User talk:Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive26



Aedis Eclipse: Generation of Chaos not notable?
This game has been reviewed by almost every major gaming site (IGN, Gamespot, Play Magazine, GamePro, PSM, Games Radar, Game Informer, Gamespy, G4TV, etc.), so how is it not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Most PSP gamers who play SRPGs or import games have heard of Aedis Eclipse. Unless you're going to also delete Generation of Chaos, Spectral Souls, and any other game that you personally hadn't heard of before (and suggest that everyone else do the same), then Aedis Eclipse belongs on Wikipedia too.

Please, please, please do a little more research on the topic of a page before you delete it for lack of notability. I'm so tired of finding pages (especially ones that had valuable information others put time into writing) deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's "notability" requirement by someone who is simply not qualified to make that judgment. I mean, you don't need to be an astrophysicist to judge whether or not a page on an astrophysics concept is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. But you should at the very least consult someone who has studied, or is an authority on, astrophysics before making the decision to delete the page.

If more people would do this, then topics as Aedis Eclipse or ComboFix wouldn't constantly get deleted by those completely clueless about the topic.--Subversive Sound (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Goatse.fr_homepage.png
You have speedy-deleted the following image on the grounds of being unfree and unused for more than 7 days:

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

This image has not been unused for more than 7 days. Remco47 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The image was removed 17 hours ago per a four year-old straw poll. The matter is being discusse on the talk page and I feel no need to delete it. If you have other preferences (such as censoring Wikipedia) then please discuss it on the talk page.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Hello, What a great page. I just signed in to thank you for taking care of my what I believed to be block and alerting me to the fact that I might not have been signed in (very likely) lumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jolly, don't assume bad faith. It is very conceivable that he made a mistake or had a good reason for deleting it. — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not assuming bad faith. I appologise if my choice of words made it seem that way.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 2 is probably the best reasoning I could find for it being used. The main reason for its use is to show layout and the main image of the topic (hello.jpg). Users who previously opposed the idea of using the image in the article were "content" with the click to show option installed on the infobox, so I classified it as a consensus.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for assuming bad faith. Are you in a position to undelete it? Otherwise it may have to be re-uploaded and the info restored from Google cache or something. Remco47 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it says why there are no free alternatives in the image's non-free usage rationale. This is a screenshot of a non-free website. As such, any alternatives (mirrors) are non-free as well. Remco47 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like the picture to viewable by all without the option of having to click "show", but I think it might be against the consensus of users. This method is the closest I can get to pleasing users, so it isn't removed. At the moment we need the image to be restored for users to view it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagen you have never seen goatse.cx and you read the following text: "Its front page featured a picture, hello.jpg, showing a naked man stretching his anus to a large size with both hands, with the inside of his rectum clearly visible. Below his gaping anus, his dangling penis and scrotum are visible, as well as a ring on the ring finger of his left hand.". It is difficult to imagen this in your mind. A picture will explain it far better. I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should keep pics to a minimum, but in this case it would really improve readers' understanding of the topic, thus rendering a valid fair-use rationale. The FA criteria actually states that article should be illustrated where possible to enhace readers' understanding.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On Goatse.cx it currently is not being censored (as shown by the red link). It was originaly censored, but a week or few ago Sceptre changed it to show by default. I also agree with him and he stated his reasoning on the talk page. I will also have to change the fair-use rationalse slightly, as a "click to show" is no longer required t see it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg Pritchard
Excuse my bothering you but your actions at the AFD seem increasingly improper. You relisted the discussion, saying "people are clearly divided on this". This seemed improper because a discussion on which editors are clearly divided should be closed as no consensus. I let that pass but now you are contributing to the debate and seem to be urging a particular conclusion. This gives the impression that you are manipulating the process to achieve your preferred result. Please reconsider your actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It now seems that we differ on the understanding of consensus. You seem to be treating the matter as a vote requiring a certain level of majority.  This is not true consensus as a valid minority opinion should not be discarded in such cases.  The idea of consensus is to achieve a compromise upon which all might agree.  If opinions are sufficiently divided then this is not possible and that is why the no consensus result is not unusual.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But we don't really operate AfD by a true consensus system. The closing admin decides based upon the arguments given by the deletion participants, in whatever way they see fit. A consensus process would be iterative, whereby each participant in the debate states their position and then repeatedly reconsiders based on the views of the others, aiming to move towards common ground. I've seen it work in political meetings, but it is often longwinded and difficult, and can't always be achieved if the debate is polarised. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
LOL! --I am lennin!wioe (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Grief!
This is way overdue. Too much dessert isn't good for you! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that we are aquainted I should inform you that - and this is no small step -I am inspired to completely re-vamp my user page. As such, I intend to borrow freely from some of your current templates. Oi! So many cool toys While we were sitting here we listened to Master of Puppets and I described to my two friends how (it seemed to me...) about half the audience left after Metallica's set at the Monsters of Rock show I saw in ''88 (am I that old?) Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangers FC Article
I have suggested int e past and again that because the subject which the edit warring and problem reside are so touchy due to rivarly between both fans then it best to take it to medation and allow them to set out rules on what to include and what not to and how mcuh shoudl be there. Because the oen adding stuff have admitted there celtic fans but i trust they are acting with no due biased but rangers fans dnt then it causing lots of problems because the rangers look at the celtic article adn see very little but then look at the rangers article and see a lot and when ever they try to add to teh celtic it gets removed but when they try to remove from the rangers ti gets reverted. so you are gettigna big fight of wars over a very touchy subject. so would this be best taking to aneutral peopel who ahve no invloment in and there ecision would probally be better accepted.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Hi MoP I was wondering if you could tell me what this would fall under as a candidate for speedy deletion, it's obviously not a real word and Wikipedia is not a dictionary but I don't think it would fall under patent nonsense either. Words of wisdom? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry just found out the page was previously deleted under G3 and was recreated by the same user. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy
I had thought that you had locked the article on Mary Baker Eddy until November 9. The Vandal that had been editing it User:SatansHelper666 has reappeared and has edited the page. How is this possible? Sorry to be a bother. -- Digitalican (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand now. This fellow seems more determined than most, so I suspect we're going to go another couple of rounds with him.  Again, thanks for your help. -- Digitalican (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hey its Lenin, so whats up? --I am lennin!wioe (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please block
Greetings Master of Puppets. At the beginning of the year you blocked User talk:124.105.97.207. Please consider a longer block next time round.--Technopat (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring?!?!?!
Perhaps you should check my contributions before accusing me of edit warring. I've only ever edited the page in question twice and once was to fix an error I made the first time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit 1 was a mistake - I meant to do what I did in Edit 2. As for Edit 2... I was coming, as an outsider, and supporting the position that seemed to be based on well-referenced information. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, MoP, I don't see an edit war here, considering his net effect on the page was intentionally zero. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The naming of cats
Re: : User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Paltridge article and preferred version
Regarding this comment - intentionally or not, you did in fact chose a "preferred version". I'm going to copy my comment on T:GP to this place, since you appear not to have read it:
 * Erm? Small correction. You actually didn't revert his edit - you reverted back to an even earlier version - unintentionally i presume. Simons edit's constituted a move of the section, while yours actually removed it, thus unintentionally (i presume) involving yourself in the edit-war (by taking a side). Please read the edit-history. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, there is a very good reason for people stating that you chose a "preferred version". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) You should also know that Connoley has basically been rewarded for edit-warring, with his "under-the-wire" edit, right before you protected it. If we're going with "status quo when you arrived", that edit should be reverted, right? U A  18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this claim that it was "the second in a section move" at your talk. Not even Simon himself claimed that. He claimed he thought he was restoring the section, when he actually removed it. This in no way justifies your claim that "there is a very good reason for people stating that [MoP] chose a 'preferred version.'" U  A  18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UN can't even spell, let alone read WP:WRONG William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut the personal attacks, and the accusations of canvassing. Those are both very blockable offenses, especially when combined with your blatant edit warring. U  A  18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you haven't troubled yourself to apologise for repeatedly misspelling my name, despite my polite reminders to you. Your reputation for care and accuracy will reflect this. If you don't want to be accused of canvassing, you should consider not doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't canvassed, and missing an L in your long last name hardly qualifies for your insulting "UN can't even spell let alone read WP:WRONG." How can you possibly conclude that was "polite"? U  A  19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you haven't been polite. But clearly this is going nowhere, so I'm out of this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur much? You know very well that I was questioning your assertion that you have offered "polite reminders." You don't seem interested in actually having a conversation, so I'll make this my last post to you as well. U  A  00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Alternative Music Advertisement
Guitarherochristopher Has A Question For You To Answer: Want To Create The Animated .GIF Advertisement For The Alternative Music Wikiproject?  ( ( (  ( G U!T ARH3R 0 :  C HR ! S T0 PHER )    ) ) )  02:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please check how discussion is being blocked on the Inflation talk page.
Can you please check how discussion is being blocked on the Inflation talk page. Thank you. PennySeven (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Malia Obama
Would you mind taking a look at this and putting in your two cents worth. I am tired of fighting with this new user. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user needs to simply be blocked. He's not here to edit constructively. U  A  04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I felt I was bashing my head against a brick wall. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

please
please move the malia discussion back to AN because the move prevents me from discussing it (cannot write on that page).

Also the discussion is on the discussion page of another article (Family of...) which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your change. It is 1000% easier to leave a comment on that ANI section than to keep going back to that article to restore it. Now I can leave the comment and see if others want to restore it or not. Really, they should. There are so many unknown people with articles and Malia has —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle 2600
Does the topic ban need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT? Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was looking in wrong section! Mjroots (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah! You and whose army? :-p Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ and Colloidial silver
Rather than locking the page, or in addition to it, I would ask that you sanction this editor for his continuing disruptive behaviour. He still seems to think that his editwarring, twice breaking 4 reverts in 48 hours, and his grossly insulting comments are justified. An educational and preventative block would be in order, per the editwarring and gross incivility. This would also allow the page to be unblocked so that other editors who are now involved can continue to improve the article. Verbal chat  14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Master of Puppets, if you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver. It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: .  Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting.  Verbal asks Floydian why he is swearing, which made me reread what Floydian said, because I didn't remember any swearing.  The only thing I could find was the word "bloody"!  Verbal's next post was after you posted to stop edit warring.  His post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., .  The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After your post, he made a couple of posts about his "reverts", but most of his  posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and me and threats about how Floydian will be blocked.  Who is the disruptive editor here?  stmrlbs | talk  05:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice
ANI Notice: Please have a look at ANI. The above shows I have acted properly despite baiting, provocation, misleading cimments, abuse etc by these two known problem editors. Verbal chat  08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal Silver / My Talk Page
Would be nice to get responses. You should watch the pages you come in and lock, as often the users that are the most frequent contributors at those articles have comments. In my case I'm requesting the pre-edit war version be locked as then the fly-by-editors who made the controversial changes would actually be enticed to comment and form consensus for those changes. I'd also appreciate a response at my talk page regarding my first/final warning from you, which I feel was inappropriate given the situation that you were not fully aware of (and come to think of it, acted upon without a single communication with me, only Verbal). Thank you -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to show that Floydian still doesn't get it, and intends to continue his disruptive behaviour. Verbal chat  15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, you just keep making accusations and don't constructively contribute to the discussions at hand, as evidenced by the proliferation of said accusation on Talk:Colloidal silver, and the fringe theory noticeboard. Please indicate where in my above post I make any mention of my intentions? Once you've finished, apologise for your mistake, and maybe we can discuss the article instead of insisting on trying to get me banned so that you don't have to. All I'm showing is a desire to communicate, and all I'm getting back from you is nasty comments and accusations, most of which you cannot and do not back up. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pennyseven at Inflation
Your mentee, Pennyseven, is posting profusely on the Inflation talk page again. Could you ask him to keep the wikidrama in his edits to a minimum? It reads like someone trying to intimidate other people away from the debate. At the least, it's unnecessary wikidrama that makes the editing atmosphere unpleasant.

Also, to clarify, I never at any time suggested that disagreeing with me was edit warring. The only message I left related to edit warring was the message I left informing him of my intent to revert his changes and why I was doing so. I ended (perhaps inappropriately) with a request that he not revert my changes and start an edit war, as the result would be the same (since his changes are opposed by the members of the Econ wikiproject). I never said that disagreeing with me was edit warring. PS has a history of misreporting things like that.

thanks, LK (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvass shopping
Note that both Lawrence and Jacurek have become adept in getting their way by appealing directly to admins. It seems to have happened again in a content dispute that involved two admins, here. To both Some and Master, this is a content dispute that was being handled properly on the talk page of No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron with both parties at fault but Varsovian at least had a semblance of contrition and made efforts to discuss relevant topics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No feud
User:CarolMoore seems to have an issue with the Wikipedia consensus on the Gilad Atzmon article. She is determined to turn the article into an apology and advertisement for Mr. Atzmon. She's asked several editors on noticeboards to help her, and then reverted away their edits when they made the article adhere to guidelines. I've edited the article consistently for the past months, keeping it in line with Wikipedia policy. As a result, she has campaigned tirelessly, and fruitlessly to have me banned. However as said before, the real issue is that she does not accept the edits of any other Wikieditors, and is determined to turn the article on Gilad Atzmon into an NPOV advertisement. This has been noted by others as well. But the issue is the article, and getting it right, and making sure it stays right. Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to mediate, as I noticed on 3rr page and commented there.
 * It is true it is not a personal feud. (At least between me and Drsmoo.) Rather one editor (me) who works on a variety of articles to make them NPOV vs. an editor obsessed with making his point on the primary article he works on - or admin pages related to the article. Thus Atzmon has complained to OTRS and probably will again, if he's paying close attention.
 * As you can see, I always have lots of diffs to show my problems with Drsmoo. He only makes vague accusations, which he can't back up with diffs. I edit many bios of critics of Israel where Anon IP and even registered editors put in a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced, out of context and other defamatory or POV material. This is just the BLP where the problems are the worst. I probably should follow instructions of the BLPDispute tag: "Editors who continue to introduce unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people will be blocked from editing per Wikipedia policy." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only responded to allegations, I haven't made any whatsoever. I also don't think my edit history has any relavence to the content of the article, but I suppose when one has already grasped at every other straw... I don't really care, the article is looking pretty good, the other editors agree, and I'm making sure it stays that way. There's nothing defamatory in the article, only notable editors commenting on Atzmon's statements in notable publications. Drsmoo (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * However, Master of Puppets, if you think you CAN mediate, I'm game :-)! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here, so that we can keep discussion centralized.
 * From what I can see, it's mostly a content dispute; I looked at a couple edits (namely this and Drsmoo's subsequent revert) and that's what I'd classify it as, at least. Oh, while I'm on the topic of that revert, when I read the cited article this passage seemed to convert Carol's addition.
 * ...his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.
 * I'm not saying that Carol is right, or that it should be included, and I'm by no means an expert on this. I'm just wondering why that's not support for the anti-Zionism/Israel claim.
 * From what I've seen of the discussion on the talk page, things seem to be going along well; is it possible for you guys to resort to discussion there instead of edit-warring in the future? I know that should go without saying, but sometimes passions flare and things get out of hand, y'know? Master of Puppets  03:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, no one disputes that Atzmon is Anti-Israel/Anti-Zionist, the dispute is that Carol appears to believe that there is a conspiracy to "paint" Atzmon as an anti-semite, where she "believes" he is "only an anti-zionist." On the contrary, most of Atzmon's condemnation has come for his statements on Judaism, or as he calls it "Jewishness" and statements that "Jewishness" is evil, tribal, trying to control the world, saying its rational to burn down synagogues etc. However whenever these statements are added to the article, or notable responses to them are added, from notable papers such as The Times or The Guardian, Carol not only protests and reverts them, she complains that people are trying to "defame" Atzmon and starts topics on every noticeboard imaginable that I should be banned. Even when other editors add them lol. It's quite silly. But that's what it boils down to, Carol believes Atzmon is simply Anti-Israel, and people are trying to "paint" him as an Anti-Semite, and one look at his articles, with titles like "Who is a Jew?" "Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore" and "Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?" and have content as discussed in the Times and the Guardian shows where the controversy is, and what his most well known statements are. However Carol, in disagreement with the other editors would rather have the article be cleaned up of that, and serve almost as an advertisement or at least apology for Atzmon.

Also to my knowledge, there is no reliable source which calls Atzmon an Anti-semite for his statements on Israel or Zionism, rather it is for his statements on Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier. This article seems to suggest it, though maybe that's just confusing wording...
 * In relation to the rest of what you've said, do you have any diffs of example edits? Master of Puppets  12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That Scotsman article suggests that other sources have, but they haven't. Every article I've seen criticizing Atzmon has been for his statements regarding Judaism and Jews. The Times of London, and the Guardian for example, specifically criticize Atzmon for his statements on Jews and Judaism. To my knowledge, there are no sources that call Atzmon an Anti-Semite for his statements on Israel or Zionism, contrary to what the Scotsman claims. If a notable paper or article claims Atzmon is an Anti-Semite because of his views on Israel, that would be quite different.


 * Regarding CarolMoore, I don't have an issue with her, as was said, she clearly has an issue with me, for months on end she has been asking for me to be banned. And gone to editor's talk pages asking them to "watch" me. I have never asked for anyone to do anything regarding her.


 * Regarding the Gilad Atzmon article:


 * For example, after asking for help with the article on several noticeboards, CarolMoore completely edited over the changes made by SlimVirgin and Hipocrite, who had attempted to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321461856&oldid=321458823, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088


 * Or when notable sources, organizations, and individuals are included, she just blatantly removes them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321196639&oldid=321112377, as if the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism, David Aaranovitch of The Times, and Nick Cohen of the Guardian (two of the most notable newspapers in the world) were "poorly sourced opinion piece polemics" solely because she doesn't agree with the authors or organizations.


 * She then proceeds to start topics on every possible noticeboard, demanding that admins intervene to remove these sources, she's started topics on the Administrator's noticeboard, AND the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, AND the Reliable Sources talk page AND the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, AND the Israel Palestine Collaboration noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, posting on various noticeboards isn't bad per se; the more consensus and varying opinions, the better. However, in this case, I don't see any form of consensus supporting or against, aside from your opposition, obviously. Have any other editors actively disagreed or expressed opinions about moving the article in a different direction?
 * Also, I hope that Carolmoore doesn't have an issue with you; perhaps she was just concerned you would break 3RR? Master of Puppets  13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why my post is coming in gray...


 * Unfortunately, if you look at her noticeboard postings, they are to get support for the removal of the Times and Guardian Sources, and she has told other editors to watch me. I think this has been ignored however. She can keep on doing that though, I don't care. I agree with you about the more editors and consensus the better. There is a consensus, Hipocrite and Slimvirgin were recently working to improve the article, after her noticeboard postings and she completely undid their work, there is also RolandR and Malcomn Scoscha. For some reason, CarolMoore fixates on me, however there is a clear consensus on the article, and she just reverts it away. Drsmoo (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be best to get a stated, expressed consensus, so that we've got something quantitative to work with. Would you mind if I asked Hipocrite and SlimVirgin to comment here?
 * Oh, and apologies about the gray; my signature breaks on my talk page, for some reason. Master of Puppets   14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful Drsmoo (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Break one
I'll be happy to see any response from them. SlimVirgin and Hipocrite basically agreed the Politics section should be shorter than much longer section. SlimVirgin made a very short version which I critiqued but she didn't respond at all. Hipocrite's only opinion on my proposal to use a draft page an admin set up after the article was protected was that it should be shorter. So I did in fact put up a short version with some updates.

The issue is that Drsmoo continues to put out of context, poorly sourced quotes and opinions in, while taking out NPOV material that he thinks defends Atzmon, to make Atzmon look bad. In the past he frequently has inserted his SOAPBOX opinion that Atzmon is an evil person who the wikipedia article must expose. After he was [|advised against doing that] he's been more circumspect on talk page. But it remains clear that making Atzmon look bad is his intent and it ticks me off an editor is allowed to push a POV in a BLP where there already has been an OTRS complaint by the subject.

Process wise, I'd go to Third_opinion but doesn't seem to have much action. I assume you are experienced in mediation so we don't have to request one more formally? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia does not agree that The Times and the Guardian are poor sources, or that Nick Cohen and David Aaranovitch are as well. And Carol, I think you are confusing when I pointed out some of the unsavory things on your website, not my making the Gilad Atzmon article relevant and accurate.Drsmoo (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia" is its editors. And one editor on WP:RS Noticeboard agreed Nick Cohen's article was not WP:RS for bio; of course he didn't like the Gisbourne herald news article cause they only have 9000 subscribers, which would mean the whole quote would be out of the article. Notice I included a DIFF. Something you never do in your vague accusations. Shall I include my saved listing of all the negative things you said about me, other editors and Atzmon? My old list is right in there in archived talk of the article.
 * I would like you to remove your accusation about "unsavory things on your website" as WP:UNCIVIL.
 * And if this is going to be a true mediation it's time for the mediator to step with with some rules, like not making vague and even defamatory accusations vs. other editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wkipedia is it's editors, aside from you, every editor that has been working on the article has used that source. You subsequently ignored them and removed the Guardian article, which was then restored. I'm also not sure how I was accusing you at the present, I was was pointing out why i got a message. Drsmoo (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These past quotes show your deep bias vs. Atzmon: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_3. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling someone who makes antisemitic statements a bigot is not "bias." I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Does everyone have to be a fan of Atzmon for you not to revert their edits? The sources in that article are all extremely notable, every other editor supports their inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case Puppet Master intends to get involved, here's my list of most recent complaints about BLP violations. If you are too busy or already too burned out on this, maybe I should just bring the most relevant ones back to the BLP page. Please mention that no mediation happened or whatever on the 3rr page if you aren't interested. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is CarolMoore disagreeing with every editor who works on the article enough to call it "disputed"? Drsmoo (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Break two
I'm still watching, Carol, and I still intend to mediate (I've got experience with it, so no worries). Obviously, if you'd like to pursue another venue of resolution regardless, I'm all for that. Anyway, I've been trying to fish SlimVirgin and Hipocrite out of hiding, as their comment is needed; I'm not going to analyze content any further, as things tend to get complicated when admins do so. I wouldn't be biased, but analyzing it could give somebody fodder to state that I've got a bias, at which point I'm no longer an effective mediator.

That being said, there's a lot here which is complicating things; I hope some of the following requests won't be too taxing. I'd do it myself, but the more I read through exhaustive amounts of text, the less this becomes mediation and more a third opinion (mediation is helping you guys figure it out, while a third opinion wouldn't really do that). I'll add in more as I keep examining. Master of Puppets 08:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Carol: are there any diffs you can provide of Drsmoo's additions that you call "out-of-context" and "poorly sourced" (quotation marks because that's alleged, not because I'm questioning you)? I'd like to see how the quotes were attributed and possibly why you feel them to be POV additions.
 * Also, the Nick Cohen quote seems to meet this section of WP:RS; "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." I'm not saying I support it, or that the inclusion is right, but you stated that policy was against it, so I'd just like to know which policy. The more I know, the better.
 * Drsmoo: Do you have any diffs of editors agreeing with you? As Carol has stated, just because people haven't actively contested you doesn't mean they agree.
 * Also, please just focus on the issue-at-hand now; try not to make any accusations. Let's try to keep this away from being personal (this applies to both of you, really).


 * The primary issue at the moment seems to be the Nick Cohen quote, both SlimVirgin http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321461856&oldid=321458823 and Hipocrite supported its inclusion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321453013&oldid=321452425. 3 out of the 4 editors who have been actively working on the article. RolandR has been involved on the talk page and reverted minor edits, but hasn't made any large content changes in the past few months, nor do I see an opinion by him on Nick Cohen. Drsmoo (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that appears to be the closest thing to consensus we've got here. Master of Puppets  16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Took a day's break; glad to see you are still with us :-) Current issues as described  in recent talk page and elsewheres: 1. Already brought this issue to WP:RS Noticeboard  here - THIS specific question of which source and context to use for the quote had NOT been replied to at all except by Drsmoo, so there is no consensus on it yet:


 * Which is a more reliable source (not to mention NPOV) for the following quote:


 * The original, in context use which was in the news article earlier for more than six months read something like: According to Martin Gibson, Atzmon denies he is an antisemite but does blame “Jewish ideology” for Israel’s “brutality” against the Palestinians, saying “I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.” REF: Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, Gisborne Herald, January 23, 2009.


 * Or this no context, negative polemical opinion use, in an article where the author fails to tell readers that Atzmon was on the same panel as he was in the debate where Atzmon allegedly made the comment: Journalist Nick Cohen compared him to members of the far right with a paranoid mentality, after Atzmon told the Oxford Literary Festival that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"..." REF:Cohen, Nick. The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer, The Observer, June 14, 2009.

Note that the only respondent on WP:RS Noticeboard didn't think either WP:RS, while Drsmoo discouraged conversation by throwing up his usual smokescreen of how I'm allegedly against consensus, when

2. Drsmoo continues writing: "Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism." (Originally he put in "Judaism.") However the two sources immediately after the sentence say more than that: Gilchrest mentions both Atzmon's anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel and Gibson mentions specifically criticism of Israel and what happens to people who criticize of Zionism (i.e., clearly he means people like Atzmon). Obviously he is misusing sources to push his hobby horse that Atzmon is against Jews/Judaism. (What ex-Israeli IDF member Atzmon says is complicated and easy to distort with short out of context sentences.)

This is a clear abuse of use of sources.

3. Use of link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics from Cohen's quote on "paranoid mentality" seems a POV, WP:Undue stretch, especially since this is British politics.

4. Drsmoo deleted a quote in defense of Atzmon I'd shortened for shortness sake. He then removed it and claimed it was irrelevant since didn't mention Atzmon. So this morning I put whole quote in mentioning Atzmon. We'll see if he reverts that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The second Nick Cohen excerpt hasn't been in the article in that form for a while. Not only that, but you just made an edit to it. After asking for assistance on the article, you reinstated the quote anyway. Have you given up on mediation? Drsmoo (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wrong in thinking it had been there for six months; the main point anyway is it is more NPOV per BLP by giving a context in a news story, as opposed to a non-context statement in a polemical opinion piece attack.
 * Before mediation I said on talk that since your problem was irrelevance for not mentioning Atzmon, I would put back whole quote. You did not object. Forgot to do that until today.
 * These really all are BLP issues, by the way, in a case where the subject already made an OTRS complaint. For an example of properly rewriting a BLP to delete possible bias see these changes in Stewart Nozette article. I'm just trying to have this article live up to those wiki BLP standards as soon as possible in whatever forum will do that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have ignored consensus, AND given up on mediation. Drsmoo (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Carol, if Drsmoo is objecting now, I'd self-revert, just until this is over. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair.
 * I have a question about the following quote, though (the one you mention above, Gibson's);
 * ''According to Martin Gibson, Atzmon denies he is an antisemite but does blame “Jewish ideology” for Israel’s “brutality” against the Palestinians, saying “I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.”
 * How did quotation marks appear around "Jewish ideology" and "brutality"? That's edging on POV from where I'm standing. Master of Puppets  04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that's because those are phrases used in the article? Drsmoo (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but there's no need to put everything in quotation marks. It makes it look as if the article has a different point of view. As long as you've attributed it to the source, all is well. Master of Puppets  13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the "catastrophe" quote Master of Puppet points out shows the problems we're having with the article in general.
 * I'm embarrassed to say it looks like one of Drsmoo's sentences, repeating a negative phrase, skipping over Atzmon's continued denial of antisemitism, and then sticking in a poorly explained sentence! Ack! And yet THAT looks less problematic to me then Cohen.
 * The whole relevant quote is: "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." (Of course, there isn't a clear definition of "Jewish ideology" in that article, though there is elsewhere and previous longer iterations dealt with this problem.) When in doubt stuff like that should be left out. So I'd be happy just leaving the quote out all together - which the guy on WP:RS Noticeboard also agree about, but Drsmoo insists on putting in quote.
 * I self-reverted full Swedish quote to deal with DrSmoo's previous "irrelevance" concern. My concern is getting this BLP fixed done... CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for self-reverting, I appreciate it. It may not look like it, but I'm confident we'll be able to come to some sort of agreement about this.
 * Also, I agree; as long as the phrase has clearly attributed the quote to Atzmon (reference and all), it doesn't matter whether the content is edgy.
 * I have an idea, though. How about we take the disputed section, copy it to a separate page (for example, User talk:Master of Puppets/Atzmon), and then each of you creates your own version out of it, adding in whatever changes you feel necessary. Then, we can weigh the potential of both and have a more empirical way of looking at this situation. I'll set up that page I've mentioned before; if you guys want to agree on what section you want to do this on, that would be great. Of course, you don't have to do this, but it would really be helpful. Master of Puppets  13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Break three

 * You wrote: as long as the phrase has clearly attributed the quote to Atzmon (reference and all), it doesn't matter whether the content is edgy. I don't understand what you are saying. IMHO, if the source is Gibson and a whole article where Atzmon provides a variety of opinions, that's ok. If it is the Cohen attack piece quoting him totally out of context, I still consider that a BLP problem.
 * There already are two such practice pages set up by an admin after the article was protected a) /Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft and the Draft's Talk Page. Drsmoo and I actually did agree at that point. My version was a shorter version of that and it is there that the problems are now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it's out of context or an attack piece, I think the source qualifies as a reliable source. Cohen's a reputable journalist, after all. Not to say that we can't use both Gibson and Cohen.
 * Also, do you think repeating the process with the shorter version would work? Master of Puppets 03:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules are that even reputable journalists opinions must be identified as opinions and that per NPOV in BLP such journalists' cherry picked quotes should have context or rebuttals included, at least in footnotes. Re-reading Gibson article, Atzmon does explain more clearly what he means by "Jewish ideology." Also a link to the original article on the "tribal mindset" plus full relevant quote should be included. I have new material in italics; plus I removed the irrelevant/POV wikilink to Paranoia in America book.
 * In a 2009 opinion piece journalist Nick Cohen compared him to members of the far right with a "paranoid mentality" after Atzmon spoke during a debate at the Oxford Literary Festival. Cohen criticized his statements that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"<REF:Gibson> and "the Jewish tribal mindset&mdash;left, centre and right&mdash;sets Jews aside of humanity."<REF:COHEN> <REF: Gilad Atzmon, Anatomy of a Conditionally Unresolved Conflict, “Dissident Voice,” May 8th, 2008..." The full quote reads: "As sad as it may sound, people who are not trained to recognise the other are unable to let them be recognised. The Jewish tribal mindset: left, centre and right, sets Jews aside of humanity. It does not equip the followers of the tribal mindset with the mental mechanism needed to recognise the other.">
 * According to Martin Gibson, Atzmon denies he is an antisemite and says "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews," comparing "Jewish ideology" to "Nazi ideology," which is "driving our planet into a catastrophe."<REF: Gibson>
 * Well, Drsmoo?? Can we go on to my #2 above? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've submitted Slim Virgin/Hipocrite/My proposal for the politics section to User talk:Master of Puppets/Atzmon as Master of Puppets suggested. Drsmoo (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Carol; yes, I know. I'm not suggesting that we fill it with only negative quotes; that's a BLP vio. However, one quote stating that he's been described as yadda yadda isn't horrible, especially if we have quotes that don't bash him.
 * So yeah, if you could put in your take of that at the page that would be great, Carolmoore. I'm still waiting for SlimVirgin or Hipocrite to weigh in, though... Master of Puppets  03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote there. In short: My version which we were previously discussing was an attempt to correct the problems I list again with SlimVirgin's version. So it is quite annoying to me to see that this old incredibly POV version is brought up again. We should be discussing the four issues I bring up above with current version. And, Drsmoo, let me remind you that 3 editors agreeing to violate BLP policy does not mean that the article has to go the way they want it to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You should submit your own version of the politics section, and then as Master of Puppets suggested, we can compare the two and go from there. Drsmoo (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both CarolmooreDC and I have submitted our ideal politics section reverts to the subpage. Drsmoo (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How does Master of Puppets intend to proceed? Obviously this is a mediation, not an arbitration. It would be nice just to have a third opinion. Though the bottom line to me is these are prett yclear BLP issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been having Internet issues today, so I apologize for the delay. It would still be nice to have input from Hipocrite or SilmVirgin, though. I'll look over the page if my Wi-fi allows it. Master of Puppets  23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that they have not responded in 10 days, I'd say it's unlikely they will respond. And remember I picked apart SlimVirgin's version for various BLP violations when she originally put it up (as I did Drsmoo's slightly altered version), so maybe neither of them are interested in pursuing the various issues further. Since you obviously are having connection problems, and since the current version which Drsmoo kept reverting back to (thus my 3RR complaint) violates BLP, how about I just put up the two versions, plus a link to my criticisms diff of it on the BLP Noticeboard. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You've done that several times already, that's how the issue got here. Your issues with Hipocrite/SlimVirgin's edit (which you asked for) were responded to in the talk page Drsmoo (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Full BLP/Noticeboard discussion is here. 10/22 SlimVirgin asked one question about my problems with her edits, but never responded to my invite to discuss it on the talk page - the last entry in that BLP thread. You replied there and I've countered everyone of your replies. Since your edits are the problem the BLP/N remains the place to take them. (That thread has been archived so another one would have to be started.)  Obviously this "mediation" has been a diversion from my continuing to seek specific advice on specific issues for the last 11 days, esp. since MofP has had internet problems the last 4 days. I'll give him a little more time :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this time someone will agree with you Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is anything happening here?Drsmoo (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors opted out of continued cooperative discussion. Please stop mischaracterizing what happened. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what tends to happen when one person in the debate campaigns relentlessly (though completely fruitlessly) to have everyone banned or suspended. People don't want to have to deal with 8 different noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

??Who is everyone, besides you?? Please supply diffs or stop with your accusations. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person making accusations is you, consistently. Not everyone has the desire to deal with ridiculous noticeboard allegations which are so baseless they're blatantly ignored. Drsmoo (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see any way of getting this issue to resolve without input from the aforementioned editors; I wouldn't like to support one version over another based on policy. Policy can easily be interpreted in a way that disagrees with somebody else's opinion, so my involvement wouldn't lead that anywhere (I just thought I'd touch on this matter in case somebody was wondering why I seem so removed). I'd also like to stay removed so that I can mediate. More on this in a bit when I look around for more resources. Master of Puppets  14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you do not want to comment on policy, especially in a BLP situation, it would seem WP:BLPN is the best place to go. Repeatedly asking editors who perhaps showed only a temporary interest doesn't seem to be working. (User:SlimVirgin has removed your query from her talk page; did she answer it at all? Same with other editor you contacted.) Other editors interested in BLP policy might well respond to a specific listing of issues which I have listed repeatedly at the BLPN. Asking editors to choose between two versions, ignoring the many very specific policy disputes I have with the first version, which the authoring editor never bothered to answer, obviously is not a very effective mediation technique. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Break four
There's no real 'effective' strategy unless I join the debate and support one side of the consensus. I'm not going to do that - therefore, I'd like to get the input of other people so that we can have consensus. Without that, we're not going to get anywhere without more disputes. As for the noticeboard, it doesn't seem like there's much coming about from that either. Master of Puppets 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLPN thread has been removed, perhaps because there was a note about mediation? However, there are now all NEW issues to consult BLP about. Therefore putting the NEW list there probably would bring in more opinions. If that doesn't work there is also Third Opinion, where people don't seem as shy about opinionating on policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever will achieve consensus, it seemed like we've had that for a while though, to be honest. I think with one exception, ever editor you've shown your complaint to regarding Nick Cohen has agreed it is notable and should be ni the article, yet you continue to search for a single opinion that will disagree so you can cite them and change it. Drsmoo (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Carol; third opinion isn't mediation, really. It doesn't involve you two working together towards the same goal. That's what I'd like to have happen. Of course, "how" is the question... m.o.p  10:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't know "how to mediate" and just did so out of kindness of your heart, not because of any special aptitude or experience, then we could in most circumstances seek someone who does. Meanwhile, Third Opinion is used when there is a dispute between two editors. If that doesn't work one can move up to mediation. However, in BLP issues, the BLP board is the first recourse. I'm too tired to do anything about it today, but unless you come up with some workable plan that will quickly deal with my legitimate BLP complaints which have now dragged on two weeks, I'm going to BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc's goal is to remove all of Atzmon's antisemitic quotes, regardless of the fact that they are notable (she has no problem using completely non notable sources however). Or if that's not possible to paint Atzmon as a victim of a vast Jewish/Zionist conspiracy, she has convinced herself that everything Atzmon has ever said is "out of context"(lol) even when he says "I'm a proud self hating Jew" or "I'm anti-Jewish" or "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" it's at the point where she'll add a few words to the end of a quote, thinking that it "puts it in context", despite it having no impact on the meaning of the statement at all. It seems the point is now to make the section so awkward and clumsy to read that perhaps a few will just ignore it. I don't think it's possible for us to work together toward a common goal, as she has ignored every opinion that does not agree with her bias,  when 9/10 admins/editors ignore her or disagree, she'll cite a single editor who agrees with her. My goal is to make the article accurate, and use notable sources. She makes statements such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues&diff=prev&oldid=322905891 "One of the problems often pointed out by WP:RS is that many Zionist groups use and promote fear among Jews of antisemtic attacks to build up support for Israel. So they constantly need new people to accuse of antisemitism" And no matter how many editors or admins tell her she's wrong, she's not going to stop until the Atzmon article has none of Atzmon's statements about Jews. Statements that she claims are all "out of context" based SOLELY on her own POV, and not any sources, a POV she has been trying to warp the article towards.  She's been fruitlessly and desperately trying to get me banned from the article for the same length of time, despite everyone ignoring her or telling her she's wrong. So basically, I can't see how she's going to agree to an accurate article using notable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Though if she is prepared to work cooperatively, to improve the article, rather than viewing any notable Atzmon quote regarding Jews as something to be expunged by all means, than we can certainly improve the article. Drsmoo (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual you present opinion with no diffs or other evidence. Anyone who compares my version to your preferred one sees that it is you who delete much neutral info about Atzmon, while leaving negative. All I do is ADD information to make sure the article is NPOV. Please read Civil #2C which reads (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information; Constant false and unsupported accusations are not appreciated on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

<Backdent> Anyway, as I'm writing on the Gilad Atzmon talk page, if Master of Puppets quickly can come up with a workable mediation strategy that also deals with Drsmoo's constant insulting accusations, perhaps we should start from scratch. However, on the Gilad Atzmon page where it will remain part of that record.


 * "As usual you present opinion with no diffs or other evidence" Lol What?? That would be funny if it weren't for the link right there in what I posted clear as day, which makes it a bit troubling, best to read what's there. I've yet to see anyone that prefers your diff, perhaps we will find a majority soon though. Drsmoo (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm so unused to your presenting diffs I didn't notice that one and 2. It is irrelevant to the Gilad Atzmon article, except in your own WP:OR and was part of an entirely proper discussion in a Wiki Project. As opposed to diffs I've presented about the topic under discussion which were all relevant to Atzmon article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good first step that you're admitting you don't actually read what people write before commenting. I don't think many will agree that it's not relevant to Atzmon, you've referred to him rather directly in other discussions however. I can find the diff if you want, I think you know what I'm talking about. Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When you babble on with your vague accusations, it can be hard to take you seriously or read attentively. You did not have any diffs from the Atzmon article which you evidently were trying to discuss, just one from another irrelevant Wiki project discussion.
 * Obviously I've talked about Atzmon on the talk page. I don't know what diff you are talking about so please find the diff in question. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Babble on? you happen to be the only editor I've seen ignored on noticeboards... and consistently too. And then in the instances when someone does attempt to help, you delete their edits and attack them because it doesn't conform to your POV.


 * And you talk about anti-semites being "smeared" a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues&diff=prev&oldid=322905891 I guess notable sources are "smears" now. Even when the writers own headlines are anti-semitic, with blatantly anti-semitic content covered in notable sources, it's still a smear! Like how you called "Israel (Adam Ermash) Shamir", who writes that Jews use use Christian blood for rituals an "activist" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=262303754&oldid=262290746, it seems that in your opinion, all an antisemite has to do is hate the Jewish state as well as the Jewish people (which would be most anti-semites) and they go from bigots to poor persecuted sufferers. It's hard to imagine that we're going to agree on much. However if you're willing to work on improving the article, rather than POV pushing to defend someone who you personally accuse of being "smeared" despite having nothing to support it with other than your POV, than we can certainly improve the article.Drsmoo (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And who is to decide what and what is not a BLP violation?? And who is stop Drsmoo's endless antics while the current BLP violations continue?? Shouldn't my complaints about BLP violations mean relevant material - or whole controversial paragraphs with accusations are deleted in the interim??
 * Note that today another editor on the article gave DrSmoo a 3rr warning yesterday because he reverted something two different editors had changed. (Note that somehow I had it in my head that 3rr meant 3 reverts the issue; but since he did 3rr yesterday and I read read WP:Edit warring again - oops - 4 is the issue! Also have kept the relevant wording to stick the warning where necessary next time around.)
 * Maybe these editors would opine if I was allowed to make my BLP changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive this increasingly obnoxious thread?
Obviously Drsmoo is getting rediculous, dragging in Wikiproject comments and an incident where I deleted an UNsourced accusation for lack for WP:RS (maybe it was sourced and put back later - I don't remember). This mediation is going no where and junking up your talk page with Drsmoo's accusations. Why not archive it and if MoP comes up with good mediation strategy, resurrect it at the Gilad Atzmon talk page? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A sure sign of someone being a bully is when they can dish it out but can't take it. Carolmooredc has turned almost the entire Gilad Atzmon talk page, as well as most of this discussion page into an (ignored) attack against me. However one criticism of her and suddenly we must remove the comments, lol. I don't see how one can call Wikiproject edits, where you include what your goal is on the Atzmon page to be irrelevant. Deleting an unsourced accusation is quite different from calling a bigot and holocaust denier an "author and activist" Drsmoo (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to give MoP a chance to opine on the status of this absurdly long and nonproductive entry on his talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you two are very combative - for example, see the discussion immediately before this section. I can mediate when (and only when) the understanding here is that we're discussing the content of the article, not each others' behaviour. Can we have some calmness and civility (the stuff up there is bordering on personal attacks) and discuss the core issue of the article?
 * Anyway, next step; compromise. If you guys are up for it, it would work like this: one of you (doesn't matter who) starts everything off by suggesting a small change (for example, three or so words) to the article. If that's ok with the other, they suggest a change in turn. Try not to start it off with anything you know the other will disagree with. This way, we get something done, everyone stays civil, and we can have some sort of understanding.
 * I know it's not the fastest option around, but rushing things isn't good. Opinions? m.o.p  16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with your equivalence since I make complaints about specific issue with diffs and he just makes accusations without them - except when he comes up with some they aren't even relevant.
 * And who is to decide what and what is not a BLP violation in Gilad_Atzmon?? And who is stop Drsmoo's endless antics meant to keep his BLP violations in while "mediation" drags on for months? Shouldn't my complaints about BLP violations mean relevant material - or the last two controversial paragraphs or Gilad_Atzmon containing accusations - are deleted in the interim?? I did not sign up for a months long effort with someone who would not opine on policy, as the mediator did in the first regular mediation process I was involved in. At least then we knew what the mediators position was.
 * Note that today another editor on the article gave DrSmoo a 3rr warning yesterday because he reverted something two different editors had changed. (Note that somehow I had it in my head that 3rr meant 3 reverts the issue; but since he did 3rr yesterday and I read read WP:Edit warring again - oops - 4 is the issue! Also have kept the relevant wording to stick the warning where necessary next time around.)
 * Maybe these editors would opine if I was allowed to make my BLP changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no BLP issues in the article and everyone agrees aside from you. No one's going to allow you to turn ths into a propaganda piece for hate speech. This is the second time I've been accused of 3rr, neither times have been 3rr, once again your description is false, I didn't revert two editors, not reading won't get you anywhere. You can take it to the noticeboard again if you want, there were only 2 reverts so it really doesn't matter.


 * I don't know why you keep on promising to go on BLP, just do it already. Baseless complaints which are ignored by every serious editor do not lead to sections being removed solely because they don't conform to an editor's POV. Drsmoo (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Big problem is that you've reverted other editors, Drsmoo; that's not good. If someone contests your edit, don't revert them until you've discussed it.
 * Carol - again, Drsmoo's conduct isn't your concern. I can deal with that. And I could give you a lengthy essay outlining where I stand and all, but then this edges towards adjudication, not mediation. And, if I happen to have an opinion someone disagrees with, I get called out on bias and I'm effectively useless. I'd rather stay completely neutral and have you two work this out.
 * Drsmoo - what issues do you see in Carol's draft on the subpage? Bullet-listed would be nice. m.o.p  21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Big problem is that you've reverted other editors"- Umm, which editors? Drsmoo (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, twice. m.o.p  21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both times I was reverting RolandR's edits, I didn't make any changes to Carolmooredc's edits. I reverted RolandR the first time because it seemed he had removed the "the to a" change accidentally, as he made no comment on it but had commented on the Oberser/Guardian issue, than after I changed it back and clarified he clarified his reasoning (only in the edit history) and I did the same and that was it. It was still 2 edits, and probably better to do in the tlak page, but I didn't revert two editors, and to the best of my knowledge I didn't 3rr. Drsmoo (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying you've done it in the past. I wasn't referring to right now. Regardless, edit-warring is edit-warring - whether you're doing it with multiple editors or just one, you're still doing it. Breaking 3RR doesn't matter, either. Please use the talk page next time, or talk to Roland (or whoever you disagree with) first. If you're unsure about somebody's motives and it's clear that they're not a vandal, don't revert.
 * Anyway, what issues do you see with Carol's draft? m.o.p  00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo's issues and response

 * There are multiple issues, mostly that her edit comes across as very POV, and in support of Atzmon. For one saying Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that he meant comes across as POV, implying that his letter is "what he meant" as opposed to his original statement and that his other statement therefore "isn't what he meant." It's better to write simply Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that and then proceed to the quote.


 * Similarly, prefacing the notable articles with Atzmon's quotes with them being opinion pieces, while factual, seems to be leaning on being POV and attempting to diminish them. That is not a big issue however.


 * I think the line Others characterize charges of antisemitism against Atzmon as an attempt to silence or “gag” his criticism of Israel and Zionism. is very POV and I didn't see the word gag in any of the articles cited. I also think using "others" is nebulous and vague, and it is better to cite who exactly is being referenced.


 * The line Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism. is factually incorrect, I have yet to see a single commentator or organization accuse Atzmon of antisemitism for a statement regarding Israel or Zionism, only for statements regarding Judaism.


 * The party responded: "Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice." Seems very far reaching for a quote from the organization defending Atzmon. it is very long as well, certainly far longer than any of the other quotes in the section. It seems more to be redefining antisemitism than specifically defending Atzmon as well.


 * The line Atzmon denies he is an antisemite and says "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews," comparing "Jewish ideology" to "Nazi ideology," which is "driving our planet into a catastrophe." is extremely POV, and seems to make it sound as if the article is stating that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"

Those are the main issues I see at the moment. Drsmoo (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I'm seeing, it looks like a recurring issue is attribution - the difference between what the article itself is saying and what the article says others are saying. Bullet list of the issues you outlined:


 * 1) Attribution of quotations
 * 2) Clearly outlining quotations as originating from opinion pieces
 * 3) Vagueness in relation to quote attribution
 * 4) Extraneous matter that isn't cited in sources
 * Stuff like number 4, or at least, can be very easily implemented; going through the articles cited and making sure that we're not putting words in peoples' mouths. Something like that seems like a good step until we get some input from Carol. m.o.p  17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol's response: Thanks to Drsmoo for finally detailing what his issues are instead of just reverting! I have a few more remaining ones for later.

Drsmoo: I think the line Others characterize charges of antisemitism against Atzmon as an attempt to silence or “gag” his criticism of Israel and Zionism. is very POV and I didn't see the word gag in any of the articles cited. I also think using "others" is nebulous and vague, and it is better to cite who exactly is being referenced.''

CarolM: My point is that an article on his politics can’t be 50% about 4 people’s criticism of him as an antisemite per BLP. These are “words of praise” regarding an area where he is attacked. Note that Rizzo’s article referenced is called: “The Gag Artists, Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?” It doesn’t take an dictionary to know a “Gag artist” is someone who tries to “gag” someone. However, I don’t have a problem with just keeping it as “silence.” (First time DrSmoo mentioned this issue, FYI.)

Drsmoo: The line Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism. is factually incorrect, I have yet to see a single commentator or organization accuse Atzmon of antisemitism for a statement regarding Israel or Zionism, only for statements regarding Judaism.

CarolM: These are the two sources in question and what they say:
 * Gilchrest ‘’his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.’‘
 * Gibson :Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.

Drsmoo: The party responded: "Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice." Seems very far reaching for a quote from the organization defending Atzmon. it is very long as well, certainly far longer than any of the other quotes in the section. It seems more to be redefining antisemitism than specifically defending Atzmon as well.

CarolM: BLP and NPOV would suggest that if one organization attacks Atzmon and another defends him, that defense should be included. And I think it is a clear defense of Atzmon.

Drsmoo: The line Atzmon denies he is an antisemite and says "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews," comparing "Jewish ideology" to "Nazi ideology," which is "driving our planet into a catastrophe." is extremely POV, and seems to make it sound as if the article is stating that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"

CarolM: Proper use of the “catastrophe” quotes deserves it’s whole section. I'm not sure which use of the quote (old, current, mine?) Drsmoo is referring to above, so all I can do is give you the whole original quote. It seems to me Atzmon is making exactly the statement Drsmoo objects to:
 * '"They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.” REF: Gibson

So hopefully this finally clears up these here-to-fore unexpressed attribution issues of Drsmoo?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Drsmoo Response:
 * Not at all, the word "gag" is ridiculously POV, and not included in any of the sources, Mary Rizzo is not a notable source under any account either way.


 * There is not a single example of Atzmon being called an antisemite for his views on Israel or Zionism. Therefore, you're line stating that he is, would be factually wrong.


 * I'm sure there is a defense of Atzmon somewhere that is not a far reaching attempt to redefine the definition of bigotry.


 * You didn't address the fourth point at all, which is that it makes it seem the article believes "Jewish ideology" is leading the world to a "catastrophe" horribly POV. Considering both parts of the quote are already included in the article in a non POV way, I don't see a point to including a POV version.


 * Caarolmooredc's edits are blatantly POV and unencyclopedic, we have a good edit with the slimvirgin/hipocrite/my version, and we have a good edit with the current politics section, which RolandR, Malik Shabazz and Myself have continued working on. The only editor who seems to object to either/both versions is Carolmooreddc. Drsmoo (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CarolM Response:
 * First, I compromised by not objecting to getting rid of gag and now suddenly the issue is Rizzo, even though she's been quoted for more than a year??
 * You use two sources, Gilchrist and Gibson, to make point people say he's an antisemite because of "Jewishness" only. (And you have to source it, of course.) However you do NOT reflect those sources because they both mention Zionism, which is usually equated with criticism of Israel. I'd compromise and just say "Zionism." But you want to eliminate half of what the sources say - the POV is you wanting it to appear he ONLY criticizes "Jewishness" and NOT Israel and Zionism which is an outright POV manipulaton!!
 * It's not up to Drsmoo to decide whether the Swedish Party's defense is the proper defense of Atzmon; an encyclopedia reports the facts, not what editors WISH were the facts. Feel free to find other defenses of him from the Swedish committee's charge. In the interim, this one is appropriate.
 * Again it is Atzmon, not me, who says: "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." I personally would be happy to not use EITHER mention of catastrophe, in the Cohen or the Gibson piece. Then no context is necessary under WP:NPOV. How about that as a compromise?
 * Remember just because people don't chime in to agree or disagree with what anyone says, doesn't mean they agree with any specific edit. It just might not be something that sufficiently rouses them one way or the other to participate, unlike say "the Right of Return" issue. I even let things slide that I don't think are the best wording, but I don't think are policy issues, so I'm not motivated to get involved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--


 * Which is of course a ridiculous notion as the article is full of Atzmon's opinions on Israel and Zionism. Once again, there is not a single source/commentator that calls Atzmon antisemitic for his statements about Israel or Zionism. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for lying, if the article stated that he was called antisemitic for his statements about Israel/Zionism, that would be a lie.


 * Secondly, the article is already "compromising" by using non notable sources such as Mary Rizzo and Oren Ben-Dor in order to provide an answer to the other sources.


 * I don't see any reason to "compromise" with your POV edits, when admins/editors have ignored you, when no one else has found the article to be POV and when you go against what every other editor working on this page has been doing. For over a year you've been pretending and claiming to admins (who have ignored you) that you're trying to undo my edits on the page. The truth is that you're going against every other editor working on this article. You should contribute normally, the same as everyone else, rather than going from noticeboard to noticeboard trying to have an authority intervene to make sure the article goes your way (which no one agrees with). Drsmoo (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again when Drsmoo can't answer an argument (except with false statements) he proceeds with inaccurate and false allegations. How do you intend to continue this mediation under these circumstances? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone has been contributing towards the article, Carolmoore goes to multiple noticeboards claiming POV and BLP violations, is consistently ignored, two editors on one of the noticeboards agree to help, make changes to the section, Carolemoore than completely removes their edits, claiming that they too are POV/BLP violations and suggests as a "compromise" that we go to the draft page worked on before. After that, she claims that that edit too is full of BLP/POV violations, and providing an extremely POV version, claims we have to make "compromises" with the draft version and her new more one sided version. It goes on and on and it's utterly ridiculous.


 * I just find it ridiculous trying to have admins intervene when everyone disagrees with this editor. I have a suggestion, let's work on this article the normal Wikipedia way. If Carolmooredc has a problem with the current edits, she can post it on the discussion page, the same way everyone else does it. If the other editors agree with her, than it should be changed and I will have no protest. In fact, I promise not to get involved either. Drsmoo (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This was going so well until you started to attack Carol, Drsmoo. As I've said before, you both have to put aside each others' conduct. It's natural to blame the other in a dispute, and I can see why you'd be doing it; however, please understand that you're both heavily biased and doing this will only worsen the conflict. If you can agree to disagree and engage in a civil discourse of compromise, things would get further. As you admitted, Carol, you didn't even know Drsmoo had some of the gripes he had until he made them clear above. If we can keep that up, we'll have this over with in a relatively short time.
 * Now, onto the issue itself; I have a few questions. First, Drsmoo; why do you consider Mary Rizzo to not be notable? From my limited knowledge of CounterPunch, I know it's not a completely useless wreck; there's no reason we can't use her opinion. If I'm wrong here, please do tell.
 * In terms of the anti-semite term issue; is there any chance of rewording that sentence so you can separate the two parts? As far as I can tell, Drsmoo is concerned with the context of the usage; however, as both parts of the sentence are true (he has made anti-Zionism statements and been accused of anti-Semitism), they can be used independently, right?
 * I'll add on more as I browse through everything. Please keep what I said at the top in mind, though. m.o.p  03:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is correct, I reached my breaking point after being attacked by this editor once again. My ability to blissfully ignore her ridiculous attacks has been eroded, and I won't put up with it any longer. One of the only editors who actually responded commented that the section already seemed like an apology for Atzmon, and now we are supposed to make it more slanted. Despite no other editors finding anything resembling a POV/BLP violation, certainly not in the direction Carolmooredc is suggesting.


 * I'm willing to put that aside if it will make the article stable however. I'm not sure what "Anti-semite" issue you're referring to, if someone can find an example of Atzmon being called an anti-semite for his statements on Israel or Zionism (not someone stating people have said that, someone actually accusing Atzmon of antisemitism for his statements on Israel or Zionism) then it would certainly make sense to put that an the article. There's no way the article should say that has occurred, when it appears to have never happened.


 * Atzmon's statements on both Zionism and Jewishness are included in the article


 * Regarding Mary Rizzo, her opinion pieces are certainly far less notable than the works of Aranovitch or Cohen. Though I see no reason for contrasting statements to not be included. Drsmoo (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say below, if you guys are trading insults it makes it hard for me to mediate. Not only do I have to keep cycling around and asking both of you to stop, I also can't do anything except warn you not to do it again. All that ends up happening is the animosity between you two increases (again). If the other makes any sort of biting insult, be assured that I'll catch it and deal with them appropriately - I can't do that if you respond in turn and muddy the waters further.
 * Now, the anti-Semitism issue - do you have a problem with all of the allegations being bundled together? Or is that the issue, that you don't want the reader to get the impression that all of Atzmon's critics believe the same things?
 * I know what you mean about Rizzo when you say she's less notable, but she's still notable, as Counterpunch published her opinion. There's no reason to discount her here.
 * Thank you for being willing to put things aside to stabilize the article, by the way. m.o.p  17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, Drsmoo attacks me, mischaracterizing my complaints in the spring (similar to the one's I make today). He also alleges that more recently another editor said something without bothering to provide a diff. I don't know what he is referring to or if it is true.
 * Note that three editors on WP:BLPN did opine that the original section here was too long and I didn't have a problem with shortening it. However the "solution" of making the short version twice as much criticism of his views as explanation of his views (and that sloppily) was against BLP:Criticism/Praise which I've linked to above repeatedly.
 * Note Drsmoo has gone ahead and made yet another substantive edit to the Politics Section of the article without asking permission. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant, just that he thinks he can do it and I cannot.
 * MoP write: In terms of the anti-semite term issue; is there any chance of rewording that sentence so you can separate the two parts? As far as I can tell, Drsmoo is concerned with the context of the usage; however, as both parts of the sentence are true (he has made anti-Zionism statements and been accused of anti-Semitism), they can be used independently, right? Not sure which of at least two different sentences you are referring to.
 * MoP writes:As you admitted, Carol, you didn't even know Drsmoo had some of the gripes he had until he made them clear above. You make this sound like it's my fault for not reading his mind. But good on you for asking him to be explicit on complaints and stop attacking me with vague and unproved accusations.
 * Finally, when you say "put aside others conduct" I assume you mean obsessing about PAST conduct and not complaining about current conduct as I do here. If he keeps attacking me instead of dealing with issues I'm just supposed to ignore it? WP:Civility doesn't think so and suggests other remedies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For the anti-semitism issue; from what Drsmoo has said, his problem is with the context, not the content. If you split apart the sentences (he's been accused of anti-semitism, and in addition of being anti-Zionist), they don't lose impact but you get rid of the context which appears to be bugging Drsmoo.
 * I don't blame you for not being able to read his mind, don't worry. I was just saying that we were finally getting somewhere and issues were being exposed before the insults started up.
 * If one of you insults the other and the other responds in turn, that moves mediation nowhere. I won't get any further by blocking you both or reprimanding you both. I can't single out one of you, either, because that's unfair to the other. However, if one of you spits out an insult and the other ignores it, I can deal with it fairly and quickly. Keep in mind, I'd be much more enthused if neither of you stooped to that level, but please understand where I'm coming from on the issue.


 * Thanks for laying down the law in your last paragraph :-)
 * Ok, I see what you are talking about but look at the sources. They clearly say he is being accused of antisemitism BECAUSE of his criticism of Zionism, NOT because of his criticism of Jewishness. (They ALSO might explicitly mention criticism of "Jewishness" as a reason he's called antisemitic, but Drsmoo should provide the sentence with that evidence.) So he is misconstruing the source.
 * Gilchrest ‘’his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.’‘
 * Gibson :Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.
 * Finally, didn't you ask me to revert my substantive change when I did one earlier? Which I did. Then could you ask him to, also? Thanks :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have assumed the self-reversion thing was obvious, but you're right, I should be as verbose as possible. I'll tack on a note.
 * Anyway, now we await Drsmoo's comment on that whole anti-Semite issue. m.o.p  18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The original statement was that Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism.

Is Atzmon Anti-Israel, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Zionist, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Jewish, yes. Has Atzmon been called Antisemitic(anti Jewish) for his statements about Israel or Zionism, no. So that line doesn't work. His Anti-Zionist and anti Israel rhetoric should certainly be, and is, included, but the line that his statements regarding Israel and Zionism have triggered allegations of antisemitism is factually wrong. His statements about Jewishness have however. Drsmoo (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the third time I've gone over this with Drsmoo, if you will look above.
 * The current statement is: "Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism.[2][6]" [2]is Gilchrist and [6] is Gibson. If the two secondary sources you use both say his criticism of Zionism have led to charges of antisemitism, the summary should say so.
 * In fact Gibson says nothing about his comments on Jewishness have led to charges to antisemitism. And Gilchrist clearly says it is criticism of Zionism itself (with criticism of Jewishness just part of that issue) which leads to that conclusion: "Watching my people destroying other people left a big scar. That was when I realised I was completely deluded about Zionism." Hence his condemnation of Jewishness as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency". But an anti-semite? "Considering the fact that I'm from Israel, my wife is Jewish and I have three Jews in my band, am I an anti-semite? Naaaw… that just doesn't work."
 * In fact, none of the sources that follow this generalization mention "Jewishness" per se. This is pure WP:OR on Drsmoo's part. Here's the paragraph in question (see page for actual refs):
 * Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism.[2][6] The Board of Deputies of British Jews, criticized Atzmon for saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."[39] Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that "since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people’ ... any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right."[40] In 2005 David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing in his essay "On Anti-Semitism" that "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously."[41][42] Journalist Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far right with a paranoid mentality[43], for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" [6] and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity."[43] In 2007 the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism criticized the Swedish Social Democratic Party for inviting Atzmon to speak, saying he had worked to "legitimize the hatred of Jews.”
 * Any chance we can get a resolution on this at this point? If not, I'll start bringing this point elsewhere and we can start on another one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote the sources "I use". These are your sources, you added them, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321745090&oldid=321687324 so for you to call this "original research" on my part is...odd.


 * Regarding future sources to use, I can certainly find plenty of sources calling Atzmon an antisemite for his statements about Judaism/Jewishness, it seems we should use those sources instead. If you can find a source actually accusing Atzmon of antisemitism for his statements on Israel/Zionism, then that should be used as well. Please don't accuse me of "original research" for lines and sources you added. Also, please stop threatening to "bring the point elsewhere" if you don't want to engage in mediation than don't, the threats are tiresome. Drsmoo (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I put those sources in to ref "Zionism" - you took out "Zionism" but left in the sources. That makes them your sources. The original research is even more in the following sentence where No One uses the word "Jewishness" - it's YOUR interpretation of what they are saying.
 * So you still maintain that these two sources are NOT saying he is accused of antisemitism because of his criticisms of Zionism? If so and the mediator cannot give a definitive opinion, we are at an impasse and it goes elsewhere... That's how mediation works.
 * Gilchrest: His stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.
 * Gibson: Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.
 * So what's the next issue? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Break five?
Atzmon does seem to mention Jewishness per se, Carol. And no, I can't make a decision for you; if Drsmoo isn't happy with phrasing, then that should be discussed. I can't make him (or her) happy. m.o.p 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol no, they're your sources, you added them, and then modified the sentence to fit them in a blatant act of WP:OR and POV editing.


 * Once again, find a source that accuses Atzmon of Antisemitism for his statements on Israel and/or Zionism.


 * I suggest we change the source to one of the sources linked to which accuse Atzmon of Antisemitism for his anti-Jewish statements, if sources are found accusing Atzmon of anti-semitsm for his anti-Israel/Zionism statements, those should also be added. Drsmoo (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Atzmon mentions Jewishness in various Primary Source articles. No one denies that. The issue is who says his doing so is a source of his being called an antisemite. The only place his use is linked (circumcuitously) to charges of antisemitism is in Gilchrist when Gilchrist writes: "Watching my people destroying other people left a big scar. That was when I realised I was completely deluded about Zionism." Hence his condemnation of Jewishness as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency". But an anti-semite? "Considering the fact that I'm from Israel, my wife is Jewish and I have three Jews in my band, am I an anti-semite? Naaaw… that just doesn't work." To say that all the other examples in that paragraph ALSO talk about Jewishness is what is WP:OR.
 * No, Drsmoo, I added Zionism and then used Gilchrist and Gibson to source them. Is that so difficult to understand. Or is that another absurd accusation meant to get me so disgusted with editing the article I quit?? Any thoughts, MoP??
 * Obviously MoP can't opine on whether the secondary sources that say he is being called an antisemite for anti-Zionist statements, so I will go elsewhere Later today. CarolMooreDC (talk)

---


 * It's very easy to understand. There are no sources that accuse Atzmon of Antisemitism for his opinions on Zionism. It's up to you to find sources that call Atzmon an Antisemite for his statements on Israel/Zionism, if you believe that addition should be in the article. "He said that he said" references don't work. If the article is going to say Atzmon has been accused of Antisemitism for his statements on Israel/Zionism, it needs to have references to those accusations

A proposed change to the line:

Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism '' Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

+

Break six
As she does not feel it is going her way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Problems_with_an_.22informal.22_mediation Sorry :( Drsmoo (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as we were getting somewhere... sigh. Well, again, don't be sorry, it's not your fault! As for her request, there's nothing much I can do - if Carol decides that she'd like to have someone else look at this, I have to respect her wishes. Best of luck in your future endeavours, both of you! And if you ever need me, you know where I am. :) m.o.p  21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, asking a question does not necessarily mean making a decision. I mean if this is not a real mediation according to that board, I do have a right to know about it, don't I?? Stop WikiStalking me, DrSmoo, and you won't have to jump to conclusions. Meanwhile a final answer on whether Drsmoo and I have come to an impasse on the last issue so I can go else where for WP:RS/BLP opinions on a new issue would be appreciated. That's how it worked when I was in a formally recognized mediation with a bunch of people a couple years ago. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking "How can I get out of this and go back to dealing with this editor's behavior on appropriate noticeboard(s)" Sounds like you have made a decision. In the meantime, we are waiting for you to submit your proposed edit which includes direct examples of Atzmon being accused of Antisemitism for his statements on Israel/Zionism.


 * Here are three sources which accuse Atzmon of Antisemitism for his statements about Judaism, as the line says.


 * "Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism


 * Please submit direct examples of instances where Atzmon has been accused of Antisemitism for his statements on Israel/Zionism as your original line stated. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia states that "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." Specifically naming The Times, one of my sources, as a high quality news organization, the Guardian would similarly be in the same range. The Gisborne Herald is a tabloid with a small circulation and the Scottsman does not imply that Atzmon' anti-Zionist statements have lead to charges of Antisemitism. The sources I have provided are extremely notable (far more notable than the ones you have provided) and directly refer to Atzmon's antisemitic statements on Judaism. Your sources so far do not include any anti-zionist/anti-israel statements that have been accused of antisemitism. It is also extremely disappointing to see you editing the article after asking me to refrain from doing so. Additionally it is curious to see you commenting on "wikistalking" given how you immediately posted when RolandR inaccurately messaged me. As well as having commented on my posting history many times. Drsmoo (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please change the misleading Section header (or the mediator can collapse the relevant section) and perhaps I can for the 5th time explain my position. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI, my thinking is we may need a more formal mediation with a more experienced mediator. In informal ones like this all of the bad behavior noted can be added to any WP:ANI. In formal mediation, it cannot. Of course, a more experienced mediator would not put up with repeated requests to answer the same question over and over and over again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We're still waiting for you to answer it. Drsmoo (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have answered this question at least four times, latest here to MoP and you. You want me to engage in WP:OR to cite "direct examples." I want to cite secondary sources. MoP can't seem to understand this.  Do you?  We need someone with more experience to sort this out. What is your opinion on moving formal mediation? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing formal mediation would offer you, really (aside from the process). I mean, if you want the mediator to make decisions, then you're looking for arbitration; if you'd like me to make suggestions, I can do so, but this should still rest largely on you guys. And, if Drsmoo disagrees with you, and you disagree with him, we have to work around it somehow; we can't leave anything unresolved and move on.
 * How about a clean, easy-to-answer question; Carol, what do you think is holding us up? How is Drsmoo asking for original research? m.o.p  06:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense, but sometimes people do request new mediators, which is harder to do in informal mediation. However, they are available in formal. I like informal because (as an admin just reassured me when he said formal mediation might be the answer), I am allowed to use diff's of Drsmoo's disruptive edit warring techniques in any WP:ANI I feel it necessary to lodge about him.
 * Like I said above, obviously after four go rounds on this issue there was no resolution and therefore the issue should be dropped as part of the mediation. Meanwhile, Drsmoo has actually changed the sentence to say something his sources MAY support. Haven't decided if worth challenging.
 * The problem is I have held repeatedly that Gibson and Gilchrist ALSO say he's been called antisemitic because of attacks on Zionism and you have not in anyway challenged Drsmoo's denial of this. So I'm going to consider that ALSO an irresolvable issue and add to the article and if Drsmoo reverts go to appropriate noticeboards if no other editors opine.
 * So as I said before, what issue do you want to bring up next? How about my complaint: Use of link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics from Cohen's quote on "paranoid mentality" seems a POV, WP:Undue stretch, especially since this is about a British citizen and British politics. This should be an easy one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc will request new mediators until she finds someone who she believes will force her edits on the page. Meanwhile she is adding articles from newspapers which are not from "high quality news organizations" as wiki demands, and stretching the words of those that are.


 * And regarding further mediation, I have no interest in being dragged along to 20 different mediations until Carolmooredc finds the one that suits her POV. Drsmoo (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you can't just say "I choose not to go into formal mediation." You have to engage in exaggerated personal attacks. Since the sources in question don't seem to part of this mediation I'll reply on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We're already in mediation, why should we go to another one? Drsmoo (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot point. Since you have refused, I’m just waiting for MoP to move on to the next topic, hopefully the one I've proposed, which hopefully he can deal with more effectively. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of us are still fully on this topic. I find it funny how you attempt to set the rules of the mediation though. Drsmoo (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, so sorry for you having to have wasted your time :/ This same thing has been going on for close to a year. From one noticeboard to another to another. It's just been removed from the "third opinion" board, to back on the reliable sources board who she has previously reverted the edits from. lol Drsmoo (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediations only work if they are getting somewhere. After one month, no issues were and first one was hopelessly deadlocked with same back and forth 4 times. I have an easier issue on the table now. If MoP no longer participates, then obviously it is over. I moved the question from third opinion to BLPN where more appropriately belonged. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this mediation was never to solve all the issues in one fell blow - and, as we've shown, that was nowhere near possible. I'm still participating, but I'm not quite sure where you'd like me to take this, Carol (oh, and in reply to your above statement, no personal offence taken, so do be honest). We can't skip one issue and leave it unresolved, as we can't move mediation to another forum unless we have mutual agreement from both parties.
 * As for the Paranoid Style link; while 'paranoid mentality' is relevant to that essay, it's not used exclusively in reference. As the mediator, I'd advise avoidance of Wikilinking in ambiguous situations - however, if Drsmoo thinks it right for the link to stay, then that should be discussed. m.o.p  17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Utlimately reasonable. Yes, I'd like to resolve this wikilink issue - maye as practice - and then we'll see if there are others we can resolve. :-)
 * On the other hand, after Drsmoo made this nasty comments about Atzmon which were quickly reverted by an Admin when Drsmoo refused to do so 1, which clearly show his bias I am still considering an ANI, just have other things to do.  Somehow people forget that WP:BLP reads:
 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.
 * Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below).
 * The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on Gilad Atzmon talk page about Wikiquette Alert on Drsmoo: ''Even a stubborn Taurus the bull like me can only take so much. Given Drsmoo's extreme hostility towards Atzmon which has led to a number of warnings against him, and the incredibily WP:uncivil, WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive editing on his part, I have to seriously look at whether it's worth editing this article anymore. How can one deal with a smokescream of obsfucating accusations and denials week after week after week. It's absurd. At this point I think just working to get some administrative action going is the only recourse.'' CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The civility board says I haven't been uncivil, so now what? Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One person opined and he was right that my complaints had to focus on your incivility against me and not admins warnings against you as evidence of general incivility. Thanksgiving Day weekend is not a great time to deal with these various issues so I'm taking a break from looking for responses for a couple days and just gather evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, no. He said "This is not an incivility problem as far as I can see. Please stop alleging incivility until you can show something according to WP:CIVILITY. Forum shopping with allegations like this are not considered good practice in Wikipedia. Please try and assume good faith and confine your arguments to the subject rather than another editor."


 * Have fun scouring my history to "gather evidence" One would think you were on a personal vendetta. Drsmoo (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Revised alert focuses on Drsmoo's incivility towards me as advised after the first alert. Let's think positive thoughts Drsmoo will get a good mentor! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation over
Given that Drsmoo never bothered to answer Master of Puppet's question at this November 23 diff and given that Drsmoo continued to attack both me and Atzmon elsewhere as mentioned above and at both Wikiettique Alerts, I think we can assume this mediation is over. It is a particularly difficult one given difficulty of getting past behavioral issues that even the most experienced editor in Formal Mediation might not have been able to deal with. So no knock on Master of Puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Master of Puppets can opine for him/herself as to whether he/she felt I answered his question. I am confident I did. I'm sorry he/she had to waste his/her time and be attacked repeatedly by this editor here and elsewhere. Perhaps there are stronger steps that can be taken to prevent these repeated caustic attacks on the article. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How to get the approval to write an article.
Hi,

I am user of article SEGi University College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGi_University_College

Seem my article get deletion 3 times. May I know the guidance to make or post an article stay like other such as Talylor's University College, INTI University College and etc?

I will rewrite an article without Copy right or advertise purpose.

Besides, my IP address get block to create article again, any requirement to unblock it?

Please advice and email me for any request needed. Thanks.

Best Regards,

User:Hossama
Did Hossama re-create that article yet again despite the advice I gave? You just can't help some people, can you? Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, maybe you could post a note on the user's talk page re the block/unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Master of Puppets, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 28 October 2009 Peshawar bombing

 * Btw, I'd appreciate if you would look at Angolagate. I've updated it but a fresh set of eyes will be helpful. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, just the "Arrest and trial" section will do. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok nevermind. What do you think about the suggested blurbs? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on the page. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The last thing is, I think Gaydamak's color picture is better than Pasqua's black-and-white image, and Gaydamak's involvement was heavier than Pasqua... Perhaps it might be better if we use Gaydamak's image instead. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Userpage Award
Yes it did took a while previously, this time it loaded rather quickly, cached might be.-- '''yousaf465'  04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a run of mill mistake. Actually it was just loadshedding time and I had to do it in secs. Thanks for correcting it.-- '''yousaf465'  04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the long ref name is meant to identify the correct article, you see a single source might have two different articles on same incident e.g geo usually post upto 5 different stories on same incident.-- '''yousaf465'  04:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good advice. We can use numbers. -- '''yousaf465'  04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Um
Under what ground? Lar's criteria are -very- clear. I have met every single one. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MoP, I'm exercising my right to add criteria, that being that I should have spotted that problem before I told him I was going ahead and setting up the recall page for him. Please move him back to certified.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you volunteered to be my mentor....
Greetings.

I have asked some questions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grundle2600#Questions_for_my_mentor_.28and_anyone_else_who.27s_interested.29_about_my_topic_ban. this section] of my talk page.

Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven
PennySeven is not a "User in good standing." WP:SPI has determined that PennySeven is User:Nicolaas Smith, who was indeffed for "Disruptive editing." PennySeven was given a second chance, but the end of the indef-block should be considered the time that the second chance started. I suggest you move this horribly disruptive single-purpose disruptive account to not-a-certifier unless the requirements are waived. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above assessment. Actually, about 6 months ago, Gregalton came to me with his concern, that PennySeven was a sock of indef blocked User:Nicolaas Smith. Rather than going to SPI or ANI with it, I (foolishly in retrospect), responded that he should be given a chance to start fresh, and urged that we  accept him back into the community if he will follow community rules. This was not following proper procedure, and I regret taking these actions. Nicolass Smith should only be allowed back as a user in good standing if he makes the proper application for his ban to be overturned, and the community agrees to accept him back. For now, although not blocked, as an indef banned user, he is not a user in good standing. LK (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Love the edit summary
What possessed me to actually check the edit summary is unknown, but it was well worth the giggle. What the hell are you doing in Winnipeg anyhow? Hope it's fun, and stay warm! <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR limit
Can you review my formulation of the 1RR limit on user Radiopathy, and make additions/modifications if needed ? Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ani notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha
Haha, that was awesome. And I do like Taylor Swift too. I will say I don't really listen to Jonas Brothers, though I can't honestly say that I don't like them because I don't really listen to it. I prefer to think that I can like anything. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

28 October 2009 Peshawar bombing
I have to find a source explaining that it's the start of winter in Peshawar, Pakistan, and add that to the article? Is this the rule of Wikipedia? Also, I have to get a source for each person who died explaining they were doing winter shopping? Hope you know this is ridiculous!--Jrkso (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you making up your own rules? I've provided a reliable source (Karen DeYoung and Haq Nawaz Khan of The Washington Post) which indicated that women were doing winter shopping.''At Lady Reading Hospital, a student named Ahmed Jan, 25, said a relative of his had been killed in the bombing. He said she was a teacher who had gone to the market to buy winter clothes for her two children. People do winter shopping before the cold winter weather begins, usually one month in advance, and in the case of Peshawar the cold season starts now. You probably live in India where you don't see winter, but in many places of the world people know what winter shopping means. Why did you remove the source? Why don't you use the talk page instead of removing information from articles? This isn't good.--Jrkso (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Who do you want to verify this to? You want to verify with sources that it's the start of winter in Peshawar? Or that people in Peshawar go to markets to shop there? Again, this is very ridiculous. I know what OR is. The fact is I've provided a very reliable source (above) clearly mentioning that women were doing winter shopping and even you agreed. So what's the problem then? Why are you so much against this? It's also very ridiculous to ask for about 100 sources, each one mentioning each victim what they were shopping. The information I've added said "majority of the victims were women and children doing winter shopping". All the sources say the site of the blast was an exclusive-for-women shopping area. The sources also say majority of the victims were women and children. So why are you bringing this No original research to me?--Jrkso (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who removed a source from the article which mentioned women doing winter shopping. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and you know it.--Jrkso (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said all the people were doing winter shopping. You want me to write in the article that one single woman was doing her winter shopping? Just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you're always right? You are again removing sourced information after I told you to please stop. What is your problem?--Jrkso (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You now understand my intention, I only wanted readers to get a little idea that it was sort of a busy day, more shoppers than usual due to the coming of winter season. Thanks for helping.--Jrkso (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Hello! The addition of a shadow effect has made your signature much more difficult to read, especially in Firefox. Can you please remove it or otherwise tweak the appearance for improved legibility? —David Levy 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with David Levy. :-) --BorgQueen (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there! On my talk page or on others? It's showing clearly for me (1200x880 resolution, I believe), and my font sizes are set pretty small. However, I'll change it if it's misbehaving on other pages. Master of Puppets  03:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed the issue at Talk:Main Page. I'm using Firefox's default text size at a resolution of 1400x1050.
 * And oddly enough, when I copied and pasted your message from my talk page to yours, the effect began extending to your timestamp and my reply (until I inserted a closing  tag).  —David Levy 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange things about! Master of Puppets  03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above signature looks fine, but I again needed to insert a closing  tag to prevent the style from extending to your timestamp and my reply.  It really should be there, anyway.  —David Levy 03:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of correcting your User:Master of Puppets/Sig code accordingly. I hope that you don't mind.  —David Levy 03:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have returned!
After a long wikibreak, I have decided that coming back to Wikipedia is the best thing to do. I have been incredulously stressed out the time I was gone, and I either a) didn't have the time b)didn't have the attention span due to stress or c)was at camp. Tell me the basics of what's changed here, and I'll get back to editing soon! Jonathan321 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? We're going to have flagged revisions for the whole wiki? Is this some kind of Practical joke you're pulling on me here? This will not only practically destroy Wikipedia, it will also be a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Our only hope is that (and this will come true) that it created such a backlog that we will stop it within the first few days. Jonathan321 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Salt of the Sonic
Hi! Since you closed the AfD for Sonic the Hedgehog (film), I would like to ask you to consider salting it. This is the fourth time the hoax has been deleted and I'm guessing it's just going to come back again if we leave it as is. Thanks and have a great week! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lambs
Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. <font face="Verdana"> Durova 355 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hai xD
Heya MoP we played JK2 together :D You adopted me here last year, I'm sure you almost can't remember me.

So how long have you been playing JK2? ~Speed@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speeda psx (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was doing edits, but kinda not so noticable ones and I'm alos extremely busy with my schoolwork, I now wnet to Gimnazija :(Gymnasium) a secondary school here and I got loads more of work now... I'm also busy breakdancing and skating in my free time...
 * For the sake of keeping better contact, here's my new mail: and my X-Fire:.
 * Yeah I haven't played JK2 for a long time too and I was taking a break from making my game, so I looked at the shelf and saw it xD
 * Currently I'm modding the graphics engine of JK2, cause everything is assembled from .jpg, and I can edit that in Photoshop (Still the good old CS2, my comp can barely take CS2 and I'm pretty sure it would die at CS4).


 * SO I remembered, you're born near my country! Yay!


 * Let's talk more on X-Fire, I got quite some stuff to tell.
 * Speeda psx 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, and yeah I got a rough schedule, bboying is 4-5 times a week and a lot more at home... So I'm on my computer little lately and I'm hanging out with friends, playing basketball till it gets cold. how's your life going?
 * Nah, I can use any version of Photoshop profesionally, but my computer is so old that it wouldn't take the new version, it takes 7-10 minutes to open CS2 now and I get a 10 second freeze anytime I change a color on my colorpalette...
 * So did you get my mail or should I send you it?
 * Speeda psx 15:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note:Block
I know i'm acting like a wimp, but could you unblock 69.113.79.227 (IP adress)? Some of his/her's edits have been constructive. I believe this vandalism happened when someone kept deleting his constructive work on the Sipmsons' Episode "The Burns And The Bees" and this triggered angryness and released it by vandalising people's pages.I'm no admin, but I think he/she should be unblocked. Tell me if you agree or disagree. Thanks! S H  6    04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! You should deal with it since, well, I suck. S H  6    07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's recall
Hi! Please have a look at User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall_petition_(October_2009) and the talk. I think it may be time for the clerk to do a close, as I believe that it's been well over 5 days since the petition was initiated and there are not 6 certified petitioners. I even suggested a wording to use :) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I dream of horses @  19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

SimplyTweet
Hi! Thanks for responding over at my talk page. I've added references as you suggested. Would you mind helping to check the page again before I restore it? Thanks. Hboon (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Megs91
Hey there. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment from User talk:Megs91/Sandbox to User talk:Megs91 as it is the actual user talk of the author, and they probably read it there more likely. I put to the edit summary where your comment is from.  Ilyushka88   talk  18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a second look, I see that I fail at witing edit summaries as seen here. hehe  Ilyushka88   talk  18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cryan Tennis Tournament
I haven't been able to respond to the comments; however, I think that your comments and a couple others were incorrect, the tournament is very large for a tennis tournament and attacts a good deal of local interest and press coverage. I have no idea who you are or why you deleted my website - actually, I really am not sure if you were the person that did that. You did write that you did some research; I would suggest that you google "cryan tennis," that should give you some information. I can't imagine that you did or why you would or that you'd have any interest at all, it is a local tournament, only of interest to those in the Central Jersey area and those that have played the tournament, those that play the tournament are from all over the world, the woman that won it this year was from Russia and had been 48th in the world just a couple of years ago. In any case, it's an interesting process, very informative about Wikipedia and how it seems to work. Good luck to you, Master of Puppets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncryan1958 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: What is allowed
I was specifically working on the GameHouse article and since RealArcade is no more, some of the info needs to be moved there to that article because of the merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: How should I go forward with this user?
Hey m.o.p, this is in reply to the suggestion/help you gave me. Hope I'm supposed to reply here. I took some time to gather from revision diffs for you -- or should I be presenting them elsewhere/to someone else? Anyways, here they are by "category" I guess and sorry if I did this wrong.


 * 1) "Attacking/insulting/etc" via talk page
 * 1 (note that after warning she removed it: 1b)
 * The current and old revision 2 on my talk page isn't what I'd call an attack but it could have been worded more... ah, maturely? Politely? Something like that.
 * I have my suspicions that the IP 96.255.158.81 is the same person because of similar editing timing and wording as well as main account erasing what IP says (i.e. here, so I'll include this here as admin can check if they are one and the same: 2


 * 1) "Attacking/insulting/etc" via summary edit (will quote directly, easy to find on contribution history)
 * "16:37, November 1, 2009 (hist | diff) Bisexual community ‎ (expanding article, putting back in information that is verifiable. hoping this time that the biphobes will leave it alone.)"
 * "03:32, November 2, 2009 (hist | diff) Bisexual erasure ‎ (adding some sources and cleaning it up, because the biphobes seem to be using any excuse they can to ruin this page)"
 * "19:43, November 2, 2009 (hist | diff) m Lady Gaga ‎ (adding in about her speeches and LGBT activist work-should be in the summary. homophobes need to STOP deleting this!!!!!)"
 * "16:59, November 6, 2009 (hist | diff) m Gay community ‎ (well your opinion isn't a neutral point of view. it's called the lgbT community for a reason. stop with the transphobia) "


 * 1) Removing tags without fixing
 * on bisexual chic (removed a "Who?")
 * on bisexual erasure (removed a "weasel-inline")
 * on bisexual erasure (removed "unbalnced")
 * on bisexual erasure (removed "self-published")
 * Per my suspiciouns that IP 96.255.158.81 is same, on bisexual erasure (removed "NPOV warning")

Also thought I'd mention while I was looking for the specific links apparently others have complained or warned her/him about vandalism. There seems to be several warnings already if you look through talk-page history, actually, i.e:
 * 1 warning by A8UDI in regards to "page blanking".
 * 2 warning by Cluebot
 * 3 warning by Tide rolls in regards to "unconstructive edits" ... the guy even got an Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for that one apparently *lol* (3b)
 * 4 warning/notice by Abce2 in regards to "attacking/insulting others".
 * 5 warning by HairyPerry in regards to "adding nonsense"
 * 6 warning/notice by XLinkBot in regards to "unwanted links/spam"


 * 1) Deletion talk
 * If she isn't the same IP then the erasing what the IP said wouldn't have been very helpful, 1

I think one of the main issues here, and I don't mean to be condesceding to the editor, is that they view Wikipedia as a community gathering site or something... at least, they have referred to the articles as "their community" and "our community" and the articles as "our pages" several times and has been editing the pages to reflect a kind of "support group" or "resource centre" ... i.e see the bottom of the Bisexuality and Bisexual community page (though I fixed the latter up a tad a moment ago) ... I could be wrong, but maybe they're used to editing more community-oriented wikis i.e. Bisexuality Wikipedia and all they need is to be told this Wiki is different? I don't know but this is giving me a huge headache. I'm willing to help a tad more with this such as bringing it to the right person but I've gotten quite sick of it quite fast, I think I'm going back to just copy-editing from now on haha. Again, thanks for your help. Would prefer reply on my talk but here is fine too. Avalik (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercy11
Hi there; after reading the dialogue relating to block/unblock on this user's page, i am unsure if you intended to unblock her or not? Certainly you have not; no-one has. What was the intention? --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Spread the joy
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Goldkingtut5 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

About the deletion of the article Peregrine (U.S. band)
Hello. As it is indicated in the policy, Deletion review, I am addressing you first about a possible mistake you did in deleting the article for this band. Policy states that these matters should not be decided by head count vote. Since all the objections to the article were addressed in the discussion, I don't understand the basis for your decision. All the last posts were between two users defending the article and one who was against it. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given an answer in my talk page. Thank you for your time.Maziotis (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

U of W
No break yet for thanksgiving? :( Yes, try and come to IRC when you can!--  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi there. I'm User:Addihockey10 and I'm looking for an admin coach. Would you be willing to coach me? Thanks! -- Addi hockey  10 <sup style="color:purple;">(review me!)  21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright! Thanks for volunteering to be my coach. Don't worry about me too much; I'm pretty independent and I won't cause too much trouble on you. Again, thanks! -- Addi hockey  10 <sup style="color:purple;">(review me!)  00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Adamantius (theological journal)
Hi, yesterday you deleted this article per CSD G4. Today it has been recreated again. The creator, User:Alastair Haines, has twice removed the db tag and now an anonymous IP has done this for the third time (probably to avoid bot interference and quite possibly this is just the article creator himself). There is a rambling discussion on his talk page and now a "semi-AfD" on the talk page of the article. I don't have the time nor the gusto to get into a fight over this, but it seems that Haines is violating all kind of policies with this repeated recreation of deleted material (not to speak of possible sockpuppetry and a 3RR violation). Perhaps you can look into this. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me
Hi, I need some archives for my talk page. I have 81 messages on them....

Thanks, Wikidude 57 SB C 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching of BarkingFish
Hi MoP, I was doing a bit of tidying up of Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching, and the entry for says that you are coaching them.

I have contacted BarkingFish, but had no reply yet. If you are admin coaching them, could you please remove their entry on the Requests page, and add an entry on the Admin coaching/Status page? If you are not coaching them, could you remove the "admin comment" on their entry?

On the message at their talk page, I basically asked them if they could do the same - and if they are no longer interested in receiving coaching, if they could remove their name from the list.

It would be nice to get this sorted out - it's only a little thing, but it'd be good to get the list properly tidied up.

I have also suggested here that if someone has not updated their "last visited this page" date in 6 months (or if they have been inactive for 4 months) that their name should be removed from the list (at the moment, if they haven't visited in 6 weeks, their name is move from the current requests to the older requests.

At the moment, their are about 100 "older' requests - removing those more than 6 months old would leave about 20!

If you have any comment on this suggestion, please feel free to leave a message on the thread!

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax  01:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

December21st2012Freak  Happy Holidays! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. December21st2012Freak  Happy Holidays! 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, ! May you be blessed with a full plate and a joyous spirit! I hope that this Christmas season is one of celebration and rest for you and your family.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear , I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak  Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIRPORTS ad
Could you do an ad for WP:AIRPORTS? If you would, that would be great. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

keezy19 deletion
Hello this is Clifton Corbin, the guy that created the Keezy19 musician article back in October. I would like to know why you deleted my wiki?? I had all of the importance needed. Can you please restore it or tell me what i have to do to get it back, or help me with it? Please, I'd really appreciate that. Thanx. If you can call me at 7577682261 or email me at cajakzent@aol.com so you can walk me through it because i dont know what to do now. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123088filez (talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get back to editing...
Third time's the charm, eh, buddy? :) Jonathan321 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Joel Rust
I see you were involved in saving this article last time it was up for AfD. In the intervening two years there doesn't seem to have been much improvement in the article, or evidence that this young composer has gone on to demonstrate notability, but it would be good if you could cast an eye over things again. Here's the blurb...

AfD nomination of Joel Rust
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joel Rust, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deskford (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi, it's been awhile since I've been on Wikipedia, but could you coach me again? All I need is basically a "checklist" to complete before going up for RfA once again. Thanks! -- Addi hockey  10  04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey,specifically I would like you to look up my non-automated talk page editing skills. Thanks again! -- Addi hockey  10  01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion
Friendly heads-up Imagemap is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion
Friendly heads-up Imagemap is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

- Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As an user who enacted the sanction from this discussion, this is to let you know of Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Master of Puppets,

I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to appear to have been editing only sporadically in the last months. I wonder if you're still interested in adopting new users. If you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing,  Snowolf How can I help? 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And to change the subject completely, how are you? Haven't talked to you in a very long time :)  Snowolf How can I help? 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sig
Hey, Master of Puppets: I was out visiting and went to sign a gbook and saw your sig. Im a (ok I'll be honest) BIG get on the band wagon after the "Black Album" Metallica fan. I was looking for your book but all I found was a vandal's playground, If thats your guestbook I will be glad to sign it. My request is I would love to have your's, if you would Here    Mlpearc   MESSAGE  17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Fresh Beat Band


A tag has been placed on The Fresh Beat Band, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of The Fresh Beat Band and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ClapBoy380 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jay-Z


A tag has been placed on Jay-Z, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Jay-Z and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ClapBoy380 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check on more vandalism by User talk:210.0.201.161
A particuilarly nasty piece of vandalism, yet again, on The Marriage of Figaro article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reconnecting on help for submitting first article
Master of Puppets - I'd like to reconnect with you from an initial conversation a VERY long time ago about finally submitting my first article for the organization I'm a part of, Pragma Systems. Can you help in accomplishing this? Andrewtull (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please
You deleted Asil training camp. The entry you left in the deletion log says: "deleted "Asil training camp" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, deleting page per result of AfD discussion.(TW))" If the reason you deleted it was that it was a redirect to a deleted page do you believe it lies within your authority to userify the deleted page it pointed to, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Asil training camp? If so I would be grateful if you would userify the base article.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You closed Articles for deletion/Asil training camp. I am going to assume the deletion log contained incorrect info.  I request that you userify the article to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Asil training camp.


 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Username
Hey, I was wondering if your username was after the Metallica album. Wikidude 57 SB C 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * His Name is NOT named after the metalica Album, He is saying by his username that He controls all of the little helpless wikipedia users who cant help themselves. Plus, Metallica is too cool for his name.

Conkern65 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fil OK
Hi, you deleted my page 'Fil OK' in Oct 2008. I've had many musical releases since then and 2 albums, and would very much appreciate it if you would re-instate me if this is possible? Thanks, Fil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fil okay (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYZOO Ad
Hello! Word has got around that you are an expert with making Wikipedia Ads. WikiProject Cryptozoology needs an ad for our project. If you are interested, the specifications are here, at the bottom of the page..-- Gniniv (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hi, I'm inviting you to participate in my WP:Editor review, your participation and comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -- Addi hockey  10  20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:MoPuppetarmy.png
This is going to need both a source and a license; something along the lines of "I created this work entirely by myself", and then a suitable copyright tag. Courcelles 17:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:O
o.m.g. it's m.o.p.

Are you back to stay, or just dropping in? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's new is a lot of drama, some old timers ragequitting, and policy overhauls. Tan39, Coffee, Accounting4Taste, Rlevse, Black Kite have all retired. Pending changes (flaggedrevs) may be of interest as well. You'll probably figure out what's changed (and what hasn't) if you look at RfA, AN, AN/I, etc. for a few days. A lot of it probably isn't going in the right direction, either. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

AaronIsREALz / Myccbb
Hi!

We've just had this user pop onto IRC - it seems he's a newbie who was wanting to change their username - nothing more. As such, I've removed the sockpuppet tag from the page, and replaced it with an alternate account tag. The account is still blocked though as he said himself that he's not going to use it, so there's no point in unblocking.

Ta

<font face="Verdana">&#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I would like to complain (I assume you are an admin) to you about Jingiby, Todor and the other two - they do not seem to understand that, according to wikipedia's rules, all significant views must be mentioned in an article. i do not know if you are aware of what Bulgarians believe. but let me tell you this - a lot of Bulgarians do not see themselves as a slavic nation (if you dont believe, ask some yourself, or take a look on the net). This, together with the fact that a special effort was put by a team of scientists (from the Bulgarian academy of sciences - if you do not believe me, phone them or email them) to go to a couple of Iranic countries to do genetic research 9amongst other research) to gather evidence for the significant view that Bulgarians are not Slavic, but closer to Iranic peoples. The team concluded, from analysing their data, that Bulgarians are closer to Iranic peoples than Slavic, as matter of fact they basically said that Bulgarians are very far from Slavs. I also have proper sources for this Now, those editors consistently remove this sourced info and basically not giving any other theories a chance - what looks like pushing only one POV. Clearly, according to peoples bliefs, and more importantly respected genetic research, shows that there are other views and theories. In wikipedia's rules it clearly states that for an article to be NPOV, all signifant views must be mentioned - their excuse all the time is that my sources are not proper, compliant sources, but I over and over again keep telling them, that according to wiki rules (and I checked) my sources are comoliant - it says that you are allowed to use major newspapers as sources - and novinite.com is a major one. Those editors are not willing to aknowledge other theories and they keep removingmy content without proper explanation as to why they are doing it - ll the time just saying I vandalise (to which I take great offence, as I am nothing like vandals on wikipedia) and that my sources are not compliant. Basically i explained why what they are doing is wrong, but they have not once explained to me why what I am doing is "wrong", just replying with one sentence replies all the time. Basically he is not arguing about what the source itself says, but just that it is not a compliant source (but surely in such a major newspaper they would not invent a story like that from scratch - that a big expedition happened, by Bulgarian scientists and that they did genetic research - surely the nespaper, a major one like that, first checked the information before putting it one, and if they dont check it then surely they stand at a risk for losing prestige, respect and millions of euros - for putting false info, thus making people angry. Strangely enough, I recently also made an edit to Bulgaria page adding the info that recently the alleged remains of St John the Baptist was found in Bulgaria (but not 100% confirmed) I added that info plus a source from BBC, and no one, including Jingiby, had a problem with that (he didnt argue about the source at all and left it, but for the other source, which is equally compliant, he argues a lot - all signifying that he hasnt really got a problem with the source itself, but with the information itself (because if he did have a problem with the source then he would have argued about all electronic newspapers, including the BBC one - the story and logic of the situation of that edit and the edit that there is another significant view of the origins of the Bulgarians is the same logic. jingiby and Todor just dont want to aknowledge another view, which is significant, and go so far as to downright remove it from the article and its source. Please, I have a favour to ask of you - to truly understand this argument and to know all sides of it, please take a couple of minutes to read what i wrote to the editors - it will help in understanding this more - everything is below (and also please read all my comments to my edits on the Bulgarians page (oh, and by the way, I now realise that i did indeed break the 3 rever rule - i would like to humbly apologise for that action, I didn't realise I did it and would like to say sorry for that):  To Jingiby (and thus Todor as well):

POV? Vandalsim??How are my edits POV?, when first of all - most Bulgarians DO NOT see themselves as Slavic (so majority agrees with me), and second of all - science (not speculation and fringe theories) were used to produce the DNA evidence and on top of that there were two sources - which comply with wiki rules - I checked. I am adamant in adding this as Bulgarians have a right to know the latest genetic research of their race - it is fair that they should be aware of this research, don't you think - so please explain to me how it is POV - perhaps you are using POV by ignoring 2 compliant sources and by ignoring genetic evidence - when one uses their logic here then it looks like you are using POV, not me - I backed up my statement with 2 sources and like I said, many, many Bulgarians do not consider themselves Slavic. It seems shameful that this information and DNA evidence seems to be hated - a lot of Bulgarians and people in general might not be aware of this genetic research at the moment as it is still recent - so reading it on wikipedia - which is free and very easy to access, seems like a good place to read up on this stuff - so back to my other point - it should remain here so that Bulgarians can read it and then know more sides of the story - they have a right to know about the research that is going on about their race - it is only fair!

It seems quite selfish, shameful really, that you should try to hide this from wikipedia, thus removing any chance that a Bulgarian would read it - thus taking away a basic right to know more about their race - and then to use the excuse that it is POV (POV is a very sensitive issue on wiki, so if someone uses it in an argument they gain an unfair advantage a lot of the time), just because you don't agree with it. It is ridiculous to hide this and remove the right of people to know about it and to know more sides of the story {one side of the story - like you are trying to convey (even more so by ignoring the DNA evidence - which by the way is taken so seriously that it is used to identify criminals etc which determines if a person goes to jail or not) is actually POV, while NPOV is writing about the other side of the story as well - in this case - the genetic research}. I don't know if you are ware, but the fact is many, many Bulgarians consider the Slavic theory to be ridiculous and do not consider themselves Slavic at all, and in that regard also: including one side but not the other side of the story - only supports one view (that they are Slavic) while there is prejudice against another - POV.

I simply just don't see what is hard to understand - the DNA evidence clearly shows that modern Bulgarians are not Slavs - why do you ignore that and say I push a POV - that is a highly unfair and unjust accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a forum, but encyclopedia. Please, read Wikipedia rules about original research and reliable sources. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, and all due respect, canyou go read the wiki rules and see what are compliant sources. I checked well, and it turns out that the source from novinite.com is perfectly acceptable. And please go read the section (forgot exactly which one, but you will find it) where it says that all significant viewpoint have to be mentioned in an article for it to be neutral (and it surely is significant if there is genetic evidence and also id a lot of Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic). i dont see what the problem is here - I have read the rules and am respecting them by adding all signifiant viewpoints - what is wrong with that. You just say, abruptly, that I use "extreme POV and fringe theories", but how is it POV, and let alone extreme, if I abide to the wiki rules by adding all viewpoints, plus adding source to boot. And how is is fringe theories if there is genetic evidence and if many Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic (if no Bulgarians identified themselves as non Slavic and if only one person opposed the slavic theory, then yes - it will be fringe, but that is not the case here). It seems that you don't have any argument to back up your claims of me using POV and that it is a fringe theory - your response to my edit is just immediate revert, with no discussion, or understanding of what I am saying, plus you give no explanations or reasons (you just say extreme POV and fringe theories) - a behavior which is not rational or appropriate (it seems you just oppose all views but your own, and very strongly at that, you just want to have one viewpoint in the article, which actually goes against the rules - who is using POV now?) - from your behavior it seems that you have some prejudices to other viewpoints and theories, to such a degree that you revert it abruptly without any discussion or understanding - all of this is not right, I think, for a wikipedia editor. And by the way I know that this is not a forum, no kidding, i was simply explaining my what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Novinite.com is not a reliable source for DNA-study. Please, check again. Jingby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i did check time and time again, it says in wikirules that you can use a well known newspaper as a source. If you hate this so much then why dont you phone the team who did it and get further clarification, talk to them etc and then come back and discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I wrote to Todor - it is absolutely valid for you as well, and please reasd it, to understand my views. Also you have not ONCE explained how, what I am doing, is vandalism, but I can explain how what you are doing is vandalsim, if you read the following below. You keep calling me a vandal (without explaining and backing up that statement) - something to which I, as any respectful editor on wiki, takes great offence - offending someone on wikipedia is not acceptable. And how am i a vandal (something which, it seems, you cannot explain) when I follow all of wikiepdia's rules, especially the neutrality one. By pushing your POV (that is: putting only one view instead of all significant views - significant because it is backed up by genetic research (read more on it below) and because many Bulgarians do not consider themselves as slavic) and failing to aknow;edge another view, which is significant and is backed up by sources - here is a more complete and detailed source, with slightly more info http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903) you are disrespecting wikipedia's rules, as simple as that, and ruining this article. I simply cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand other views - failure to aknowledge other significant views, especially when they are backed up by compliant sources, and deleting those sources and also completely erasing that view from an article is what really constitutes vandalism, I am sure anyone would agree here. I am sick of you calling me a vandal when you do not explain yourself properly - on why I am a vandal. if you read below you would see why i am not a vandal at all, please read below.

Hi I have noted and read the past edits and comments between Kreuzkümmel and you on Bulgarians article - and I must say i am appalled at the fact that on your comment you said "such edits are NOT welcome" - what gives you the right to say what is welcome on the article? - maybe it is not welcome for you, but for others it is welcome - you cant just speak out like that for everyone. I see and understand that he was trying to say that Bulgarians are not Slavic ethnically but culturally in terms of language. Now I dont know if you are even part of Bulgarian society, because if you are then you would have been aware that a lot ( a high number) of Bulgarians don't see themselves as Slavic at all - so tell me then why such edits are NOT welcome - in that sense you are then going against a major opinion of the Bulgarians themselves (those that dont consider themselves Slavic). If you had looked yourself in the mirror more often and actually had taken notice, then you would have seen that Bulgarians dont even look like Slavs - even in the wiki articles it says that Bulgarian "slavs" look quite different to the rest of the slavs - gee, I wonder why, It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why, all it actually takes is common sense and logic - proper rational thought. Now to my next point - I don't know if you are even aware, but there was a scientific Bulgarian expedition, Tangra, that collected DNA data from Pamirian/Iranic people last year (there were only scientists and doctors in the team, no kooks, speculators or anything like that) and they concluded, after analyzing all the DNA data ( a scientific, not fringe process) that modern day Bulgarians are very far from Slavs, genetically, and very close to Iranic/Pamirian peoples, genetically. DNA evidence is not some crack pot thing - it is a very serious study and discipline which is used by forensic pathologists (doctors - who are very respected and are scientists) for many reasons - such as to identify ancestry, to identify a murderer (which lead to a decision whether a person goes to jail or not, so it is very important and DNA science is taken seriously). Read about it here: http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians and http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 I just don't see what is difficult to understand here - DNA evidence simply shows that the Bulgarians are not Slavs (which would explain why, in the wiki articles, it says they are different in terms of genetic from other Slavs, and which would also explain why Bulgarians simply do not look Slavic). It seems you are basing your argument not on reasoning, interpretation of data and rational thought, but on some prejudices that you might have, who knows. The fact that you said such edits are not welcomed on wikipedia, indicates (perhaps clearly) that you are not willing to listen and understand other sides of the story, but only know and believe your opinion to such an extent that if anyone says something contrary to what you think, then you say that edit is not welcomed - all this indicates that you have a firm POV, not NPOV, because if you had NPOV, then you would allow the other side of the story to be on the article and would have allowed (and not resisted) that edit to be read by Bulgarians themselves who might stumble onto this page - Bulgarians who have a basic right to know all the research that is happening on their racial identity. What you seem to like doing is you want to hide this and keep it way from any Bulgarian who might read something like this - so you are in effect, forcing them to read and understand only one theory (of their origins/reace etc) in this article (which is POV according to the wiki rule page which by the way I read - it says all relevant major viewpoints and theories must be mentioned to be NPOV, if it is not done that way then it is simply POV), instead of adding all relevant (sourced) viewpointw that deal with the topic - i.e: adding the sourced info that talks about the 2010 DNA research (the two sources, after checking the wiki rule pages, actually comply as proper sources). Basically what I am saying is that if you only include one theory (that they are Slavic), you are then removing the basic right of Bulgarians (who might read this) to see and read all the viewpoints, instead of just one, which is very unfair and if it removed over and over - then it is simply shameful. For this article to be fair to all viewpoints (especially if they are backed up by DNA research and compliant sources) need to be mentioned - NPOV, not just one (that they are Slavs), otherwise it will be POV. thank you for reading and hopefully understanding Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

what vandalismI am quite frankly getting sick and tired of your nonsense - you insult me (bad behaviour in wiki) by saying my edits are vandalism - let me tell you what vandalism is - "On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, spam or promotion of a subject, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." None of what I am doing constitues that - my edits are neither humerous, nonsensical (as I use sourced DNA information to back my statement - by the way if a theory is backed up by DNA evidence it immediately becomes a significant view anyway - it seems, according to you, that DNA is useless, as you are ignoring it and never commenting on it; but how can it be useless if it is used in medicine and forensics - which are two very respected fields and are so important that they decide if a person is prosecuted or not). I have tried to reason with you and show you the wiki ruels of neutrality (and ignore all rules rule, if it goes agains common sense), but you dont seem to want to cooperate an d insult me by saying my edits constitute vandalism - never once did you actually stop and properly explain how what i am doing is apperently wrong (you never once explained how my edits constitute vandalism) while I explained, clearly, what you are doing is wrong - you seem to be a ultra nationalist of the slavic theory (inmy opinion, no offence), and I cant fathom why, since in the article itself it says the DNA of the "slavic" Bulgarians is seperetated from the tight cluster of other slavic peoples, yet you still cling to this theory so much that you are not willing to listen and rationally examin other viewpoints (which are pretty significant if DNA research backs them up) - a behaviour, which I am sure everyone will agree, is not acceptable on wikipedia - let me summarise - I have explained my rational thoughts on the mattr plus I explained how what you are doing is wrong - but you have not done any of those things. Let me ask you again (before you call me a vandal unjustly gain) - how is my theory a fringe theory (and it is not kust my theory) when I have compliant sources with DNA research to back up my statements (need I reming you of the respect that DNA research gets in medicne and forensics), and on top of that - many Bulgarians do not see themselves as slavic - so I do not see the sense why you people (who are just 3 people it seems) continue to push a theory that goes against what a lot of people believe and more importantly, a theory that goes against DNA research. True, the slavic theory is a significant viewpoint, but there is another one too, which you guys unjustly remove without proper explanations on why you are doing so (after all it just follows the wikipedia neutrality rules, so I simply just cannot understand why you guys are doing it) and then you call me a vandal - how is that, in any way, fair? And to make the matter more confusing, all that you are doing all the time is just calling me a vandal, POV, vandal, POV, without ever discussing the ppoints I made - to any rational person it would seem that the behaviour you are displaying is senseless. I am not looking for any fights here or any arguments, neither do I like to "vandalise" pages, I have never done that and get irritated when people doing (by adding insults, crude humour, blanking etc). I am not that type of person who you seem to think I am. I am just following the good order of things and tryong to make the page better, while you just call me a vandal the whole time, never properly explaining anything, and then you people say that I go against editor concensus - what consencus when I am an editor and I dont agree, neither do other people it seems. I have not, so far (and am not planning to), gone against any wikipedia rules, but you people seem to be going against them, when you remove sourced info of a significant viewpont (I have already explained how it is significant and not fringe) and when you do not, even briefly, aknowledge special genetic research that was done on the matter. I ask you - if youare so againt this (as it would surely seem) why dont yougo phone the team that did the research, talk to them and have a discussion about the whole matter and then come back to discuss here. As a matter of fact it would seem that you have not even read the sources (everyone in the team, by the way, was a scientist or a doctor, who are scientist anyway). I do not undertsand why you just dont understand what I am saying - it is not fair, and goes against the rules, to only add and push one viewpoint as you are doing, and ignore the others - ignoring other research and scientific viewpoints can lead to scientific inncacuracy and can lead to many unwanted mistakes in the future

Read this again: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 It is an updated page that contains more info.

PLUS READ ALL MY COMMENTS ON THE EDITS

If after all this you still think that i am a vandal, then (in my opinion) you don't belong in wikipedia, especially if you offend people with no just reason (by not explaing yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide reliable, scientific, secondary University sources in English language supporting your extreme views. News on IT free-site in Bulgaria are nothing, but a reliable reference. Stop blind reverds. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my word?Are you slow??Or are you trying to be slow? HOW MANY TIMES must I say to you (I am sick of it now) that my sources are COMPLIANT to wikipedia, did you get that? I said COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, I will say it again: COMPLIANT. Now do you finally understand that my sources are fine. Oh my word - you do it again, another statement without an explanation: "blind revert" - a senseless statement as I have just put in a massive effort of explaining to you why they are not blind, and you still think my edits constitute vandalism. I have now grabbed my hair in frustration and awe on how you can still say these things without EXPLAINING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they arn't. Fullstop. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There you go again - you say my revert is a "blind one" - I have JUST PUT IN A MASSIVE EFFORT OF EXPLAINING TO YOU why they cannot possibly be blind and you still think my edits constitute vandalsim - I am now in awe and in shock at how you can possibly say that after you have just read what I had to say. I am also SICK AND TIRED FOR EXPLAINING FOR THE 20TH TIME THAT MY SOURCES ARE COMLIANT, compliant, compliant - I will say it another five times so that it can go into your head - compliant, compliant, compliant, complaint, compliant - did you get that???? I said my sources are compliant, compliant.

I have read the wiki rules and made sure that a newspaper article (from a MAJOR newspaper by the way) is a compliant source - you just dont seem to understand that do you, nowhere does it say you JUST have to use university sources and nothing else, does it now?

By the way, in the Bulgarian article of Bulgarians, it says in the lede that they are a Balkan people 0 you left it like that there so why are you so adament in saying that they are slavic, and in the process ignoring wikipedia's rules? In general (in my opinion), it seems you are a hypocrite - you hate vandalism and try to remove it from various articles(something I respect), but in this case (in my opinion) you seem to be doing it yourself? What gives Jingiby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You know that by saying "no, they arent. Fullstop" that you really look like an uncooperative person, who knows and firmly stands by his belief and his belief only. Yet again you dont explain yourself in this whole argument - you just respond with one sentence replies all the time - looks to me like childish behaviour. To someone who just comes (from the outside, and looks at the argument for the first time randomly) and who might view the whole argument so far - it can look like you are very uncooperative and not willing to aknowledge other views. in essence, from the outside, if someone were to view everything so far, it would seem that your, not mine, behaviour is unnaceptable and constitutes vandalsim

I hope you understand my point here and am also asking for your help in solving this argument. It is just not fair that they all gang up on me and isist on only one view. Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll respond here, seeing how you seem to have deleted my original statement on your talk page.
 * If you don't mind, I'll wait until the other editors give their opinions - but I understand your side. Just make sure you're not edit warring, or you will end up getting blocked.
 * Also, do consider getting an account. Cheers, m.o.p  07:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I deleted your statement on the talk page, I did it because it is a university's account, so I kinda didnt want other people to see my personal affairs. Thank you for understanding my side. Yes, I must create an account and I will do it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I hope this helps - it is an updated version of the info, and another source is archaeologybox.com (that particular one I dont know if it is 100% compliant). Another source, which I am not 100% if it is compliant, is: http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 (I am not sure if that is a 'major" newspaper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Also, i think it said on the one version of the info, that the research/expedition was initiated/controlled by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, so I do not see what all the commotion is about.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for all the things I did. I will try not to do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.30.150 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians
Hi again! I meant to say that I wouldn't like to be involved with the IP anymore because I find the content dispute itself unpleasant. Otherwise, I'd be glad to work with you and provide my opinion.

Yes, what you're proposing as a solution would be an improvement, but I don't think it would be enough of an improvement. I would not really find it completely acceptable if this theory is present on par with the dominant theory: that the Slavs did have a decisive factor in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity, at least on par with the Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians). The theory that Slavs have had a "negligible" (per the IP's wording) ethnic contribution is very alternative, and whether Thracians were part of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis at all is a controversial issue among scholars. It's not really necessary to defend my point, but consider this: the Bulgarian language is a South Slavic language, which is part of a smooth dialect continuum with Macedonian and Serbian to the west.

I've done some research on the author of the theory, some Slavyan Stoilov (mentioned in the Novinite.com article), who appears to be a physician and who was part of the expedition which put forth the theory as the expedition's medic and a researcher of Bulgarian traditional medicine (, Google Translate). This is hardly a person whose opinion on the ethnogenesis of Bulgarians should be respected, what's left given WP:UNDUE weight.

I still maintain, along with the three other editors who have reverted the IP, that this research is too fringe and not referenced well enough to be included in the article. Shortening and properly explaining Stoilov's research will improve the state of the article, but personally I don't think this will be enough.

Best, <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 14:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may comment here: I would certainly have closed this report with a block of the IP, and am only abstaining from it out of respect for M.o.P.'s prior initiative. It's as clear a case of disruptive edit-warring as can be, and what the anon is trying to insert is clearly a fringe theory lacking reliable sources. This is an "exceptional-claims-need-exceptional-evidence" matter, and inclusion should be considered only if and when the hypothesis actually gets published in a reputable academic journal. A single press release in a general-public newspaper simply won't cut it. (BTW, it's a rare event indeed that I should agree on something with Todor, Laveol and Jingiby. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)