User talk:HupHollandHup

no sig

 * You forgot to add your sig when you templated User talk:Shoplifter. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. thanks. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Before giving me a warning, you should've taken a look at the talk I had with Mhazard9 on the issue (which I presume you didn't, since you didn't mention it). Also notice that I intentionally limited myself to three reverts for this reason, even though named user at first refused to cooperate or even discuss the issue.
 * Moral of the story: It's easy to throw around warnings; it's harder to have good reasons for them. Shoplifter (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a very good reason for the warning, it is spelled out here. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect that view, that there's no entitlement to three reverts (even though that isn't chiseled in stone). And, as you can see from the history, I did stop at three reverts, which was a few hours ago. The point I'm making is that you obviously weren't concerned about looking into the discussion I had with Mhazard9, and instead opted for giving a warning posthaste. Unnecessary, undiplomatic, in this case. But that's my view. Shoplifter (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a template message on their user talk page." (My emphases). That's the policy. And If I ignored it, I wouldn't have stopped at three reverts a few hours ago, would I?


 * tact


 * ■ noun skill and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.


 * C17 (denoting the sense of touch): via Fr. from L. tactus 'touch, sense of touch', from tangere 'to touch'. Shoplifter (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)~


 * No, I'm full aware that more than three reverts is grounds for a block. I'm also full aware that one does not automatically give out warnings for three reverts, which you apparently aren't. We won't get any further here, it seems, but let me end with a friendly piece of advice: If you want to police Wikipedia (and I have no objections to that), why not be a good cop instead of a bad one? Who listens and tries to discern the issue before swatting with the baton. Alas, given your asserted hopefulness to see me learn things "the hard way", I suppose that's asking too much. Shoplifter (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked through it, and I concede that I had misinterpreted the policy. I now see that what you did was the right, and moderate, thing to do. I apologize for being contentious. Shoplifter (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,
 * thanks - but not clear to me what this is in relation to. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for your kind comments at Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WPO
Somehow I don't think that the World Poker Open lacks notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Hi HupHollandHup. Once I was blocked for calling an anti-Semite cartoonist an "anti-Semite". At that time I had no idea what BLP is, and I was blocked with no prior warning. Of course it really did not matter because even, if I were warned, I would have called the things with their real names anyway. On the other hand a user, who compared Israelis to Nazis (on the same page) was not blocked, but only warned. So, yes, the edit summaries you referred to was a clear violation of BLP. The fact they were made in edit summaries only made the situation worse, but the fairness is rarely in the win on wikipedia. Good luck anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Invention of the Jewish People
HupHollandHup: you have now re-added the same passage (or nearly the same one) into the article four times, regarding Plaut. Please wait to establish a consensus of editors on the talk page before you add the passage again. If not, you may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a correct reading of the situation - in each of the edits I made addressed the (constantly changing) excuses for the content removal - once by providing a new source, once by removing material that some claimed to be a BLP violation, and once to fix an inaccurate quote. I did this over a period of 4 days, while asking for input on the tag team reverting me over at WP:BLPN, and getting community input that their behavior was inappropriate.  HupHollandHup (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's AN/I post, where your edits are mention. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not anyone used unkind edit summaries (which is what you posted about at BLPN) you still need to get consensus somewhere that Steven Plaut's opinion about this book is a net benefit to the article. You are eager that Plaut himself not be smeared, but have not expressed any concern about passing along Plaut's rather crudely negative opinion of Sand, which suggests that Sand is an anti-Semite. Why exactly is this interesting? Isn't Sand joining a very large group of Jews who are also considered anti-Semites by Plaut? EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not complain about "unkind edit summaries" - I complained about BLP violations. BLP is a fundamental wikipedia policy, and violations of it need to be dealt with harshly. You, as an administrator, should know better than to defend them. You are also incorrectly analyzing the situation: In direct response to the concerns some editors have raised about the negative comments made by Plaut about Sand, I removed those comments, leaving in the article only Plaut's opinions of Sand's book. I believe that this is not only just as interesting as a fawning review of Sand's book by an unknown, red-linked French intellectual, published on a BLOG (which you and those other editors so concerned about have no problems with) but required, according to our WP:NPOV policy. As an aside, may I inquire why you found it appropriate to warn me about edit warring, but refrained form issuing a similar warning to Malik, who reverted twice, within an hour, using a BLP-violating edit summary? HupHollandHup (talk)

Recall
I'm sure if you think hard enough, something will come to you. Or you can re-read my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Metropolis
Hmmm... not sure what I was thinking there... definitely not vandalism. All I can think is that I was editing quickly and not paying enough attention to what I was doing. To err is human. Feel free to revert my edit. Thanks for pointing it out. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, I think I was simply not paying attention. Probably editing whilst still half-asleep.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Parasitic technology
I see that you proposed deletion of Parasitic technology. the PROD was disputed, and the article has now gone to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. I didn't know that. I thought that I would try pushing back for a change. The user concerned was being so aggressive, posting repeatedly to my talk page, and his position was so absurd that it got under my skin. Conspiracy theories are as big a problem in the world as bullies. Also on Wikipedia. The problem is, your solution seems to be to allow bullies to bully people. I was bullied today by not one but by two users; the other is a user who I regularly see taking extreme positions and editing very aggressively. This has the effect of making me walk away from Wikipedia, often for days at a time. I suppose that this is what the bullies hope for when they edit and report people, as this one did. It is very effective. I have fun, when I have the time, editing inadequate pages like Southern Wall. But the behavior of some editors makes me stay away of most of Wikipedia's worst and most propaganda-driven articles. It just doesn't feel worth the unpleasantness. So, by and large, the propagandists and bullies win. And some of the worst pages and most absurd misinformation on Wikipedia stays up year after year. There really has to be a better solution.AMuseo (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I believe that I am beginning to understand how this place works.  I will admit to some puzzlement over an editor's suggesiton on the noticeboard that the user simply delete my comments form his talk page.  I had thought that part of the purpose of writing to an editor on his talk page was to create a permanent record of behavior.AMuseo (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again.AMuseo (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior accounts
Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia?  nableezy  - 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No HupHollandHup (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That editor asks that question of just about every editor who makes a edit on an Israel article.   It hardly assumes good faith.  I stopped by to thank you for fixing the lede on the Aqaba rocket attack article.   Thank you.AMuseo (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

re Ambit Energy
Nothing to provide, actually. The version I deleted was an attack page, so I suppose the wrong CSD criterion was used. The version before that, deleted in April 08, was a puff piece that had no sources and was entirely glowing about the company, I would have said it was from a press release if it were well-written, but even press releases aren't that flattering. So any article you make would be far better made from scratch than from one of the deleted versions. --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection at all, the previous versions were not deleted with prejudice. They were deleted based on the merits of the articles, not the subjects. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of International subsidiaries of IBM
thanks Decora (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to conceive of the number of people who died in the Holocaust
When I was a small child and was told that 1.5 million people died in the Holocaust, I was completely incapable of conceiving what that number meant, other than "more people than I will ever meet in my entire life." Now that I am an adult, and the commonly held consensus is that 6 million died in what I believe was probably the greatest tragedy in human history, the only way I can conceive of it is to imagine walking from the northern tip to the southern shores of Manhattan and being the only human being on that island. I have never even for a minute implied that I disbelieve the 6 million figure; that you would verbalize such an assumption is beyond the pale. Risker (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have misunderstood something I wrote, because never did I write that you disbelieve the 6 million figure. Explained in more detail on your talk page. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

J Street
No thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Golan categories
If you continue to wikihound me you may be sanctioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me clear consensus: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can take a look at this as one example -, or this one - there are many others, like Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights which is a sub-cat of both Archaeological sites in Syria and Archaeological sites in Israel - but you know this already. Don't play these games with me. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "clear consensus" in those links "that the neutral treatment of this area is not to say it is in Syria or in Israel" ? and the consensus is: "we say it is in both, or in neither" ? Link to Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights is not consensus for anything, the first link is a conversation between two pro Israeli editors and a blocked sockpuppet, disruptive impersonator who harassed me for a long time, and George, where is the consensus at anything there?

Third link is a 5 years old conversation about the categorys (Geography of..), notice that today there is no (Geography of..) categorys at the Golan heights article, so if there was a "consensus" reached at that discussion, it doesn't exit today.

The main part of that discussion is also Jayjg, who is a desysoped arb who is banned from Arab-Israeli articles for meatpuppeting.

These are just some of the comments:

Jayjg: "it is completely uncontroversial to state that the Golan Heights are currently part of Israel"....... "Since the vast majority of the Golan Heights is not part of Syria,"......He also repeats the false myth: "some sources consider the Golan Heights to be part of Palestine (as they were from 1917-1922), not accepting the territorial adjustments made in 1922 as being legal" - and this is how he "won" the debate with user Yuber.

Doron: "any categorization that is disputed should be avoided - by this rule even the Category:Disputed territories should not be included, as we can't even agree whether the Golan Heights are disputed or universally recognized as Syrian." - They cant even agree the fact that its "universally recognized as Syrian." (notice that disputed cat is in the article today)

IZAK: "When a country launches an unprovoked attack on its neighbor, as did Syria against Israel in 1967, and then loses the war of annihilation it wanted to carry out, then the victorious side, in this case Israel, when it declares its intent to hold onto some of the territory formerly under the control of its vanquished enemy, then it is exteremly ridiculous to present the original aggressor (i.e. Syria) as being "the lawful sovereign claimant" of territory it lost in war that it itself launched. Syria is lucky that the Israelis allowed it to exist as a country altogether, and had not the world powers intervened, Syria would have been wiped off the map as a sovereign state and would have been forced to accept ANY terms Israel would have imposed on it in 1967 (including making Damascus into an "Israeli/Jewish-city".) So in the greater scheme of things, the Golan Heights is "Fiddlesticks", the question really is, should Syria itself in some way be considered part of what some Israelis consider "Greater Israel" which it (i.e. Syria) would have been by now had not the world's powers intervened...Who was it that said: "To the victor belong the spoils"?"

The conversations there brings no consensus for anything, many comments are personal believes, people talking about therye own opinions, myths and illogical analogy's to unrelated subjects. At that point of time it took place, 5 years ago, I don't reckognize the conversation as consensus for anything. The cats they talked about are not even in the article now and almost the same cat doron talked about that they couldn't agree upon is in the article today.

Five years has passed by since that no consensus conversation and there has been many other conversations at the Golan Heights talkpage and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Conversations that led to the infobox saying "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel"

Have you read npov? Due and undue weight? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

So what does this mean? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in responding to your wall of text, or the irrelevant, cherry-picked arguments. The consensus regarding the Golan categories is clear - start an RfC if you think a new one has emerged.

And your recent following me to Pelter Winery makes your claims of hounding rather hypocritical, don't you think? HupHollandHup (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know if there is a "new" one since there isn't a previous consensus about Golan category's, I asked you to show me where the "clear consensus" was, and I'm still waiting for you to show me it. I saw the Pelter Winery article looking through the Golan Heights category, not your contributions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not born yesterday. Following me to an article I created a week ago and then complaining about me hounding you is not only hypocritical, but will look very bad for you should you decide to pursue the hounding charges further. HupHollandHup (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear by the Qur'an that I saw it looking through the Golan Heights category, not your contributions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you can see evidence of what I mentioned above: This was a Checkuser, Arbitrator, Oversight, Admin who has been involved in meatpuppetry, his troublesome behavior later got him desysoped and banned from Arab-Israeli articles. So if there was a "clear consensus" developed at any discussion related to the Arab-Israeli conflict where he was the main participant, which there isn't in that link you provided, but even if there was a "clear consensus", it would be obsolete and with no valid or authoritative effect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. The consensus is clear, based on numerous examples I've shown you, including current ones. If you think a new consensus has emerged, start an RfC. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not shown me one single example of consensus, and even if you believe the last one was consensus, its invalid per Jayjg. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've shown you numerous ones, above, please re-read. This discussion is now over - please leave my Talk page. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read and reply in full to: Where is the consensus? Who agrees to this "consensus" and what are the arguments for it?  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it and responded to it. You don't like the response, tough for you. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, that's all is a bunch of lies. The user has never been involved meatpupperty and has never been de-sysoped. Please do not spread a false gossips. At least it is good you didn't "swear by the Qur'an" as you did on other occasion--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont call me a liar: Meatpuppetry: Desysoped: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above doesn't say anything about a desysoping, therefor, I think the "Liar" label is quit accurate. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was admin privileges revoked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No admin privileges were revoked--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not desysoped and his admin privileges were not revoked. That you keep repeating this falsehood now that it has been pointed out to you more than once, by more than one person, does not look very good. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, there's nothing in the case about "meatpuppeting", there were no sanctions for meatpuppeting, Jayjg wasn't de-adminned, and none of that has anything at all to do with the consensus of that discussion, which was valid.Please once and for all stop your false accusations.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was meatpuppeting in the arbcase, (I saw now that I said here that he was banned from Arab-Israeli articles for meatpuppeting, this was incorrect, and I take that back) The meatpuppeting was in this incident:. In a later Arbcase because of Jayjgs behavior in  Arab-Israeli conflict articles, he lost privileges he had received as an admin such as: access to CheckUser tool and the checkuser-l mailing list, access to Oversight tool and the oversight-l mailing list, access to the functionaries-en mailing list, and he was banned from Arab-Israeli articles. So considering his behavior in the A-I conflict, and evidence of his meatpuppeting, if there had been any "consensus" at any of the discussions within the A-I conflict where he has been one of the main contributors, it would not have been valid. What is the "consensus" of a discussion that you are referring to that is valid? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah, well...
when I accidentally press the wrong button, would you read the following null-edit before jumping the gun? thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page
I may be new to this but I am smart enough to know what you hoped you might get out of that. I have never had a previous account, although I had previously made a few anon edits once in a while before taking the plunge and signing up. I seem to have unwittingly stumbled upon a sensitive topic here re the article we are discussing, and am feeling ganged up on. You must feel very strongly against the implication of the text on the article for you to behave like this - i.e. since you have been unable to successfully use logic or facts to win the debate, you try to undermine me personally with this tactic. I am happy to forgive and forget here, as I would like to continue to work with you to improve the article. There simply must be a better middle ground than the one which you have suggested, but we will only get there if you acknowledge the underlying issue with the article.Oncenawhile (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed you do anything wrong but I haven't looked through your edits or anything. Just so you are on the same page as everyone else here is a quick note: As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. I understand you are currently being accused of being a sock puppet so you might already know but I would prefer to assume that you are not.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI
I'm not sure if you've been informed about this SPI. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * wasn't aware of it, thanks. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What was confirmed? HupHollandHup (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)