positive such as articles, to Wikipedia, but enjoy destroying what others have gone through a lot of trouble creating. If the article gets deleted then, I will write bios about the more notable Boricuas in NASA. Cheers! Tony the Marine 07:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Business Wire
Thanks for the feedback and education on editing guidelines. As I'm a representative of Business Wire, I'll limit my comments and suggestions to the discussion page of the site going forward to honor the COI guidelines. Becktold 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)becktold

Barnstar
Your conributions to Puerto Rican related article have been exceptional and for me it is an honor to present you with the "Boricua Tireless Barnstar" Tony the Marine 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)



Puerto Ricans in NASA
To all my friends,

As you all know by now, the article "Puerto Ricans in NASA" was deleted and we must accept the decision of the closing administrator I my self am not upset because I know that together we came come up with an acceptable alternative and I encourage all of you to join me in this quest.The creation of a well written list seems like a good idea and therefore you are all more then welcome to use the contents of the original article, which the closing admin. was kind enough to store here: User:Marine 69-71/Puerto Ricans in NASA as its foundation base. Not only do we owe it the Puerto Ricans who have made great contributions to the Space Program, but to our children and people who may someday be inspired by said article.

I admit that I was disappointed that consensus was ignored, but what worries me the most is that this may become a trend for the deletionists who, in some cases, may have anti-Hispanic sentiments, however it is all water under the bridge now. I have already started witting the bios of our scientists in NASA, which can be used in any future project. we may have lost a battle, but not the war. Que Dios me lo Bendiga a todos. Tony the Marine 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)