User talk:MPerel/Archive 2004

'''Note: This is an archive. Please post new comments at my live talk page User talk:MPerel'''

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
 * The ability to start new pages.
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
 * The ability to upload images.
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
 * The eligibility to eventually become an administrator.
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by  [ creating an account] . Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;, which will let others know who left it. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:25, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Aburish information
Thanks for finding that information on Aburish, I hadn't actually investigated the inserted claim that he was a Lebanese Christian. Considering the source of the claim, shame on me. You've entered Wikipedia in a particularly fractious time and area; a number of POV warriors are currently working to insert POV (point of view) bias into a series of articles related to Israel, Jews, and the Israeli-Arab conflict. If you go to my user page at Jayjg you'll see a relatively up-to-date list of the articles they are currently attempting to vandalize. Please don't be discouraged if their responses to you on the talk pages turn ugly, violating the No personal attacks policy; this is a consistent behaviour of these POV warriors. If and when that occurs, I strongly recommend not returning their abuse in kind; though at times you might be tempted to sink to their level, ultimately it's not worth letting these things get to you. Jayjg 17:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me, but...
Thanks for defending me at Talk:Yasser Arafat, but the object of your admonition does not care about Wikipedia policies (e.g. NPOV, No personal attacks, Civility, Assume good faith, Three revert rule, etc.) so you're wasting your time. Your time would probably be better spent editing some of the illiterate POV Wikicrap that anons keep insisting on inserting into the article, it's turning the article into a joke. Jayjg 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * True enough. Well you have a lot of patience to continue here.  To be honest, Wiki doesn't seem to be a very hospitable environment to be able to contribute much with propagandists allowed to run wild bullying people.  I'm not sure scholarly consensus is possible until something is done to reign in the obnoxious bullies.  And so I'm not sure I'm willing to exert much effort here.  I don't know who are the powers-that-be at Wikipedia, but it seems like it would be helpful to have some sort of editing screening process on controversial articles.  For example, let anyone talk on the talk pages to help come to consensus, but limit the number of people who can actually edit the article.  And the article should not contain content that wasn't first discussed and agreed upon on the talk page.  Just my two cents worth. MPerel 21:09, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) (p.s., I guess I should post this on your user page, not mine).

Yasser Arafat
You are doing a great job on Yasser Arafat. Thank you for your hard work. --Viriditas 04:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC
Hello. HistoryBuffEr has filed an RfC against me. I thought I'd let you know, in case you have any interest in commenting. – Quadell (talk) (help)  19:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr is violating arbitration procedures
See my comments on Fred Bauder's talk page. This is very serious, as we will now have to analyze every single edit in the arbitration history page. --Viriditas 09:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr
Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell (talk) (help)  16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence by date
Aloha. I like what you have added to Alberuni's arbitration, but do you think you can list it by each date, instead of under one date? If you want to refer to other dates, just add a wiki link (See inline_date ) to the arb evidence. I understand that you are trying to make a point, but I think we can avoid duplicating evidence if we list by actual dates. That way, contributing authors can glance at the dates to avoid dupes. Let me know what you think. Also, you may want to describe this link in a little more detail, because I think the intent and the content of that link justifies a complete and total ban of the user in question, since it violates practically every known Wikipedia policy and guideline, and the user does so knowingly and willingly. The user in question has been warned about this type of behavior for more than three months prior to that edit (and warnings should be referred to on the evidence page) so there can be no excuse whatsoever for this type of malicious editing. --Viriditas 03:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. In addition to the fact that the first eight contributions for 12.168.24.203 were made earlier on the same day and in the same article as Alberuni's first post, he also went back and edited contributions by 12.168.24.203 while logged in as Alberuni: only the history diffs record these changes since Alberuni did not sign these comments. I will make mention of this strange editing behavior by Alberuni in my evidence section. Likewise, let me know what you think of my evidence. Any feedback or critical suggestion on the presentation would be greatly appreciated. --Viriditas 03:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arafat
Thanks for your kind comments. I'll think about it; but fixing Sabra & Shatila took up a huge amount of time, and I'm not sure I have time to do something like that again just yet. - Mustafaa 22:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate
Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! Incidently, I've noticed your edits on a few articles, and for what it's worth I reckon you have made some great attempts at NPOV work. Keep it up, Wikipedia needs editors like yourself! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams & Historicity of Jesus as well as some thanks
Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were totally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

(note that I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the nice comments. As I said on my talk page, I'm crushed, and for a moth that's serious! ;-) -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
I'll be a good Arbitrator, I hope. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

What he said. Thank you. :) Ambi 05:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet of the sockpuppet User:Goldberg
Please check the contribs of User:Wiesenthaler. Jewbacca 04:40, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

195.7.55.146 (contribs) is likely the same sock. --Viriditas | Talk 05:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Special contributions
FYI...to link inline to special contributions, you can use the following, where XX is the user name or IP address: Special:Contributions/User:XX --Viriditas | Talk 05:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR
I notice that IrishPumpkon (or whatever his name is) did not revert more than three times. Instead, they added information about a letter. Why did you revert this? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, he reverted 4x and I put the links on your talk page, including what he reverted to each time. And it was actually 5x if you include the original revert under his ip. And I actually did post Talk on Arafat a few days ago to dialogue with him about which edits of his edits I agreed with and which I disagreed with, and I made changes here , but he never responded to my comments to him, he only came back and kept reverting several people back to his version, even reverting to his grammar errors. --MPerel 01:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I just checked and he certainly did revert too many times. But he needed to have been warned first.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, and for explaining the proper procedure for handling this. --MPerel 16:54, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Committee
I must say I don't really understand what happened at Mediation Committee. Are you saying "No offence" about you striking of your comments? And I guess I should ask what motivated you to change your mind... BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 07:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The way you blew me off when I sought your help with a situation was frustrating, and I'm not sure your manner will be very helpful in diffusing mediation situations. For that reason, I withdrew support.  I'm not opposing, I just don't presently feel I can extend that extra boost of endorsement, based on my experience so far with you.  That said, I'm sure I was too impatient with the editor I brought to your attention for 3RR.  However, that will be the reality of mediation situations, people will come to you in heated situations, much more worked up than I was I'm sure.  Let me ask you then, what will be your basic strategy in trying to bring frustrated parties to resolution?  --MPerel 16:53, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * (Copied from my user talk page) All due respect, I did not blow you off. I politely explained (or so I thought) that I simply decided I'd rather not get involved in that particluar situation.  That said - My basic strategy in mediation is simple - I intend to encourage the parties to assume good faith and consider the merits of one another and their contributions, and hopefully by extension the possibility that the other party has something good to offer.  I find oftentimes disputes are caused and then exacerbated by the refusal of one or both parties to assume good faith.  I intend to remind parties that Wikipedia is a freely-editable, community project, and as such, no one person owns any article;  you have to allow and accept other people's contributions sometimes.  I think when an editor puts a lot of hard work into an article they get perfectionisty and lose sight of that. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 20:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:IFD
MPerel, could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, of course. That's terrible.  --MPerel 17:03, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your support on my RFA request. It seems that had I waited one day with self-nominating, it would have succeeded. Jordi·✆ 09:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)