User talk:N-HH/Archive 1

Hello
Hello Do you want to discuss my editing? I do not often blank large sections, but on a few ocassions I have. In all cases it was speculative OR on political subjects. There was a yopic menu, clicking on it brought me to more editing work than I could do in a year. Do you agree that this is the way to edit, to remove speculative OR? I suggest checking the actual deletions if you are concerned enough.

In regard to far right, see the Talk Page, I discussed my change well in advance and you did not comment. Raggz 10:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we could use help with democracy, want to try summarizing it in four paragraphs? The first three attempts didn't go far. Raggz 10:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is Democracy is a response to a consensual decision to work on an opening paragraph. It is not necessary to source "the sun rises in the east" unless challenged. The disagreement is if majority rule is a feature of democracy. I'm following the standard Jeffersonian Democracy theories, but there is resistance to any discussion of (1) majority voting, (2) the significance of voter inclusion or exclusion (sufferage) (3) the fundamental issue of what is and is not a liberal democracy. The pattern of rejection of these topics is not considered, nor deliberative, and there is no productive discussion. We have an individual who vetoes much and contributes little, who will not articulate their view except to simply oppose others. The article needs help, seriously, feel free to help. Anyone who contributes presently will get bashed, but we need an opening.


 * The Policy is to aggressively delete OR. I don't have the link, do you need it? I do not believe that I am actually inserting a "large amount of POV & OR material into articles". Are we just discussing the opening to democracy and a few words under liberal democracy? The section where I added it has no references at all, and the incluson seems no more controversial than the others. I considered entering the right of criminals not to be executed, a [[civil liberty] recognized outside of the US, but decided against it. The right to bear arms is a civil liberty within the US, and not widely otherwise.


 * We disagree on: "But blanking huge chunks of text from articles, including complete paragraphs, and sometimes nearly entire articles - which a lot of other editors have spent a lot of time working on and building up - is just bad practice and should always be a last resort." Policy says otherwise. If the material is POV-centered political essays, Policy says to aggessively delete it. Please help doing this? I deleted stuff I agreed with too. Look at human rights in the united states, it is being rebuilt by a motivated editor in San Diego, we will collaberate to make it better than it was. He agrees that it was bad, the sources misquotes, but he wants a good article to replace it. Soon we will joust over torture, he will use the word loosely and we will discover that US anti-torture laws and law enforcement are stronger than in the EU. So what's wrong with this? A blank page is turning into a good page that I don't agree with, but will tweak and help with NPOV? A lot of OR is gone, and no one cares to revert it.


 * Yes, my editing approach annoys people. Is this necessarily bad? There is a wiki-ecology of types of contributions, and among them are aggressive deletors. My goal is to delete more OR aggressively, but to do so in a way that increasingly helps the process. Presently I've slowed down to assess how these deletions impact the process. I'm observing and learning. You can really help by suggesting how I can be most effective in deleting large amounts of OR, not if I should. The present constructive work within human rights in the united states would not have occured without massive deletions. This s positive. The counterbalance is that large chunks of OR that no one cared about are missing? Raggz 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my questions about deleting OR, massively when necessary. They were sincere.


 * Thank you for contributing to democracy, I hope that you continue, perhaps even offering a draft opening section?


 * You said: "If you want to go somewhere and state how great and unimpeachable the US is, and how any criticism of it is mistaken or "unproven", please start a blog, invite people to leave comments on what you have to say, and leave a flawed, but at least consensual, encyclopedia alone--"Nickhh 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) First of all no one said anything like "how great and unimpeachable the US is". Am I mistaken on this?


 * What we have in that article are unsourced allegations about alleged human rights violations. There are others conceeded to be largely accurate, but all decades old, before the US reformed it's policies. What I requested on Talk was: (1) name the human rights law violated, (2) name the court case that made the finding - or alternatively label the claim an allegation. Is this a problem? What do you suggest?


 * The US is also widely regarded as having an exceptional (if spotted) human rights record. This view deserve to be also represented? Doesn't NPOV require this? Don't my edits help with NPOV? As for support, some will be challenged and I will then support them. It is a fact that the US is the only nation is the only nation that bans the beatings of terrorisim suspects as torture? Ireland vs. United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights is the present law in Europe, beating terrorism suspects is specifically not "torture". So what is wrong with this edit? Raggz 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello nickhh You said "I can only assume that this was deleted because it was an insane observation. Or more accurately, because it is not a "fact". Please read more about the history of the Philippines, Mexico, and Vietnam. Or about the second world war, where thousands of Russians made a difference too.--Nickhh 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)" What did you mean? These are some of the "dark chapters" in US history, is it your point that the US record on human rights has suffered since the reforms of 1981? If you have actual facts that support this, the article needs them. Raggz 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland vs. UK 1978
nickhh, you deleted the information about what the European Court of Human Rights found in Ireland v. UK. Why? Have you read this case? Do you dispute what you deleted, or are you on a pov campaign regardless of the facts. If you can explain why the five techniques are not torture in th EU, but are in the US, please do so. I will wait a bit before reverting. If you want to revise the text itself, feel free. Don't revert, edit. We can work toward a NPOV. If your objective is only to hide the European definition of torture, it won't work. Raggz 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

''In December 1977, the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment", of men interned without trial, by the court, following a case brought by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court found that while their internment was a violation of the convention rights, it was justifiable in the circumstances; it however ruled that the practice of the five techniques and the practice of beating prisoners constituted inhumane and degrading punishment in violation of the convention, although not torture. Legally, Ireland v. United Kingdom is notable since the British government had already publicly admitted and promised to refrain from all the violations the court found it guilty of. The UK tried to argue that having done so, the Irish litigation was pointless, relying on principles of international law accepted by the ICJ; however, the ECHR held that even though the UK had already made these admissions and undertakings, the case could still be considered, since ruling on it would serve the purposes of the development of Convention law.[3]'' European Court of Human Rights

If you want to edit in ""inhuman and degrading treatment" you may choose to do so. The US is generally not accused of ""inhuman and degrading treatment" but of torture, so I feel that this distinction makes the discussion of torture unclear. I like the present language, but I have a pov that differs from yours.

Note that the Human Rights violations found were based upon the European convention, an analog to the US Constitution, which does not offer dentical human rights. If that court had been nterpresting the US Constitution and not the Convention, it might not have found any present US policy to be violated. Raggz 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy article
Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the Democracy article. I came across it last summer while tidying up the the Democracy (disambiguation) page, and sapped a lot of my enthusiasm for editing. The article has a surprising lack of general editors, one reason I haven't just taken it off my watch list altogether. There seem to a couple of recurring themes - either Ultramarine vs. another, or the arrival of a homebrew philosopher, both of which produce reams of relatively fruitless Talkpage discussion.

It would be nice if you could stick around and help out with the latest wave of, um, enthusiasm. - David Oberst 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Six-Day pre-emptive
response at User talk:Eleland Eleland 18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editing of comments at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Actually, the comments are clearly in violation of the policies on civility, assumption of good faith, and personal attacks. As for the other edits, I didn't 'follow round all of your recent edits and revert them', but when you left a message I looked at your contributions and saw two entries which I've edited previously, disagreed with your edits, and reverted them while stating my rationale for doing such.  Tewfik Talk 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Jenin
Thank you for pointing out that there were errors in the language, and do let me know if I've repaired them adequately. As for 'subsequently', it creates a causal argument that while implied in one of the reports, is not an objective idea.  Tewfik Talk 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page relating to this article. The feelings are entirely reciprocated, I know all too well the loneliness of combating anti-Palestinian bias on this site. Keep up the good work, it's always badly needed.Nwe 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Funding
I read your pathetic back pedaling on the Talk page. It is more than a tad hypocritical to advise me "not to assume ignorance on the part of other users", when it precisely what you had done in your own post which prompted my response. Isarig 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[fuller exchange, with my responses on Isarig's talk page, posted below - --Nickhh 20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]

No idea of course if you have seen it yet, but just to let you know, I have responded to your kind attempts to educate me about how the BBC and the World Service are funded on the September 11th Celebration article talk page. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully both what other users, and what you yourself, have actually posted on talk pages before launching into a long response, complete with redundant links and quotes (redundant because I am already well aware of what they contain). I'd also advise you not to assume ignorance on the part of other users, when you have no idea of course of who they are, what they do for a living and what areas of expertise they have. We didn't even get into the "Hamas line" point, although I'm assuming that was in part a joke --Nickhh 15:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to - "I read your pathetic back pedaling on the Talk page. It is more than a tad hypocritical to advise me "not to assume ignorance on the part of other users", when it precisely what you had done in your own post which prompted my response. Isarig 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)"


 * Thank you now for your gratuitous insult. I am not back-pedalling, and nor did I simply assume ignorance on your part - I actually read your original post of 20th July and assessed your level of knowledge by reference to the words you used. That post claimed - do I have to repeat the point here? - that the BBC is "funded by the British FO" (I have copied the key parts of that exchange with another editor below just to remind you of that). If you meant that literally, you did not know what you were talking about. If it was sloppy writing, and you actually meant to refer to the World Service as you did earlier in the exchange, you can hardly blame me for taking your words at face value and commenting accordingly --Nickhh 06:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the BBC is by so many considered the emodiedment of unbiased reporting (Liftarn) .. and it is considered by others to be the epitome of biased reporting. It is funded by the British FO, which sets is goals (Isarig response)

RFC
Can you help more directly with this? smb 15:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is an RfC? Raggz 07:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Look it up. In fact, please do a lot more looking up before inserting your rubbish into this encyclopedia, and relying on other editors to constantly correct your errors. Nickhh 07:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the RfC material. Might you be willing to tell me where and when we have had past conflicts? I only recall working with you from today. I thought we had resolved the Downing Street Memo article questions.


 * The policy says "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." Have you really done this?


 * A WP review might show that Sideshow BobRoberts is communicating privately with you about this? You and I, (and the other editor on my page an hour back) have no history. You mentioned that I accuse other editors of being a "pov warrior", a charge that I made privately to Sideshow BobRoberts on his page because this is how he interacts and it needs to stop. I also used that phrase about Ultramarine in May, after he was found by WP to be a WP Warrior. Which of these were claims were you referring to?


 * I expect that WP will find communications with Sideshow BobRoberts and you. If this is discovered to be the case, it will be up to WP to decide if Sideshow BobRoberts should have approached me directly - and if you have made a sustained effort to "to find a resolution or compromise". I don't mind review, although I doubt that either of us will be found to be perfect WP editors and we will both get constructive criticism.. I said nothing about your personal attacks today, but the review will find these. So, do what you think best. Raggz 08:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FFS! The past interactions between us are at the top of this page; your accusation that Sideshow Bob Roberts is a "POV warrior" were not "private" - they were on his talk page (or rather, on his user page, where you oddly dedided to put them), which can be seen by every other user; in turn you can of course also see any communication between me and Sideshow Bob Roberts about the RfC without any formal review. Do you even have the most basic understanding of how Wikipedia works? As for the RfC itself, or any other complaint, several editors waste an inordinate amount of time reasoning with you and clearing up your messes.  However your disruptive edits just keep coming - that is the problem. Nickhh 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Downing Street Memos Article still needs a great deal of work. I'm fine with you doing it, so would you like to work on the introduction, or have me do it? How can we work together to improve the Article? It still needs work. Raggz 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very gracious of you to be "fine with [me] doing it". I have replied on the article's talk page. --Nickhh 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you NickH. I have replied on the talk page, and I will try to respect your sensitivities. I don't really understand your sensitivities, so more information would help me. I lost a lot of brain function in Iraq, and sometimes miss things that may seem so obvious that you presume that I know them. After some thought, I'm pleased that you are filing an RfC. I likely require the input that will result, so that I may become a better editor. I want you to know this, this is why I don't mind you ripping on me, and I don't take your personal comments personally. As you say, you know Wikipedia far better than I. Don't hesitate to advise me if your time permits. Raggz 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry about any health issues you might have. All I - and anyone else - can do on this encyclopedia is go on the edits other users make, and comment accordingly. You have persistently entered blatantly false facts into articles (eg recently about the European Parliament into the Democracy article, as I've pointed out to you separately). Other editors who do have relevant expertise shouldn't have to run around reverting those - you should check your facts before you start amending articles, not wait for other more knowledgeable editors to educate you in public, and at great length, on the talk pages. In the meantime of course inaccurate and misleading information remains posted in this encyclopedia thanks to you - which is odd since you claim to be so concerned about making sure Wikipedia helps inform its readers.

I only edit occasionally for two reasons - 1) because I don't have the time or inclination; & 2) because I will only make changes, in terms of adding or deleting information, when I am 100% sure about what I am doing. In addition I want to be sure I am genuinely improving something, rather than just messing around with it until it better suits my prejudices. I'd advise you to follow the same rules. Then your contributions may well be useful rather than disruptive, as they so often are at the moment. --Nickhh 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

civility
i actually kept a portion of the edits, despite some more than obvious problems - your blind revert  which included some of the issues discussed on talk  was, in my opinion, uncivil and also a tad disruptive.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you did the first mass revert of quite a lot of disparate material, and I just reverted that, after explaining why on the talk page in some detail. I'm not sure that I've been any more disruptive or uncivil than you have. --Nickhh (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * there was a mass change of numerous non-consensus topics without discussion, some clearly against consesnsus . i allowed some of them to stay and reverted the more problematic ones; and, opened a subsection to one of the changes which had some merit but lacked some direction . you on the other hand, just reverted to the previous version not addressing the main POV edits you brought back into the article. i.e. a tad disruptive.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The irony here is that you always accuse even the most painstakingly neutral edit of being "POV", if it doesn't set out a right-wing Israeli POV. To repeat a point on the talk page, you wiped an edit of mine that included observation that settlements are an "issue".  I'm not sure you can get a more neutral and factual observation than that. If I'd said - as I happen to believe is the case - that the settlements probably need to be dismantled as a condition for peace, that would be POV.  But I didn't say that, precisely because it would have been a personal view about the situation, even if it is one shared by a lot of people.  The problem with you and a lot of other editors is that, illogically, they seem to believe that something is only NPOV when it directly matches their POV.  That's not how it works.  --Nickhh (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

invite
you're invited to comment here and here.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Nickhh (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Post at WP:AN/I
Hi Nick, you might be interested by this.

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 05.12.2007 13:55


 * Thanks. Not sure I can cope with another dispute to be honest! Good luck though. Are you  aware of the recent "Allegations of Apartheid .." farce, where a whole gang of editors created a series of articles such as "Allegations of Apartheid in Costa Rica, Ireland etc", in a bid to use them as bargaining chips to secure the deletion of the "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" page?  I'm not good at finding archives here, but there was a massive Admins' Noticeboard debate on this. There is history with this kind of thing I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked around and found this, which is probably what you were referring to... I read most of the comments and it seems there was no final decision on the case. It makes for interesting reading though :) Cheers and thanks,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 05.12.2007 14:50

Discussion at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Hi Nick,

Well, it had to happen... After avoiding the discussion for more than a week, it looks like the pro-"disputed" side has snuck back to turn a sleeping debate into some kind of fake consensus. I'm kind of alone there and would really appreciate a helping hand!

Cheers and thanks,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 14.12.2007 08:50


 * Hello again,
 * Looks like the issue has been resolved. Would be nice to have you back there editing!
 * Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 17:11

Unfun editing
Got your note, yes I have been editing on the same page as (I would not say "with" necessarily) Raggz and have found it extremely frustrating. I'm about ready to give up quite frankly. I think Raggz' heart is in the right place but this user needs a mentor or editing restrictions or something similar. A user RFC would probably be the logical way to proceed but I'm not sure it would do any good and I don't think I have the strength to deal with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I assumed so, no offence taken or harm done :) Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 14.11.2007 10:36


 * Hi Nick! There's another round of "occupation" vs. "humanitarian and harmoniously good-willed military presence" going on at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Care to toss in you two cents? Cheers and thanks,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 13:14


 * Oh, you're already on it... Thanks :)  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 13:28


 * I also try to edit from a distance, but it's not always that easy... Anyway, thanks for the revised intro. I guess resetting the whole thing as you did is better -- and more efficient -- than trying to change it phrase by phrase.
 * Regarding the "occupied" vs. "disputed/captured" issue, I have been thinking about starting a WP:RFAR on the topic to get some last word spoken. However, I have not yet found the time to get to it. Since you seem to be the wiser editor here, how would you go about it?
 * Cheers and kind regards,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 14:08


 * Well, there's a mediation going on regarding Finkelstein as a source: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, but I don't think it's getting anywhere and might well land on WP:RFAR eventually. I would be against mediation and for arbitration since this issue has been talked about enough and the last thing I want is even more talk on it.
 * Would you mind being added as an involved party in an eventual WP:RFAR regaring the "occupied" issue?
 *  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 14:32


 * Well, I've gone and done it anyway... Here's the link, please feel free to add comments/corrections. I'm curious as to what might happen with it :)  Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 16:04


 * You were correct in your prediction of the outcome :) I've started an RfC on the article talk page... Cheers!  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.11.2007 11:27

Hi Nick. Glad to make your acquaintance a bit. I think civility issues don't need to be discussed much, if at all, in the midst of an article Talk dispute. So, as I'm doing here, maybe better to deal with it thru user Talk. Accordingly, I'd like to ask if you would consider removing the following: ''Nor do I understand the implied reference to incivility. All I have pointed out in respect of your behaviour as an editor is that a) your understanding of the subtleties of the English sometimes lets you down; and that b) you re-ignited an old war, over a single word, without initially engaging even with people who were being sympathetic to you. Both of these facts are uncontroversial. If I was really going to depart from basic civility I would not be wasting yet more space on a talk page. Or alternatively I would use that space to accuse you of deliberately picking a fight for the sake of it, or in order to start my own ridiculous debate elsewhere about how Wikipedia articles should regularly give weight to the viewpoint that describes Israel as the "Zionist Entity", or Tel Aviv as a "Settlement" ''. Mind you, I'm not trying to disagree/agree with you, just would rather you raise this in a different forum, if you feel it's necessary. Or, I can remove them, if that would be fine with you. Either way, thanks for your substantive thinking on the dispute. Take care, HG | Talk 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick -- I also asked you a substance question on the Talk page-- about the wording of the disputed sentence. Please look and reply at your earliest convenience. (My q is after your analysis of the sentence wording. You can find it in history, just dated slightly before this note.) Be well, HG | Talk 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being stubborn on this point, I don't want my comments refactored. I thought the behaviour on display there by Jaakabou was pretty shoddy - and then it's them who has the gall to turn round and start complaining about people breaching civility guidelines! I've been on the receiving end of some of their aggression before (eg "apparently you only care for dead militants, comparing them to your neighbors, and not for people who are unsuspectingly targeted while they eat their holiday meals", after I simply tried to point out that some of the dead in Jenin were NOT militants, but ordinary civilians), and while I'm not going to pursue the point above, equally I'm happy for what I've already said on that talk page to stand as record, and as a totally valid rebuttal of a totally ridiculous allegation.  --Nickhh (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy
Hello

You just reverted text that was deleted for policy violations carefully outlined in talk. You wrote: ": Do not delete this paragraph, which is well sourced with research by reputable, mainstream human rights organisations. If you want balance, find additional material which reflects a different view. --Nickhh (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please read WP:NPOV, you are responsible for ensuring NPOV compliance with text that YOU add to this article. Take responsibility for your own edits. Raggz (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No Raggz, I reverted text into the death penalty section which you had deleted for spurious reasons, based on your wrong-headed interpetation of policy guidelines. And the talk page comment you have quoted back at me was in relation to a totally separate part of the article about police brutality, where you were announcing your intention to delete a paragraph of text and I was pointing out to you that there were no grounds for you to do that.  I have not made any changes to that part of the article itself, you are getting mixed up.


 * And don't come on my talk page and shout at me, order me to read guidelines and tell me to take responsibility for my edits. Reading guidelines and taking responsibility is something that you need to be doing, not me. --Nickhh (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote on Human rights and the United States "I have reverted some of the recent edits in the death penalty section. I'm not sure they need further justifying on talk pages, but please note Raggz that some of the changes you made were classic examples of your selective approach to "original research", as I referred to above. For example, you added a sentence saying that certain human rights treaties are inapplicable to the United States "unless imposed by the United Nations Security Council". I'm no expert on international law, but I don't think that the UNSC can "impose" treaties on sovereign nations.  You also added this sentence  - "the General Assembly did not find enough merit to endorse this [the rapporteur's] recommendation and forward it to the UN Security Council which could have ordered changes in the US death penalty".  How do you know that the UNGA did not "find enough merit" in the recommendation? And again, can the UNSC really "ordered changes in the US death penalty"?  You spend ages on talk pages discussing things in great detail and endlessly quoting your latest favourite wiki-rule - and then still go ahead and try to insert nonsense and pretty brazen original research into articles. --Nickhh (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"


 * I am not shouting.Perhaps a bit of mediation might help, you seem to have issues.


 * Do you believe that every statement edited in needs to have a source? I don't, and if there is such a policy would you tell me about it?


 * Now that you have challenged it as OR, now I need a reliable source to revert it. You just reverted ""The United States, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore are the only developed nations to use capital punishment in practice during peacetime." This is OR. It needs a reliable source. You did not edit in the required source. Why are you editing in OR?


 * Would it help to build trust if I prove to you that my edits were valid? Your claim that I "insert nonsense and pretty brazen original research into articles" can be proven incorrect pretty effectively. Would doing so help us work better together?


 * You may have missed most of the detailed reasons for the edits. From your comments, I doubt that you read these. You addressed none of them. Did you even read it?


 * Do not further revert text that violates WP policy, unless you really are confident that it does comply with the policies. Raggz (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's like explaining things to a child. You get so much, so wrong.  And you can't fail to have noticed that other editors find you incredibly frustrating to deal with - has it occurred to you that the problem might lie with you, not me?  Anyway, to address some of your points ..


 * 1) You did "shout" at me. Using capitals in text, as you did when you said "text that YOU add to this article", is considered shouting. Now you are also telling me on my talk page that I "have issues"


 * 2) No I don't believe that every single statement needs a source, nor have I ever said that. However I do happen to think that false or incorrect statements shouldn't be pushed into articles by editors who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.


 * 3) I did not revert the statement about the Japan, South Korea and Singapore. You are talking sh*t again - look at the | diff.  I deliberately let your removal of that sentence stand precisely because I am not sure if it is true or not.


 * 4) I see your original research everywhere. I explained some of it in the talk page comment you have just quoted at me. Anyone reading it will see that you are just making stuff up and putting it into articles, eg that the UNSC can impose treaties on nations.


 * 5) I read most of your talk page dissertations and gave brief counter-explanations for the changes I made. I also gave a succint explanation as to why your proposed changes to the police brutality section were unwarranted.  Just because you claim that everything you do is in "accordance with policy" doesn't mean that it is. --Nickhh (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We agree on 1 and 3. I thought you had reverted that. I was wrong. I'm sorry. Yes, there is a pattern, and I work on being easier to work with - but still am holding firm for what I believe to be good edits. I am sometimes wrong, and like WP:5P says to, I don't worry too much, I fix them, and then move on. It's like explaining things to a child. Sorry about that, a bit of brain damage. I am not aware of this until people tell me.


 * I doubt that I said "UNSC can impose treaties on nations", because I know better. It is an interesting issue, perhaps boring, but the US courts cannot enforce that treaty, even though ratified. The Senate made it "non-self executing" and did not ratify the specific death penalty part.. The UNSC technically can end the death penalty, because the UDHR is fully binding upon the US by the UNSC. Of course there is the veto ... but the UNSC can order the end of the death penalty everywhere based upon the UDHR. (Well North Korea and a few nations never ratified it)


 * Mostly I agreed with your edits when I read them the second time. They were very different the second time, odd...


 * Just let me know the next time you see my OR. I never intend such. If I cannot support it, I will withdraw it, if you don't do that first. Raggz (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
Hi there, I am trying to coordinate some editors to help me rewrite the intro of the article. Your thoughts/additions would be appreciated. Suicup (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the work is basically done now. I might add a couple of other things, however IMO it is much much better than before. Given the effort though (over a week of talk page discussion) I don't think I can handle any more of this for a while. Not to mention the fact that here I am doing real work on the article, and asking people to help me, but instead people go off on stupid tangents to bitch about the word 'modern' or whether the Telegraph is a reliable source. Or you do all that discussion, make a largish edit, and then people who have said nothing come in an edit your work after the fact! I'm getting the impression that people are happy to leave Wikipedia in a state of crapness, as long as their 'turf' doesn't get infringed upon. Its enough to make you throw in the towel and just say FUCK IT! NOTE: this is just me venting, it has no implications for you at all :) Cheers Suicup (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I started off just making minor edits to film and wine articles here .. I tried to avoid the Middle East pages and other political articles, despite it being something I have an interest in, since you just know how it's going to end up.  But sometimes you spot appalling writing, egregious propaganda or an editor's random musings in articles, along with the selective deployment of sources and Wikipedia guidelines, and feel obliged to change a couple of things.  Whatever your own views happen to be, you try to do this in as balanced a way as possible, and hopefully in a way that genuinely improves the article.  But of course then you get reverted, accused of bias by people who seem to utterly lack self-awareness of their own partiality, and end up in lengthy talk page debates about relative trivia or points that you would have thought should be obvious. Often the article ends up worse than it was before. A lot of editors here - myself included at times - should probably set up their own blog or register on a forum, rather than devoting all their energies to fighting over content here. Ultimately I just think you have to accept that any sensible passing reader is going to know that Wikipedia articles generally are going to include errors and omissions, and that articles on contentious topics are going to be full of subjective viewpoints inserted by a variety of editors, which leads to bias and/or messy and garbled pages. One person can never remove all the crapness by themselves anyway of course ...  --Nickhh (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What WILL be interesting is how long my new intro/article restructure lasts. I'll give it a week :P I agree with all your points though. It just shits me that once articles get to a certain level of content (and this is wikipedia wide) it is so hard to change/improve that article in a meaningful way due to the political bullshit which you have to go through with the 'old school' editors who have the page on their watchlist and will stop at nothing to protect their shitty version of the article. I mean, i did a little analysis using this tool and it seems i am in the top 5 contributors of this article, and despite this I have to have ridiculously long and pointless talk discussions to change the word 'the'. Suicup (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

article note
thanks for all your input. please feel free to keep an eye on things, and to let me know what happens. I can't always follow the ins and outs of these discussion; I don't mean i'm too busy, i just mean I really find it hard to do so sometimes. I don't mean to delegate things to you for one side or the other. however, i already told tiamut the same things. if things are bogged down now, let's simply keep an eye on which alternate versions are emerging, and how many have voted for each. hopefully we can move towards some sort of reolsution over the course of time. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure what to do really. I only pop in occasionally anyway. The problem is - and I'm stating this as a matter of fact rather than making a direct attack - but the moment Jaakobou turns up on an I-P talk page, a debate which until them might have been robust and detailed suddenly turns into an all out slugfest that generates more heat than light, as they say. All of us have our views, prejudices and even direct interests sometimes, but most of us try to remain conscious that we have that bias, and to remain as objective as we can.  And at the end of the day you've got 5,000 words on a talk page for 1 word in the article.  Why would anyone sane want to get involved in that?! --Nickhh (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nickhh, Thank you for coming by to express those thoughts personally. I really appreciated your ardent defense of the need for equanimity when admins are considering the appropriateness of talk page comments, particularly those that disparage a group of people based on their ethnic and/or religious affiliation. Often, you took the words right out of my mouth. And that means a lot because it's usually not enough for a person who is subject to those kind of comments to stand alone in facing them since people might think one's judgement is being impaired by an emotional reaction. I can't say I've been without emotion through this process and I definitely was disturbed more than once, but I think I've developed some pretty thick skin over the years when it comes to generalizations that put-down my peeps. It's kind of necessary since if I did actually let it get to me every time I've had the pleasure of hearing such comments, I'd be writing letters to the editor, phoning politicians and telling people off, all the live long day. :) Anyway, your support throughout the process has been deeply appreciated and I do hope that we see each other around at articles more often from now on. I noticed from your talk page that you have some reservations about editing in the subject area because of the high level of tension on some pages there. But it's not necessarily the case on every page and with every editor. I've found that since the Arbcomm, people have generally either made an effort to be more self-aware and polite or they have dropped out of editing altogether, perhaps unable to handle the extra scrutiny that now accompanies editing at those pages. Whatever the case, I'm hopeful that the general atmosphere will continue to improve as time goes on. Thanks again.  T i a m u t talk 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada
Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE
Here we go again... Just thought you should know :)

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.03.2008 08:38


 * Ta, I'd spotted it. I'll hold off diving in for now (quite busy, plus of course I won't be seen as a neutral observer, even if that doesn't disqualify me from commenting), but will keep an eye on it.  I'm sure as usual he'll come back with claims that other editors, myself included, are mean to him, as if that has anything to do with it.  I've really had it with him - for a long time I've found him one of the most difficult editors I've come across, totally unhindered by any sense of empathy for opposing POVs to his, by any understanding of WP rules on notability and undue weight or indeed by proficiency in the English language. Plus an obsessive edit warrrior and article owner. I finally gave up after he posted an utterly spurious complaint against me at WP:AE, and then, beyond that, when he proceeded to take the piss out of User:Tiamut, who had posted a mourning notice on her user page and a picture of Palestinians in Gaza captioned "in better days" after the recent deaths of 100 people in Gaza, by posting parodies of those on his own page (not sure if you were aware of that one .. and then he has the gall to complain about "personal attacks" allegedly being made against him!)  --Nickhh (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks - AfD
Hello Nickhh , Do you think we have a case to file Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks for WP:AfD? Imad marie (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say yes of course, but I'm not an expert on the rules and procedures for that sort of thing. As I've said, it might even be a better idea to start a broader article about "Reactions .." and then merge this into it as a (very) small sub-section - ie putting what happened into context, rather than removing it altogether. And don't forget it's one of the articles that User:Jaakobou thinks he owns, and he won't give it up without a fight.  Not sure I'll be much help with anything as I'm around here even less than usual at the moment. --Nickhh (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good, I will file for WP:AfD, and get ready for the fight with User:Jaakobou. Imad marie (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here to ask you to moderate your tone in your comments to me.
 * Reading what is just here above : " and get ready for the fight with", I suggest both of you take a wikibreak. Ceedjee (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I make no apology for making small efforts to roll back the constant bashing of Palestinians as a collective group of people in articles in Wikipedia, or the tone in which I did it on this occasion. And I can't speak for Imad marie, but my use of the word "fight" reflected a sense of weary inevitability, not eager anticipation. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to give a good neutral advice, then you should give it to Jaakobou. Imad marie (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg
An image on a page you are involved in editing, Image:Saeb-erekat.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. If you have obtained proper permission to use the image then it should be forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Toning things down
Would you consider revisiting this statement and toning it down? I know I get a little barbed myself sometimes, but this is taking it to another level. Let's try to raise our discourse, not lower it. I'd appreciate a refactor.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do, as and when you take some responsibility and remove the errors and duplication of material you put into the article recently. I'm still at a complete loss to understand why you seem to be refusing to do that. I know we're not going to agree on a lot of content, but this is just plain cranky on your part. End of this discussion btw as well. --Nickhh (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Thank you for your contributions. You are right, currently the section "Controversies" takes too much length relatively to the article length, or maybe we need to rename the section. Imad marie (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you think now? create the "reactions" page? Imad marie (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why not. As for the controversies point - the controversies I think are worth noting, some of them in quite a bit of detail. However in order to avoid that section weighing down the page, we probably need to both expand the more basic reactions sections and also possibly move each controversy sub-section into the relevant country/area section (ie the Palestinian demos go into "Islamic world/Middle East"; the UK stuff goes into the "Western World" section etc). Other people may have some ideas on how to work it too. --Nickhh (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit
Hi Nick,

This just popped up and I took the liberty of adding you to the list of participants. Hope you don't mind!

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 17.04.2008 15:14


 * No worries. It's an issue I'm kind of agnostic about to be honest, even though I broadly agree that the word shouldn't dominate the lead. I'd happily pitch in briefly to back up | the suggestion I made on the talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sept 11 reactions
Hello Nickhh, I think International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks is in good shape now, what do you think? Imad marie (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a real article now, with content for most of the main sections that need to be there, thanks (mostly) to all the stuff you've done on it. Hopefully it'll get better as well in the future. And at last there's a place where the immediate comment and reaction are widely but concisely covered in a balanced manner, rather than that just having that stupid article that's been floating around here ever since I started editing, but which seems to be a source of great pride for a few editors seeking to make a point, unaware of quite what a meretricious piece of work it is. I suppose the question is now, what happens with that? I still think it's a travesty of an article, but as the delete & move debates showed, there are plenty of people who think otherwise. --Nickhh (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the replies in the AfD were in favor of merging the article, that's just common sense. I will put the merge tags now (that's the third fourth request in the article in the past couple of weeks!). And let's see what other editors think. Imad marie (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems we will not have consensus. Any WP:DR procedure that you recommend? Imad marie (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to be honest, I don't have much experience with any of them. And there comes a point where it looks as if you are simply forum shopping and moving from one to the other to get what the previous forum didn't get you - however unfair that is, it starts to look bad. WP:MEDCAB or more formal mediation is always the "friendly" way to do this, but that's only going to work where there's the chance of finding some middle ground or compromise. I can't see that's the case here - you, me and others want the Celebrations article gone (with some of material transferred, as it has been), while one or two want it to stay as a standalone page. The cynic in me wants to start up lots of "Celebrations of .." articles focusing on controversial Israeli comments and commemorations (eg of the King David hotel bombing, the Shehadeh killing, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, as all mentioned in the Talk page), but that would be way too WP:POINT, and I'm really NOT recommending it (just in case anyone reading this isn't clear about that). Sorry, not much help I know .. --Nickhh (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, too many requests are not good, however this happened because we did not have the reactions article and that's why delete or merge was not applicable. Anyway I opened a COIN thread here and let's see where this takes us.
 * I still don't get it how WP works, things are not to be done if you don't have consensus, and consensus will never be reached having a group of editors (with POV history) that will object to changes no matter how rightful they appear. Imad marie (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge procedure
Hello Nickhh, did you read StuffOfInterest's comment? He has a valid point, I admit I haven't been very good in handling disputes but I'm learning. Anyhow, we have two options now:
 * Move our dispute discussion to a larger scope, Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism. And see what other editors think about it.
 * Copy the material that really deserves to be covered from the celebration page to the reactions page, and then request another AfD, since all significant material is already covered in the reactions page and the celebrations page has no need now.

This has been really a lengthy tedious dispute. Imad marie (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup I read that, it's a fair enough point in that this hasn't been done in the easiest way. As I've said, I really am no good at the more technical or procedural stuff, but my thoughts in an ideal world would be - to briefly add the material about the Palestinian Authority trying to allegedly suppress the footage (and which Jaakobou has asked on at least one occasion to be preserved). That only really leaves the cartoon and the long section about analysis by one German TV programme in the "Celebrations .." article, which will be no loss to the subject on either count. Then set up another AfD again - this time around surely no-one can come in and claim the material is being "buried" or "censored"? However having said all that, guidelines are fairly clear on this point -


 * Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.


 * So it may not be that easy. Looking at deletion review, that doesn't seem to offer much help either as we'd need to prove that the closing admin made a mistake on policy grounds, which may be tricky. Either way though, posting something on WikiProject Palestine might be an idea. Not so sure about going to Terrorism Project or the main Sept 11th article talk page - the former is only tangentially linked to the topic, and the main issue bothering the Sept 11th page seems to be conspiracy theory debates. I can't see this one being resolved quickly. --Nickhh (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving the dispute to the Palestine project discussion page is not going to solve the problem, consensus will not be reached on merging/deleting the article. I have nominated the article for deletion here, the new argument I am providing is that we have the reactions article now. Imad marie (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou RfC
Please see Requests for comment/Jaakobou. I'm especially interested in any evidence you may have of Jaakobou compiling tendentious "evidence" against you and shopping it around to various forums, admins, etc. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do if I get a moment tomorrow - I recall he went to WP:AE against me for something totally bizarre .. although on that page I did suggest his behaviour was like that of a "sexually frustrated and incontinent adolescent", so that may not reflect too well on me. I've also been on the end of endless accusations on talk pages about tag-teaming, making personal attacks, soapboxing etc etc. In the meantime check his userpage, where he keeps diffs on all his complaints about other editors as "Memorabilia".--Nickhh (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate
Thanks chaps. I won't pull this one on either of you often (once a decade's just under indecent). If there's anything info wise, or otherwise, where I can appear to afford possible help and save you time, Robert's a close relative here also, so call anytime. Best wishes (from my page) Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well,
Wrote that feeling like a bit of a fatherly twit. Thanks for the link. I find the spectacle of rules evidently developed in great complexity to deal with serial idiots, POV-crashing flamers, general nuisances and ignoramuses who might disrupt a page, and not for people with an informed knowledge dedicated to working on the encyclopedia, being played with to inhibit the vigorous interplay of free argument among grown men rather menacing. That is why I have affirmed before the administrators several times on the Eleland case that I will continue to write in the way I always have, and not with a lexicon of neutral terms at my elbow to save me being dragged into prosecution. I think this allows one flexibibilty in response and clarity of position not guaranteed by a timorous caution about possible consequences if one's tongue slips. That is something I associate with the idiom of public exchanges under totalitarian regimes. One effect of this unceasing complaining is to inhibit other editors. Wikiworld has now constituted its own civic society which is not quite the world Habermas and Havel spoke about, since it tends to be rule-governed, rather than content-based, in which case, playing the rules to game an argument is a natural trick the shifty or highly POV-motivated can use to win points. I must admit, I hang in here in part because this new virtual society's self-developed structures fascinate me anthropologically. In the real world, much of what is complained of would be swept away by a dismissive 'Grow up!' It tends to encourage nerdy wimps, rather than intelligent, focused and passionate editors. I do hope in any case that this shenanigans is closed with an Eliotesque whimper, instead of a dud bang. For what we have is not a grievance, but a farcial piece of theatrics playing at grievances (Hope nobody's looking over our shoulders at this!!!? - uh! okay I'm guilty, guv! plonk this'n in the Nishidani infamy dossier as well).

We're all in danger of losing a sense of humour in rising to the bait, and perhaps if one lesson has been learned, it is to engage with a little more irony (except for that response to Tiamut, which I was tempted to drag out. She's been grossly insulted, and he wore a week's suspension (2) she admits that his attitude has caused her, one of the few active Palestinians in here, to withdraw from articles he also edits (3)She adds a comment and, unlike the rest of us, who are males and I presume not living within Israel as part of an Arab minority, is the object of a vapid arraignment, void of evidence, but implied to be an index of her hostility. When I read Jaakobou's rejoinder there, I was minded to post the following from Ian Lustick's book on Settler Fundamentalists in the West Bank, asking him what actually are the terms of surrender he thinks appropriate with this sort of insistent challenging of the one Palestinian editor around. Something like this?


 * Tzvi Yehuda wrote that private meetings with Arab notables were to be encouraged for the purpose of reducing levels of personal animosity, but only as long as the Arabs involved abandoned all political demands.


 * "First of all they must recognize that they have no arguments to make concerning political authority. How to behave toward minorities-that is something that can be clarified to avoid injustice. But with respect to politics and the state-it is impossible for us to disavow the truth that we owe them no part of the government! Only after they know this is there a place for discussions with them. 155"


 * "This overall stance is expressed accurately, and unselfconsciously, in the photograph on the cover of the January 13, 1984, issue of Nekuda, an issue concerned particularly with the Arab question. (For a reproduction of this cover, see Appendix 4.) Above the caption 'A Moment of Coexistence,' a Gush settler, in military uniform, leads an elderly, blind Arab refugee across a road. The settler's machine gun is slung across his waist. He holds a club in one hand and the Arab's hand in the other. This is, in fact, what most Gush Emunim loyalists consider the proper relationship of Jews to Arabs in the Land of Israel-the Jews as young, dominant, strong, armed, in control, and fully alert; the Arabs as old, helpless, docile, dependent, grateful, but ultimately irrelevant. 156". Thought it best to not feed the flames. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova Charge! 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but I'm probably not going to take you up on it for a variety of reasons, ranging broadly from an intense dislike of conference calls, through a lack of familiarity with Skype to the fact that I'd rather just edit - I spend too much time on talk pages debating issues these days as it is, without doing it in real voice as well. Even though of course, sometimes talking as you say allows differences to be smoothed over rather than exacerbated, as they so often are in text debates, where nuance is so often lost.
 * Also, I would say that there is perhaps an interesting difference here from the example you've used, partly because I don't doubt that Jaakobou and other editors I might disagree with are very normal people (no, honestly!), but more importantly because a key point in the Serb-Croat example is that there was presumably a lot of underlying and personally-felt hostility between the two groups, whereas a lot of the debates and conflicts on I-P articles aren't in fact between people from either side in the underlying conflict. The main reason for that is because very few Palestinians actually edit here, when you compare the numbers with the number of Israeli editors or pro-Israeli American editors. This is presumably for a variety of reasons, ranging from language issues to IT access. As a result the disputes that arise are often between those Israeli and American editors on one hand, and other editors from other parts of the world (Europeans, Americans with different views etc) who don't actually have a stake in the conflict at all. I for example am a genuine outsider - I am not religious at all, and have neither a Jewish nor an Arab/Palestinian ethnic background. Nor am I a member of any political, campaign or advocacy group for either side. My position here is not that I dislike Israel or Israelis (or worse, that country's main ethno-religious group), or that I feel myself to be waging some form of proxy battle - but simply that when I come across obvious imbalance or propaganda, I try to correct it. The I-P conflict is something I have an interest in, and have a fair degree of knowledge about. I see a lot of attempts on Wikipedia to insert material suggesting that Palestinians are all terrorists, or pathological liars, or fake the deaths of their children etc, which I find rather unpleasant, not to mention self-evidently nonsense. If in fact Palestinians or Palestinian sympathisers outnumbered Israeli and pro-Israeli editors here, and were stuffing articles with very one-sided material in their favour, I'd probably end up swimming the other way. --Nickhh (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice step
This retraction was a nice step, I appreciate it. Cheers,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread
I have closed Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Please read the closing note. If you have any questions or if there any problems, please feel free to drop a line on my talk page or send me an email. Vassyana (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

re: AE
''Hi, thought I'd put a quick response here rather than adding yet more material to that page, plus our discussion veered somewhat off-topic and into more general areas anyway. I think we somewhat fell foul of the problems of written communication - I did just feel that possibly, you were suggesting with your "step in the right direction" comment, that there were many more steps I personally needed to take. When coupled with your comment that I should "take time to study policy" (especially as I had, I thought, made clear that I did understand the principles at stake), I kind of felt as if I was back at school being chastised by a teacher. Thanks for making clear that that isn't what you meant. More generally I also felt from the outset as if I was being taken to task by two successive admins (Jayjg and then yourself), when all I had done was left a short comment offering my perspective on a dispute between two other editors. --Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)''


 * Hey, mate, no worries. These things happen.
 * Indeed, the great failing of the Internet is that it's so darn easy to miscommunicate. I can see how it might look like I was taking you to task, although that certainly was not my intention. Apologies for that misunderstanding.
 * What I was trying to point out was that some of the editors involved were choosing an inappropriate way to deal with a user they considered troublesome. The comments cited by Jaakobou in the complaint did not cast a good light, but what was really troubling was the reactions to the complaint. It's easy to lose one's cool when things get contentious, but I stand by the assertion that an editor should be ready to answer to his comments and, as appropriate, snack on a little humble pie. However, I've seen it many, many times -- and certainly not just in relation to these editors or this subject area -- that editors try and turn the arrow back on the other party. It has never worked, and it never will.
 * These are problems that anyone can have, and losing one's head or acting inappropriately now and then doesn't make someone bad or lesser or anything like that.
 * I hope that helps to clear things up a bit. All the best. - Revolving Bugbear  21:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I have agreed to mediate the discussion in the Gilad Shalit case, if accepted by the participants. I have experience mediating in the world outside Wikipedia and have completed the Dispute Resolution Program at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, Canada. I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2003 and have informally mediated several cases, including one for MedCab (which was concluded successfully). I have applied to join the Mediation Committee. As a mediator, my role would be to facilitate discussion. My approach would include the following:
 * Listen to all participants
 * Help formulate an agenda
 * Identify common interests
 * Identify pertinent facts/policies/research that would assist participants in forming agreement
 * Facilitate an agreement and action plan.

As a non-member of Medcom, the convention is for participants to approve the mediator. Please indicate your response here. Sunray (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your agreement with the process in the RfM for Gilad Shalit. You ask whether you may opt out. I think that is entirely your call. However, you may wish to make an opening statement first on the RfM talk page. I've also suggested a few groundrules there. If at any time you wish to contact me privately via e-mail, please feel free to do so here. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)