User talk:Mackan79/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sr13 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Khalidi
I will bring some links that I believe may have been part of the article at one time that demonstrate support for labeling him Anti-Zionist. As not all of these sources are acceptable for wikipedia, until I have more time to analyze the issues directly, I will refrain from reverting its removal for the time being.


 * http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1234
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22577-2004May12_2.html
 * http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2004_01_05.htm
 * http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/28/1454248
 * http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/500
 * http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/04/28/news/12783.shtml

Remember, it is not what we think Khalidi is or is not, but if there exist reliable sources that claim he is. Wikipedia cannot have original synthesis, either positive or negative, it can only bring from other places, so if reliable sources call him anti-Israel, then the category is appropriate regardless of your or my personal opinions. Thanks. -- Avi 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Count Bernadotte
Please cease from removing sourced material from the article. This is sourced and relevant. This is not allowed in wikipedia. Amoruso 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Mackan, you're in danger of violating 3RR at Zionism. I'm leaving this warning in case you're not familiar with the 3RR policy, which you can review at WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your posts
The problem is that your responses are too long, which is why they aren't being read. You're expressing frustration, but please try to see it from another point of view. I've asked you the same question about five times now, and I still don't have a response that's readable, which is frustrating for me. Please just say in one sentence what is misleading about including the historical material, because I genuinely don't see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be helpful if you would stop reverting. You're the one who wants to make the change, and so you should simply argue your case (succinctly) on the talk page and try to persuade people, rather than making changes even though people are objecting and clearly not understanding your argument. If you make a good case, we may end up agreeing with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I think the problem may be that you've misunderstood the sentence. Just as "Land of Israel" doesn't refer to the State of Israel (a previous confusion), "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation-state. It can refer to a people. Jewish nationhood developed and didn't go away. It went through periods of decline, where fewer Jews would subscribe to it, and periods of renewal, where more Jews subscribed to it, but it didn't ever disappear. So your point that the nationhood stopped existing 2000 years ago isn't accurate, and perhaps that's the source of the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not at all controversial that "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation state. Even the Wikipedia article makes that clear. "Nationhood" means something closer to "ethnicity." Some nations have their own nation state and some don't. I think your misunderstanding of the first sentence does just boil down to your misunderstanding of the words, but these are linked and can be looked up by anyone else who doesn't understand them. This is quite common in Wikipedia and in other encyclopedias. Not every word can be explained. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link to Nation is not wrong. Have you read it? Look, the words are clear, and that is what nationhood means to the vast majority of people. How can there be a diaspora if there is no nationhood, or are you also going to say there is no diaspora? Anyone who doesn't know what certain words mean can look them up, because we link to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The word means the same in America and in every other English-speaking country. You're simply claiming that "no neutral writer" would include that material in the first sentence, but you haven't yet said why not. I can't keep on having a discussion about what a word means, with respect, when it's perfectly clear, and when the Wikipedia article explains it for anyone who doesn't know. That is why we link to words, so that we don't have to explain the meaning of every single word in every single article. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest, if you didn't know the difference between Land of Israel and State of Israel, or the difference between nationhood and nation-state, then why are you editing in this area? I mean no disrespect by asking this; my point is that this vocabulary crops up frequently in articles about these issues, and if you don't know what the words mean, you're going to come up against these problems time and again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mackan, can I ask that you post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, I saw that current NPOV dispute you're in. I haven't investigated the issue you're dealing with fully, but it looks like you've got the "usual suspects" on you as well (I'm involved with an apparently similar series of disputes elsewhere). Good luck in your endeavors. If you need anything, send me a message. .V. 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your dispute as well. The "usual suspects" are definitely key words here as V has stated. Send me a message as well if you need any advice. I might have some info for you. MetsFan76 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One particularly good way to deal with it can be found at User:.V./NPOV. Just follow those steps and you should be good to go. Also, keep an eye out for misdirection. Oftentimes, if you have a legitimate point, one of the first things to be done is for a functionally irrelevant issue to be brought in as essential to the discussion, so make sure you stick to just what's necessary. Good luck m8. .V. 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is your email turned on here? Might be easier to discuss certain things without having to name them on here. MetsFan76 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. I just tried emailing you and it says that you haven't turned on your email yet. MetsFan76 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan and MetsFan, if you want to contact me to talk about this (maybe we can group email each other on this topic), my email is located on my user page (it's on the right under userboxes.) .V. 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, You asked about mediation. It is described at WP:MEDIATION, but in my opinion it is not a good idea at the moment either for Zionism or Folke Bernadotte. If you calmly compare Folke Bernadotte now to what Amoruso would like it to be, you will have to agree that it got better. That's progress so it's better to work on improving and expanding what's there now than to take it back to previous versions that won't stick. Cheers, Zerotalk 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Folke Bernadotte
You have been blocked for 3RR for 24hrs with respect to this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars
Just a thought -- if you find yourself in an edit war, with anyone, for any reason, just stop and go to the talk page. Nothing is so important that Your Version Must Be In Wikipedia NOW. Step back and talk and most of the irritation and frustration will turn into useful discussion...Also, you need to know that a lot of readers of online stuff are much different from readers of printed stuff -- nature of the medium seems to be that short paragraph writing, almost telegraphic conciseness, is far more effective than longer forms. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR, Bernadotte
Hi Mackan79. The 3RR rule is about the most prescriptive rule we have and if you really did more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period (I didn't try to check) then you broke it. There are very few available defences, such as reverting vandalism (and for this purpose even the rantings of the worst political fanatics don't count as vandalism). Arguing about the motives or behavior of the person you are reverting is a waste of time on the 3RR page; complaints like that should go to another place such as WP:RFC. It is best to just accept it and wait for the expiry of the block. Last time I broke the rule, I just blocked myself to save anyone else the bother. One other thing: my experience from being around here for a few years is that people tend to read the first few sentences of long arguments and not the rest. So usually it is more effective to distill your main points into a few lines than to present a detailed case. On the Bernadotte article: my plan is to expand the part about the Nazi accusations into its own small section with good sources, then (maybe) to move it to later in the article. Then it won't be juxtaposed so jarringly with the account of his rescue mission. Cheers, Zerotalk 03:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

3RR Block Appeal
SlimVirgin made the initial request, but she was heavily involved in the incident, commiting her own 3RR violation at the same time. Is it possible to take a second look? Mackan79 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, SV's statement that I was recreating a section isn't true. I moved a section which was already there after asking her, and she didn't object.  From her previous explanations, I also had no reason to think it had been moved intentionally, and several reasons to think it wasn't.  If she had not been involved in the incident her statements could be taken at face value, but she was very much involved, and in fact the only reason she is not reported right now for her own 3RR violation is because she was succesful in blocking me first while I was in the process of reporting it. Mackan79 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Yamla and I agree that I asked Mackan79 to post the above message. I would like another admin to review the case for unblocking.  --Yamla 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll make this easy. If you'll stop edit warring (and I do not care who else has been edit warring), I'll unblock you. This means working to reach consensus on the talk page of article in question, rather than battling out on the article page. Agree? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jpgordon, thanks for the comment. If you'll change your sentence to "If you'll refrain from edit warring..." then I'll unqualifiedly agree. I just can't agree not to register a similar report against SlimVirgin if I feel like it.  If that's consistent with your condition, then thanks very much.  Best, Mackan79 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no, because you need to stop edit warring; agreeing to "refrain" doesn't mean you admit to having done so, but it's evident you have been. As I've said, in this regard, I don't care who else has been involved. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, if you look at my edits, you'll see the /vast/ majority of them are on talk pages. I've actually been ridiculed for how much I've been talking on talk pages.  Virtually every time I've edited something, it's been with a very full explanation, and virtually every time I've reedited, it's been explained again, along with a change to please the reverter.  This time, SV wikistalked me into the FB article, and reverted me three times without any comment whatsoever.  With another user, I reverted her twice, explaining in extensive detail each time.  That's truly the closest I came at any point to edit-warring.


 * So I'll concede, on that edit, that I should have waited. I pledge that next time I will simply wait.  I simply can't pretend I've been broadly edit warring, though, when I haven't.Mackan79 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, Slim wasn't "wikistalking" you; careful throwing that expression around. Read Harassment; you'll see it says explicitly that wikistalking does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Most of us do exactly the same thing: if we note that an editor is violating WP policy, or making errors, we look at their contributions to see if they've been doing the same thing in other places. Some editors do incorrectly conflate this with the harassment and disruption that constitutes "stalking". I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can jump in here....Jpgordon...have you told SlimVirgin that he needs to stop edit warring as well? To me, this looks like a veteran editor bullying a relatively new one. MetsFan76 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. On the other hand, I agree with what she says: Mackan, you've reverted around 23 times on just a couple of articles since December 11, despite having made only 160 edits to articles overall, and around 48 since December 11, so reverting is a very large percentage of what you do on Wikipedia. You might therefore consider toning down your claims about other people. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but doesn't an edit war usually involve more than one person? MetsFan76 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if I can say, it's not fine, because that is a complete and utter distortion by SlimVirgin. Have you looked at my differences page? I don't know what she based that on, but the reason I've been going back and forth in some instances is that I've been trying to improve certain POV and blatantly defamatory material on several pages on Wikipedia. I have not done it in an aggressive manner whatsoever. On the Zionism page, I made reverts in several instances, always changing my suggestions, only when after multiple attempts I wasn't able to get anyone to respond on the talk page. This was not revert warring; I had no pretensions I'd overpower anyone. If you look at my talk page, I have 1 person accusing me of removing material -- a known controversial user -- while I have 1 warning for a 3RR from SlimVirgin. Again, simply look at my differences page. I have no idea how she even counted my reverts, but whatever it is, it is a completely meaningless statistic.


 * Have you really seen my interaction here? To the extent you have, you seem to have agreed that I talk too much.  I can't believe if you've observed me that you truly think I'm simply an edit warrior. That is the complete antithesis of what I've been doing. Please look at my differences page if you doubt this. Mackan79 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackan.....was that directed at me? MetsFan76 00:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, I appreciate your support very much. I don't think you've seen enough of my interaction in any case to know whether it's a true reflection.  While I also appreciate the time from Jpgordan, though, I also have to admit that I find this very insulting.  I'm restraining myself from saying more.  I appreciate your time, Jp, but I am not an unreasonable person, and I would appreciate the effort to see this from my side, which if you did, you would not be quoting SlimVirgin to me to convince me that I've been reverting people too much. Mackan79 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh ok...well like I said in my email, I definitely support you. I think that SlimVirgin and Humus use bullying-tactics to get their way.  It is very unfortunate.  Are you unblocked yet b/c this is getting ridiculous?  Also, I will make sure some time tonight to read through all your interactions with SlimVirgin.  As an outsider, I might be able to see things differently.  MetsFan76 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No luck so far. Thanks again, though. Mackan79 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat: I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. Anyway, enough of this. Tone it down in general, OK? Regardless of what other people are doing. Keep a cool head. I've unblocked you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats Mackan! Don't let this silly incident keep you from editing though.  SlimVirgin isn't worth it.  MetsFan76 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey...I sent you an email. MetsFan76 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey Tom, is it? You emailed me, right? Sorry for the lack of response; I didn't have an anonymous email set up, so I was concerned with giving out my email. Thanks for the comment in any case. Best, Mackan79 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I see that you have been getting into it with SlimVirgin. I would suggest not getting into battles with her or anybody since its almost always a no win situation. I would suggest trying to get as many other editors invloved so "consensus" can be reached. Certain articles are always going to have people who have a certain POV even though everybody will claim to be neutral, its just human nature. Many articles are very frustrating because people feel very strongly about their position even though Wikipedia's prime directive, if you will, is that you should NOT have one :) Anyways, don't get into revert wars if possible. This is just one very small editors opinion so feel free to totally disregard it and do what you will/want. Cheers!--Tom 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: PCO
Dear Mackan79, I took the liberty of removing the analysis you wrote on my user page for the following reasons:
 * 1) It is rude to write on someone else's user page. Your argument would have been more appropriate on my talk page and you should have allowed me to make my own decision about what would or would not be appropriate on my own user page.
 * 2) Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.
 * 3) Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ever be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective.  --GHcool 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My attack on Pco may be malicious, but I maintain the opinion that I have quoted her fairly. Consider the context: "'I think that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea - Mahmood must have learned something. At least now he doesn't say he wants to wipe Israel off the map, he says he knows the Zionist regime will be wiped out. There is a big difference. Yes, let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors. The thing that feeds the fire is exactly the same as what Bush tries to do here - namely, make everyone feel that if they do not support him in whatever he does, we are unpatriotic. Well Olmert wants everyone to feel that if they do not support his policies, then they are not good jews or are not good zionists.'" From this paragraph, it is hard to tell what Pco believes. There is no doubt in my mind that she thinks that President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert are as bad or worse than President Ahmedinejad. Naturally, this is an opinion I disagree with, but she is entitled to it. She is also entitled to the opinion "that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea" even though I disagree with it.

Your analogy of deliberately omitting the second clause of a compound sentence does not apply here because the second clause of Pco's compound sentence is "Mahmood must have learned something." Even if I were to include it back into my exposé, the message would not change drastically as it did in your analogy. The only reasonable complaint one could make on behalf of Pco is that I did not include the part where she contradicts herself by writing "let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors." I did this because its a ridiculous statement; when have racists ever "realized their errors" before it was too late? Also, because she tries to have it both ways by calling the Holocaust denial conference "a good idea" and an "error," it leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both sides of the argument.

In short, this quote was of Pco's own making. I simply chose how to report and interpret it and I did so with journalistic integrity. If you are asking for clarity, the request is better asked to Pco, and I would be happy to print her response on my user page if I see fit to do so. Take care. --GHcool 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, Mackan79, I wish I could interpret Pco's statement the way you do. It really would make me feel better about her and about Wikipedia in general. I am being completely sincere about that point. However, Pco's edit history, her history on talk pages, and the actual statement she made that we are currently disputing makes it very difficult for me to come around to your side. If she was using sarcasm like Churchil, she did it unclearly and ineptly. Furthermore, comparing Olmert's Zionism to Ahmedinejad's anti-Semitism is very strange, wouldn't you agree? It doesn't seem very likely to me that she was completely against the Holocaust conference, but her statement is so wild that it is hard to tell. As hard as I try (and I've reread her statement several times), I simply cannot see any evidence for your interpretation that she meant that the Holocaust conference was a good idea because it shows "because it shows Ahmadinejad's true colors." I wish I could see it, but I don't. Even if I did, consider the argument you say Pco is making:
 * (1) Someone came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran.
 * (2) Having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran "shows Ahmadinejad's true colors."
 * (3) "Ahmedinejad's true colors" should be publicized and internationally condemned.
 * (4) Publication and international condemnation of "Ahmedinejad's true colors" is moral.
 * Therefore, (5) the person that came up with the idea of having an immoral Holocaust denial conference in Tehran is moral.

P.S. Pco actually is a politician, or at least associated with a political organization so she should be able to choose her words more carefully.

I'll tell you what, Mackan79. I intend on keeping the statement as it is in my user page because I think I quoted her fairly and did not misrepresent her opinion any more than she misrepresented it herself. Her argument was wrong, her wording was wrong, and her she doesn't have any respect from me anyway. Naturally, I wish you wouldn't report this as a personal attack, but that is your choice. In elementary school, we used to give the title of "tattle tale" to people who report the alleged abuse of one person on the behalf of third person who has the ability to report the abuse themselves. On the playground (and in adulthood), this practice is socially frowned upon, but not illegal and arguably not immoral. There is very little a kindergartener or a Wikipedian could or should do to stop someone from tattle taling on them. Therefore, to use this shameful tactic is entirely up to you and I will have no choice but to accept whatever decision your own actions. However, for your sake of your own honor, I urge you instead to ask Pco to clarify what she meant or else ask her to report me herself so that your hands are clean. Again, you seem to be pretty moderate and so I have no direct quarrel with you. --GHcool 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose then, that your previous statement at 02:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC) that you would "be happy to tell PCO and have her deal with the situation" no longer stands because you are now concerned that "[s]he may well fear that if this is tied to her personally it could have damaging consequences?" Were you less concerned for her honor less than a day ago, or did you just change your mind because you want me censored as soon as possible? [Personal attack removed by Mackan79 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)] --GHcool 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User pages
Mackan, do not leave hostile comments on people's user pages. I assumed it was a mistake, but I see from your comment that it was deliberate. It could be interpreted as vandalism in future, so please stick to leaving messages on talk pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you wish. I will ask another admin to keep an eye on you. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you're right. I won't bother you with advice again, but will ask another admin to watch the situation instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll say it, then. Don't edit other people's user pages, unless you're specifically invited to (some people do that; very few, though.) That's what talk pages are for. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Mackan.....whats the deal with SlimVirgin? Is she going to monitor everything you do now?  Anyway, happy holidays!! MetsFan76 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Merry Christmas and happy holidays, m8. :) .V. 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

False allegations
Falsely accusing someone of being a holocaust denier, or supporting holocaust deniers, is excedingly egregious, whether that person is seen as having credibility or not. I will report the statement unless PCO does as defamation as per Wikipedia's don't make legal threats page, which suggests I was correct in leaving a comment. Also, why didn't you respond on my page? It would be nice, if admins are going to post insulting messages on my page, that they post their follow-ups there as well. Mackan79 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a serious problem with allegations of this kind being included - see Naeim Giladi. Speaking out is not good for your participation. PalestineRemembered 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)