User talk:NickCT/Archive I

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Soxwon (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Parting Shot re:FNC
I came out of retirement because when you first came on this article no one was paying attention to what you were saying and trying to do. I thought your point was valid, but you were being shushed away with "no consensus" and "we've discussed before" arguments without explaining the process behind those sentiments. You seem like you'll be good here, but I ask that if you don't understand something just ask. This jumping to conclusions and attributing of positions is the quickest way to label yourself as a contentious editor, and thus make it more difficult for you to find consensus with other editors. I won't be as active (and most of the time not active at all actually) here on Wikipedia in the future, but if you have any questions about process feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I can't promise I'd get back to you soon, but I will eventually get back to you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but . ..

 * I'm putting this on your talk page because it really doesn't change anything in the Fox News discussion. I'm the one who objected to the formulation that Fox "maintains a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming" because the word "maintains" as used here could mean "keeps" or "preserves" rather than "contends" or "asserts". I replaced it with "points to", probably not the best word choice. However once one says that Fox "maintains that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming", then the former problem no longer exists because the particular meaning of "maintains" becomes obvious from the context. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent quote
I am quoting you on my userpage for your most excellent insight and response to Ramsquire. While I've always been aware of the underlying issue, you very perfectly crystallized and captured the essence of the thought. Thank you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Occupied territories
Please do not edit war over articles; when a change is contested, please seek consensus and compromise at the talkpage. You have not edited that article for more than a day, which would have been the block length if your AN3 report had been closed sooner, so I will not block you at this time. I have made a few suggestions on the talkpage, which you and the other editors there are free to take or leave at your pleasure. If you resume edit warring by inserting the same text without first receiving consensus at the talkpage, you may be blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

I have already pointed out to you why uncivil comments that you made on the talk page of occupied territory were counter productive, but as you are not listening, this is your last warning. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey PBS. As I said earlier, I appreciate your attempts to maintain decorum; however, User:Breein1007 is a blatant example of POV pusher who is unable to work in a productive manner with those who disagree with him.  I reject the idea that people of this nature have to be treated with kid gloves and have to be given the respect deserved by those who tirelessly seek to bring unbiased knowledge to people through wikipedia.  Yes PBS, it's nice when everyone is pleasant to each other, but do we take this ideal so far that we accept and coddle extremists?  I say no.... NickCT (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the cool thing about Wikipedia (and life in general). You don't get to pick and chose when you follow the rules. Break them and face the consequences. It's nice how that works. Breein1007 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LoL Breein1007 you little troll. Tell me, with all that time you spend patronizing adult websites pretending you have a girlfriend, how do you find the time to flame wiki talk pages?  I think what I find most patheticly amusing about you, is that you get some kind of lift out of your trollishness.  Ahhh... Breein1007... You have no idea what rules or consequences actually are.  Keep cruising mate.... If you decide you want to grow up, give me a shout. I'll be happy to work with you. NickCT (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See this edit I hope that if Breein1007 removes his/her edit you will remove your reply and that can be an end to it. -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I invite Breein1007 to remove/redact any of my comments about him that he finds offensive. They are intended as messages to him, rather than posts about him.  As he's read them, they've served their purpose.  All the best PBS....  NickCT (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ged UK  18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh...... GedUK - While I'm very impressed by the blocking stats you have so prominently displayed on your user page, and wish you the best in improving your stats, I suggest you take more than a cursory review of peoples' posts before arbitrarily blocking people. Poor & officious blocking simply encourages sock puppetry and ankle biters.  ~Best my limey friend NickCT (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Atheist
For the record, I call myself an atheist because I think the concept of a God or gods is utterly ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that a person can be an atheist, but still believe in the supernatural (ghosts and shit). To me, the distinction is meaningless because I don't believe in any of that nonsense, but I suppose we must concede that there are people out there with this affliction position. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'd have to say that some versions of Buddhism are "atheistic" (because they eschew deities), but I'm not sure I'd personally describe them as atheists. In the strictest sense, atheism is a rejection of deities rather than a rejection of religion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ELISA
There's a comment about some text you added at Talk:ELISA. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Biostar! That was a nice surprise. :-)  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/NickCT for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh* Poor Breein is angry that people are pointing out how deluded he is. It's ok Bree. Still love you mate. NickCT (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel
Why do I get the feeling that a long line of pro-Israeli/Jewish editors will come out to edit war and revert on that Palestinian-crossfire article? I guess Wikipedia works in that the higher number of votes win out? despite the view? Is there a rule against stacking the deck? What do you think?Soledad22 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Trolling
Soledad22 is an adult, and if she/he doesn't want me to comment on her/his Talk page, she/he can ask me to stop.

As far as calling other editors trolls, see What is a troll?, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't critize me for defending Sole from your vieled attacks. I think you might benifit more from reading the links you provided and trying to appreciate the spirit in which they are written.
 * With that said, I do recognize Sole was being a little loud with his critisms. I don't think it benifits you to try and be louder.  Many thanks NickCT (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick has been warned several times in the past for personal attacks, Malik. He was also banned for it. Maybe you should consider acting like an admin and taking the appropriate actions when users who have been warned and banned in the past break the same rules over and over again? You've certainly shown that you know how to ban people in the past. What has changed? Breein1007 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Breein for another fine example of unhelpful comments, and yet another example of your awkward fascination with jeuvinile ankle biting. Breein, you are kindly invited to crawl back from whence you came and to cease from editing my user page.  Many thanks. NickCT (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, Breein1007. As I have in the past, I will continue to warn people before I block them (except in the most egregious circumstances). Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? I wasn't making any attacks. I warned Soledad22 against edit-warring, and I facetiously thanked her/him for spamming my User page with the warning template. (Then you called me a troll.) Where is the attack in that? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I'm sure you appreciate that your "facetious thanks" was inflammatory. NickCT (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Inflammatory? Maybe I have a thicker skin than most, but I don't think so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Sole seemed to think so, and I did as well. Perhaps we misinterpretted.  And if you sincerly didn't intend to inflame, then I sincerely apologize for my troll comment.  NickCT (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, then, let's put this matter behind us. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Respectfully though, I'm a little surprised that you wouldn't recognize that posting a comment like "thank you for warning Soledad" on Soledad's user talk page could be considered inflammatory.  I might point you towards wiki guidelines on User Talk Page Etiquitte.  I'm sure you recognize Bree's comments above were inflammatory?
 * Regardless, I stand by what I said earlier. If your comment was sincerely in goodfaith, my good feelings towards you equally sincere. NickCT (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I didn't realize Soledad hired you to be his lawyer. Breein1007 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, you apparently don't realize no one really cares for your opinion. NickCT (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one! Sure showed me. Breein1007 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Please cry on your own talk page. NickCT (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I do with my talk page is none of your business :) Breein1007 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Want a tissue? NickCT (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have some to spare? I wouldn't expect that. Breein1007 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right....... Get beaten up allot in high school by any chance Breein? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * allot? Are you still in high school by any chance Nick? Your attempts to hurt my feelings online sure make it seem that way. Big man flexing behind his keyboard. Frightening. Breein1007 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Fast response.  Little advice Breein.  In order to get a life you have to step awway from the keyboard. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong, couldn't think of anything clever to say so you pulled the no life card? You're oh so predictable. It takes two to tango. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So predictable. Indeed.  Breein, apologies for upsetting you with my "no life" comment.  It was meant more as a friendly suggestion than an insult.  Again, you're graciously invited to cease editing my talk page.  NickCT (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The funniest part is that you've convinced yourself that you've upset me. Whatever it takes to satisfy yourself, mate. I can see that you'll do whatever it takes to get the last word. Breein1007 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The last word. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem
Everything to do with Palestine is subject to much debate. I'm used to it. I'm trying to avoid editing contentious articles directly (or at least sticking to one revert) since I've been blocked a number of times for edit-warring, but prolonged talk page discussion is usually safe and something I am used to. Thanks for your comments there too.  T i a m u t talk 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
In reply to your comment here - my point was that if you find yourself genuinely convinced that there are some editors who are obviously trying to use wikipedia to make a point and who show total lack of regard for NPOV, continuing to engage with them in personalized disputes at article talk pages is not the best approach. Wikipedia strives to be a serious and respected reference work, and we have mechanisms in place for ensuring that editors are focused on this goal. Gathering diffs and presenting a case takes time and effort, but ultimately convincing editors to either support our goal or direct their energies elsewhere is far more productive than complaining that someone is wrong on the internet. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident‎
I think it looks good. One suggestion: You might want to mention the sandbox on the article's Talk page to see if other editors think you've accurately summarized their arguments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Steady as she goes
It is good to see new editors active on the Muhammad al-Durrah incident‎ page, I hope you will realize some things have to be taken one step at a time. For example, this Nahum Shahaf, whose investigation is a fulcrum for the conspiracy theory that has permeated the article. It's interesting that Shahaf's Wiki article makes no mention of his previous investigation, wherein he concluded that Yigal Amir had not killed Yitzhak Rabin. Also interesting is that the Shahaf article's statement that he is "specialized in ballistics and the technology of filming images" is sourced to comments made by Shahaf himself (the link is, anyway, dead). (The Age on the other hand, says Shahaf has "no forensic or ballistic qualifications".) So much for reliable sources.

I've watched in awe as some editors came in and laboured carefully and tirelessly to bring Muhammad al-Durrah back to life, leveraging Shahaf and a German B-documentary to extraordinary effect. For a variety of reasons, I resisted the temptation to get involved in an edit war with those editors (who have since slinked away, actually SlimVirgin is not the issue here, she is a good one). I was however impressed at how this effort progressed to its goal.

Anyway, I probably won't get involved in the article, but will be watching and available if you have questions, for now to you I say good luck and please remember to keep your cool and adhere to Wiki policy in your edits.

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging
Hi Nick. I already expressed my personal views concerning tags in a Featured Article. I think there was a consensus at one time—otherwise the article wouldn't have been promoted to Featured status—but consensus can change. I think I've been a little too close to the article to judge whether there's a new consensus, but there's obviously a healthy discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Courtesy link. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tag in lede
If you review the section after the one you linked, you'll see that over-tagging is a no-no. In a low quality, poorly written article, multiple tags may be appropriate. In a featured article, which has already passed significant levels of review, placing multiple tags can be viewed as "tag-bombing"—a disruptive behavior. And the question, really, is why tag the article, especially when there's already a discussion underway on the talk page, involving multiple people? When editors add multiple tags to a fairly well written article, it's usually to make a point, rather than to actually draw attention to or improve an article. That's probably how your tagging was interpreted by others.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the issues you brought up, but there are better ways to resolve those issues (by following the dispute resolution process), that don't require marking up a highly-rated article with tags and ruffling peoples' feathers. ← George talk 02:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you added three or four tags to three different sentences in the lead of a featured article, multiple times (in what can be viewed as edit warring). It's rare that that many tags are need in even the worst of articles, yet you added that many to one of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia (less than one in every thousand articles on Wikipedia has featured status). That can be viewed as disruptive by some. Furthermore, such tags are normally used to initiate talk page discussion, yet you used them after the discussion was already well under way, with multiple editors involved. That can indicate that an editor is trying to make a point, marking up an article or statements they don't like rather of trying to constructively tag.


 * Regarding my thoughts on what would have been appropriate tagging, if I felt it necessary to tag the article (which I likely wouldn't have anyways), I would have tagged a single sentence to start a discussion, not midway through an ongoing discussion. If another editor had removed the tag, I would have continued to try to engage editors on the talk page, but I certainly wouldn't have edit warred over the tags inclusion—especially if the editor that removed it was also involved in the discussion (meaning the tag had served its purpose). Once the dispute on the article was resolved, whether in my favor or not, I may have expanded the discussion to other sentences. But once multiple editors are involved in discussion, tagging of the article becomes far less useful. ← George talk 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should have been given a better explanation of why your tags were being removed, but to be fair, twice when SlimVirgin removed your tags her edit summary was "stop this, please; it is being discussed" (and when an administrator, with significant experience on Wikipedia asks you to do something, it's usually a good idea to listen). You may not be fully aware with Wikipedia's policies on tagging (as a means to foster discussions, rather than a way to mark up things you disagree with), or the special protection given to featured articles. But regardless, edit warring is never an effective tactic when trying to improve an article. If you put a tag into the article, and someone else removes it, send them a message asking why. Tell them why you think the article should have the tag. Discussion can lead to positive results; edit warring never does. If they don't provide what you think is a sufficient explanation for their position, follow the dispute resolution process, and try to get more eyes involved. That can also act as a sanity test of yourself, to see if you're in the wrong. And if your position is correct, eventually the issue should get resolved, even if not by you. Build consensus for a change before even bothering to touch the article itself. Reverting repeatedly will just get you blocked for edit warring, so maybe consider following a personal one-revert rule mantra, or zero-revert rule even. ← George talk 08:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, SlimVirgin said "stop this, please; it is being discussed" specifically when reverting your addition of the tags (first time, second time, third time). The disputes over tags section says that "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved". Featured articles are different than most articles, because they have already undergone extensive, in depth review processes. There is inherent consensus that featured articles are good, because they have been reviewed by dozens of editors, so tagging them—even if there are several editors who dispute something—is frowned upon. It doesn't mean your stance is wrong, just that there exists a consensus against your position. You can think of it as a burden of proof. In many articles, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the tags, but in featured articles, the burden of proof shifts to those trying to add tags. The disputes over tags section also says "rather than reverting or edit warring, use dispute resolution procedures". This was your biggest mistake. You re-added these tags three or four times, in what could be viewed as edit warring. Tagging isn't the way to get more eyes involved in an ongoing dispute; that's what the dispute resolution process is for. You filed an RfC about article ownership, but did you file an RfC about the actual content dispute? Did you conduct a survey? Did you propose formal or informal mediation? Did you take the issue to arbitration? Dispute resolution is the process of elevating disputes you're trying to resolve, but you gave up on it too early, instead resorting to edit warring over (relatively useless) tags that wouldn't help much to foster discussion. ← George talk 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see you started down the right path, but you have to follow it to completion - even if it doesn't end in your favor. In many ways, being overly vocal can also be to your detriment, and viewed as tendentious editing (note the phrase: "the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors").
 * The bar is definitely higher for featured articles, and rightly so. Reviewers on such articles actually do review them line-by-line, checking that the sources match what the sentence say, and scanning the entire article for POV problems (among others issues). That doesn't mean they're perfect, or that they never have POV problems, but it definitely means the bar to change them is quite a bit higher, and it's not something that can just be pushed through with a quick vote. I agree that we'll eventually come to some consensus on the issue, but, like I mentioned before, it's something that needs to be fixed with a scalpel; not a hatchet. And it won't be your (or anyone's) individual suggestion, but some amalgamation of suggestions and view points, because we all need to work on finding a compromise, not arguing for our specific viewpoint. ← George talk 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the existence of editing restrictions
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Atheism
Nick,

For the sake of moving on I would consider it a personal favor if you would please consider apologizing for the personal attack. We don't need this being reported over at AN/I and have a bunch of attention called to the issue. Nefariousski (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Genesis creation myth
hahaha no problem about the "hounding" your two cents are welcome whether I agree with them or not. Sorry for replying here but I'm tired of repeating the same thing over at the article talk page and figured I'd help catch you up to speed on current discussion. If you'd like to see the reasons why consensus, an RFC and 2 RMs all fell in favor of using creation myth feel free to read this AN/I posting I put together in my sandbox. Particularly the sources and policy sections. I think it's a good (albeit rather long) summation of all the reasons why it was selected for use and why it is the preferred terminology. Nefariousski (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth
Nick, since you've now reverted the policy to an illogical state, you should have something in mind. I'm all ears. A complete rewrite is the only other solution. Give me some logical suggestions.EGMichaels (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick -- all I was looking for was someone to collaborate with. I've never gone through the Wikilawyering and don't have an interest in it. But all I got was stonewalling. Basically, I'd agree that the whole thing needs a rewrite. The policy CLAIMS to tell people to avoid an "informal" meaning without giving them any way to do it. In layman's terms, a myth is a metaphor that can stand on its own. The scientific ideas of "literal accuracy" weren't intended, and may not have even been considered. These are symbolic forms of narrative, stronger than allegory, because an allegory cannot stand on it's own.

In the simplest terms, the informal meaning of myth is "false" and the formal is "symbol."

I'll start drafting a proposal on User:EGMichaels/Myth. It should take a week or two because my mother in law is here and a baby is imminent. My time is not my own.EGMichaels (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick -- take a look at my first draft. I'm not satisfied with it, but I'd appreciate any comments you have about clarity. Also, I plan to add more sourced material.EGMichaels (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick -- thanks for your note! I moved it to the talk page User_talk:EGMichaels/Myth to make it easier for us.EGMichaels (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted an answer. Thanks again for helping me sanity check this so I can make it right for everyone involved.EGMichaels (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You comments on the Muhammad al-Durrah incident talk page

 * I've been editing this article long enough to know, with near certainty, that it would have been reverted. Do you consider me psychic if I tell you that I'm nearly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow? If so, then I guess I'm psychic.
 * Looking at the revision history, it seems to be SlimV doing most of the reverting. Not convinced it would have been reverted without her.
 * That's your choice. I go with my experience on this article, and the editors who edit it.


 * 50% support to keep something in a featured article, which has already garnered dozens of votes for its current version by way of being featured, is indeed heavy support.
 * You know, I'm a little sick of this FA article thing getting thrown around. I'm pretty sure reviewing for FA does not involve going through an article line-by-line and gaining mass consensus that there are no potential NPOV issues anywhere.  I'm guessing FA status simply suggests an article is written in an encyclopedic fashion and that there are no "glaring" NPOV issues.  If there is a policy somewhere saying FA articles have no NPOV issues, please cite.
 * Additionally, on this point, I think if you look at the 50% who supported maintaining the article, you might see cause to question their neutrality.
 * Try to take a controversial article to FA sometime, and see how rigorous the review is for yourself. There are plenty of non-featured controversial articles to choose from. I don't disagree that some of those who supported the current version are heavily biased. I just don't include SlimVirgin in the group, because I'm familiar with her editing history.
 * I've read through this. I'm not overly impressed.  "Blood Libel" thing was mentioned only briefly once, in the context of a minor rewording.  Given that a number of editors have now expressed considerable concerns over it, I would have thought it would merit more attention in a truly "thurough" review.
 * If you think the FA review was insufficient, you can request a featured article review. However, you should wait at least 3 to 6 months from the time it was promoted to featured status, as well as reading the other requirements. ← George talk 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not at all uncommon for people employing sock puppets to take on different personas to avoid detection. She likely came to the conclusion based on your editing pattern, not your English.
 * Still, she was jumping to conclusions b/c Sole and I were arguing against her. I can gaurentee you (b/c I'm psychic) that had Sole been arguing some other point, SlimV wouldn't have pursued to the puppetry thing.  It was a bad faith allegation.  If that isn't apparent to you, well... I think you are having reality issues.
 * If you feel SlimVirgin violated a Wikipedia policy, report it. Otherwise, be aware that accusing others of editing in bad faith is sometimes considered bad faith itself, or a personal attack.
 * Well, I did actually complain that I felt the sock puppetry thing was a bad faith allegation on the actual investigation page. But regardless, trying to rectify groundless arbitration w/ arbitration seems pointless.
 * Be aware that assuming good faith is a stick to measure your own actions against, rather than something used to judge others. Motives nearly impossible to prove, which is why we comment on actions. Consider it the Wikipedia equivalent of one of the Ten Commandments - a way to live your own life, but not something you can impose on others.


 * If you feel you're owed an apology, you can ask her for one. There's no guarantee or requirement that she'll give you one.
 * I have asked, and obviously there is never a requirement for apology on Wikipedia or in life. Apologies however simply demonstrate the kind of faith one is acting in.  The lack of apology goes to demonstrate the faith that Slim is acting in.
 * Again, accusing others of editing in bad faith is itself considered bad faith.
 * I'm over the arbitration issue. Arbitrating back would be equally childish.  I don't really think accusing someone of WP:OWNing is equalevent to accusing them of acting in bad faith.  WP:OWNing isn't really "bad faith" is it?  Someone can WP:OWN an article yet still be working in good faith.
 * I was more responding to you comment that "The lack of apology goes to demonstrate the faith that Slim is acting in" than your accusations of ownership.


 * Hounding is not a valid response to WP:OWN. In fact, if you read that page, quite the opposite is suggested: "It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack."
 * The problem is, WP:OWN is something that's very hard to demonstrate. It's almost impossible to arbitrate against.  While I appreciate tit-for-tat warring is sorta childish, what other possibilities exist?
 * The dispute resolution process. I don't think any of the disputes have been taken past the RfC stage of dispute resolution. Consider filing a mediation request if there's something specific you disagree with, and, if that doesn't work, you can take the issue all the way to arbitration.
 * Again, I think where there aren't any "bright line" issues involved, mediation requests and arbitration are somewhat pointless.
 * You can take even minor issues up the dispute resolution chain. They're more rare, because usually editors don't edit war over them, but if you have the time and patience, and have made earnest attempts to solve the issue in other ways, I don't think there's any requirement that it be a complex disagreement.


 * An argument about being "POV" with relation to another editor is meaningless. WP:NPOV applies to the text of articles, not personal judgement as to another editor's biases (or lack thereof).
 * Lol. You've been on Wikipedia for too long if you think POV can't be applied to editors.  POV does mean something outside of Wikipedia you know?  Real people walk around with POVs everyday.  But seriously, if an editor is holds strong points-of-view, it is very difficult to write in NPOV.  Something that might seem reasonable for someone with a POV (like say the "blood libel" shinanigans) might strike others as unreasonable.
 * Which is again, why we have dispute resolution process, and why we change articles based around consensus. Everyone has some personal bias, though I suspect you're misreading SlimVirgin's playing devil's advocate in some cases as something else.
 * I don't think I'm misreading. And again, I'm not accusing SlimV of gross bias.  It's the combination of even minor bias and WP:OWNing makes her actions unacceptable. NickCT (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bias is very hard to prove, but easy to overcome with consensus. WP:OWNership is also difficult to prove, and harder to overcome, and usually involves some sort of arbitration. Another option with WP:OWN is to file an RfC on user conduct. ← George talk 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, saying something is "POV" in this context mean absolutely nothing. You can consider my evaluation generous if you like, but she and I have both been involved in discussions and compromises on this article longer than your account has been actively editing Wikipedia. ← George talk 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am suitably humbled by your experience. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to humble, just as a suggestion to keep an open mind about other editors. ← George talk 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

EV1 Talk
I live in SoCal, and I am a moderator on a listsrv that is used by many of the people who were featured in WKtEC. I am also an active member of Plug-In America, although not one of the "movers and shakers" in the group. So, yes, I suppose I have fallen in with that crowd. They are good, intelligent, creative, dedicated people who are pursuing the right goal. I think that, at times, they have allowed rumors to become facts in their minds, and I forgive them this fault. We all end up believing what we want to believe... Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion
Please read my comments on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎ and consider self-reverting. AQFK is wrong, not for the first time, and it would have been helpful if you could have given me the opportunity to respond to him on the article talk page (which I've done) rather than jumping in and reverting. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, I started a discussion with respect to you and others which can be found here:  Stellarkid (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stellar! NickCT (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AE
Please see page here Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More arbitration for trying to seek NPOV on Israel/Palestine issues? Thanks Plot! NickCT (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild family
Have you any thoughts on the contentions here ? Vexorg (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea
how to wikihound me more. It is my new article. I used the word "Israel" two times there! And now I've used one time at your talk page! Please report topic ban breach ASAP.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why delete my replies Mbz? NickCT (talk)
 * I think you can probably answer that question yourself, NickCT.   Breein1007 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow Bree. The fact you'd take you time to dig through and gather that stuff is a little disturbing.  Your rabbit hole is a little deeper than I thought.
 * But seriously, I wasn't threatening or warning Mbz. If anything I was sympathizing with her. NickCT (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about me. It took no time at all. I have a whole organized file written up about you. Didn't you know? That's how we operate. Breein1007 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (chuckle) Ah Bree, you are endearing. NickCT (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you really would like to know why I deleted your message from my talk page, here's why: I do not like lairs: "Seconded. A temporary topic ban at least" and "Anyway, I'm sorry you were topic banned. I thought a week would have been more appropriate. 3 months seems a bit harsh." (highlighted by me). And now you know why. Please have a nice day, and please stay off my back, "dude".--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keyword there is "temporary". I really thought a week would have been more appropriate. If you can't appreciate that, so be it. NickCT (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In Agreement
Yes, we can be in agreement and we will continue to be in agreement on various issues! And you are not the ONLY individual that can play both sides of the fence -- I've reversed plenty of vandalism on Palestine/Arab/Muslim related articles and I do attempt to create NPOV articles when it all doesn't devolve into battleground nonsense. Lately, this battleground stuff has gone too far and understandably the admins are getting very sick of it. Honestly, if you just looked at the AE page, you'd think Wikipedia only dealt with I/P. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Btw, your name is mentioned in this ANI thread. Unomi (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Btw, feel like joining WP:IPCOLL? I think everyone gains from having centralized discussions. Unomi (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So joined. My tanks. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I saw :) It seems that the project has fallen into some disuse, but seeing as how we have seom discussions flaring here and there it is probably a good idea to pick it up again, I think that I will see if it won't be possible to get some uninvolved admins or other respected members to watchlist it as well. It is much too easy to misrepresent a discussion when no uninvolved editors have been following it as it progresses.



Unomi (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend. lunch? Unomi (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: atheism, I have responded on my talkpage. Unomi (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and again :) Unomi (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, and welcome to IPCOLL. I was about to add said Template to your Talk page but was very happy to see that Unomi already had. I also like what you wrote on IPCOLL about the need for the moderates to make their voice heard. I very strongly agree with you that if we believe in peace, we need to fight together for for this territory, even if we don't agree with one another on every little detail about that territory. Hopefully, we can help make Wikipedia one little part of the world where Israel and Palestine are at peace. The conflict covers the land like a demon, crushing everyone into terrible submission. But here, the demon is weaker and many of us are strong enough to subdue it. Every inch of ground or Internet space where we can hold it back is a victory for us, and we emerge more powerful and united for the next battle. Now, I don't know very much about you, where you're coming from or what you want to edit, but what would you like to accomplish? -- AFriedman  (talk)  02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Fried, Thanks for the kind welcome. I generally agree with your comments re "Every inch of ground....".
 * Re your question - I only became a wikiholic a few month ago, and honestly, I started with only a passing interest in I/P issues. After taking part in a few debates I was immediately struck by how I/P issues generated the most AEs,WP:Incivility, and WP:Battlegrounding of virtually any subject on WP (though some politcal topics, and global warming might be in the running for BATTLEGROUNDing).
 * The tone of most of these debates were such that the views of moderates are drowned out by hordes of activists editting from parties on both sides of this debate. I was initally drawn by the subject's contentious nature, but now I feel as though most articles are simply expressing the POVs of whichever group is loudest and in the greatest numbers.
 * My interest in IPCOLL is that it currently seems like the "high ground" for moderates in this debate. I've long felt as though some kind of "militant moderate" group or "moderate cabal" is necessary to change the tone of the debate surrounding I/P issues.  This group should be made of moderates from both sides of the debate who have a demonstrated ability to reach amicable consensus among themselves, while excluding the ravings of extremists on either side.  I wonder if IPCOLL might be such a group, or might be a place to establish such a group (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration)
 * Let me ask you, as you probably have more experience, is IPCOLL a force for moderation or a talk shop for moderates? NickCT (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheism
I want to avoid a 1:1 edit war with Jim. Since I made the original change today, and reverted his revert of mine (which Tryptofish edited), maybe you could revert his 2nd revert? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Your survey answer
OK. I've done that. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting to the chase


Born2cycle 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}}!

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from John Gardner (Texas Ranger)
Hello NickCT, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to John Gardner (Texas Ranger) has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (+refs) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you delete sourced content without consensus again,
I will be taking the matter to AE. Good day, Breein1007 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To which edit do you refer? NickCT (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Al Durrah. Breein1007 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah bree bree bree. There was a long discussion about that material, and it was about 50/50 that the material was appropriate (the 50 "for" tended to come from the hardline pro-Israel camp).  As always I seek an amicable solution to these things, and as the talk page will show I supported removing all the "reaction" material (both the sentences), as I felt it was ridden with POV issues and added little to the article.
 * As this material has been challenged by multiple unrelated editors (as I'd predicted it would be), perhaps now would be a good time to readdress the issue. Another RfC might be helpful (the last one was rather clumsy).
 * And please drop the empty AE threats. I think most people are familar enough with you to know they are frivolous.
 * We should probably take further discussion to Al-durrah talk. Best, NickCT (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the barnstar, Nick. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Testing me good
Hi, compliments for asking the right questions here on Ana Kamm. It challenged me into good thinking & answering & writing. You deserve: the WRITTEN BARNSTAR FOR GOOD POSTING. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial?
What was controversial about the move? Assassination is a POV term, that is used to describe killings of leaders of States. Killing is a npov term. What can possibly be controversial about that?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contraversial?
Hey Dude,

Regarding your comment;

1) Thanks for not edit warring this. 2)  I credit you with being smart enough to realize that changing the title of virtually any I/P issue (especially when words like "killing", "murder" or "assassination" are involved) is going to be contraversial. 3) The word "assassination" is not at word to avoid 4)  Assassination can be defined as
 * a. murder of a public figure by surprise attack (Princeton Dictionary)
 * b. killing or murder for political reasons (wiktionary)
 * c. to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person (Dictionary.com)

You really don't think this event qualifies as an "assassination"?

Best, NickCT (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be easier to follow this conversation if we keep it in one place, I think, so I've moved your comment here.

First, we don't yet know who killed him. See, for example, this. Second, we don't know why they killed him.

We do know he was killed, though. Which is why the word "killed" is the NPOV word.

Assassination is steeped with POV, and therefore should be avoided as the title of the article.

You not only assume you know who killed him, you assume you know their reason. And you assume that their reason was political -- while he was a terrorism figure, not a head of state.

Consider the distinction of killing a terrorist, versus killing a head of state for political reasons. Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis has done so, and writes: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts". Judge Sofaer, one of the most respected U.S. judges of our lifetime, points out that the use of the term assassination is opposed when a terrorist is killed in a targeted killing, as it denotes murder, whereas the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, and thus it is viewed as a killing, but not a crime.  He also points out that "When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action."  Also, Roger Cressey, a senior fellow at the Center for Law and Security at NYU, said that he doesn't like the use of the term assassination to describe targeted killings,  because he thinks it can be misleading:  "I think you should not have political assassination as a tool, and it's banned under Executive Order 12333. The issue is ... if the United States government makes a decision to go to war, to attack a transnational group, one objective of that decision is to eliminate the leadership. ... We're either going to do it through traditional military means ... or we're going to do it through covert activity. I mean, we're trying to actively hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. We're not trying to assassinate him. We're trying to kill the senior leadership of al-Qaeda ... right now. That is not assassination, in the way that we have discussed assassination in the past ... because we are at war with this entity known as al-Qaeda ... under the U.N. charter, under Article 51 of self-defense, we can attack another nation in the spirit of self-defense, and under international law that is justified as well. So the difference between launching ... trying to kill bin Laden with a Predator Hellfire Missile, in the context of war, that is completely different than a political assassination." Law Professor Amos Guiora writes:  "Targeted killing is ... not an assassination", Professor William C. Banks and Professor Peter Raven-Hansen write:  "Targeted killing of terrorists is ... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination", and Rory Miller writes:  "Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination'"..  Judge Abraham D. Sofaer observed:  "When people call a targeted killing an 'assassination,' they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action."

So, in a nutshell, we know it is a killing. We don't know that it is an assassination (and it's probably not, as it lacks the requisite indicia).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche - I understand your POV, and I respect your opinion. Unfortunately I think there is going to be a subjective element to this decision, and I'd say that at the moment I would be be moderately against a name change.  If you want, we can open some kind of poll on the talk page to see if you can build consensus for the change.  I will, as always, bow to the will of a majority. NickCT (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to ping me. I have your page "watched" for responses.  Do you understand the references above by the professors and judge with regard to the distinction betweent the two, and do you understand that killing lacks POV where assassination is steeped in it?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Epee, I most certainly understand that there are a number of intellectuals/judges etc who might hold the POV that "targetted killings" are not assassinations. I'm sure you understand that I could equally well present you with a list of authoritative sources that say the exact opposite.
 * Re "assassination" being POV; This argument could be applied to anything.  I might say, "Well, you can't say what happened in Rwanda was genocide, b/c genocide might hold POV.  Let's just call it the Rwanda Killings instead of the Rwanda Genocide".  The falsity of the argument is obvious.  The fact is, if a wide majority recognize something as assassination/genocide, it is assasisination/genocide.  Such is the nature of subjective issues.
 * I would take it as a show of good faith if you were to self-revert your recent changes to the page. Changing all the "assassination" references while we are having this discussion is a little dubious.  I think the only edit you and I would agree on is the perp to susperp change.  I think that was probably appropriate. Best, NickCT (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. Which is that there is no controversy over whether he was killed.  Only over whether he was assassinated.  That is not an issue of POV.  There is no wide majority of views among law professors (these are, at the end of the day, legal distinctions) or dictionaries that the killings of a terrorist leader of the military wing of a terrorist organization is not a killing.  That's why that is the NPOV word here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Epee - Quoting a couple academics is not really sufficient in proving that there is a contraversy over whether something that looks very much like assassination is or is not assassination. If I told you Noam Chomsky once challenged whether French was an actual language, would we have to retitle the "French Language" article to note the objection?  The fact is, the gross majority of RS refer to it as assassination.  Hence, it is assassination.  I repeat my call for a revert.  NickCT (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I quoted more than "a couple of academics". I quoted the foremost authorities on this area of the law.  And (if you count them) more than a couple.  Obviously, there is good reason to think this may not be an assassination.  What we do know, however, without question, is that it is a killing.  You've not provided any evidence that it was not a killing.  For obvious reasons. There is no controversy about that whatsoever.  --Epeefleche (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Foremost authorities" is a dubious assertion. I think you probably see them as foremost as they happen to share your POV.  Again, I'm sure you understand that I could come up with a larger list of "foremost authorities" who say the exact opposite.
 * So Epee, tell me. If I find a few academics/judges who say what happened in Rwanda wasn't genocide, would you support changing Rwandan Genocide to Rwandan Killings?  If not, why?
 * Finally, please revert your recent changes and open a discussion on this matter on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is that assertion dubious? Professor Solis has written the definitive current work in the area -- can you think of anyone who has written a work on the subject that is more definitive or more current?  Judge Sofaer is considered one of the top jurists of our generation.  Can you think of a judge who has spoken to the issue, saying that killing is a term that is not appropriate here, who is of similar stature?  Or any at all?  I'll ignore your red herring comments, as they do not bear on the issue.  On point would be if you were to share with me half a dozen statements by law professors and jurists of the stature of Solis and Sofaer who say that it is inappropriate to call a killing such as this a killing.  I invite you, yet again, to do so.  I've provided statements in that regard to why the use of assassination is POV-laden.  You've failed to do anything approaching that w/regard to the use of the work killing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Epee - Obviously it was a killing. Why would I try and provide anything that said it wasn't?
 * Please don't call my question a red herring. I'm using the exact same logic you are using.  There were allot of killings in the Rwandan genocide right?  Again..... why call it the Rwandan Genocide and not the Rwandan killings?  I can find a few authoritative sources that say it wasn't Genocide.
 * Re Solis, Sofaer - I'm not going to argue that these people aren't authoratative sources, or that they aren't respected in thier field. But to infer that they are somehow the people who have final say on what is or is not assassination is dubious.
 * Now stop with the "I didn't hear that" and make the revert please. I think you'll agree I've demonstrated a great deal of restraint.  Some reciprocity of my ettiquite would be appreciated. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting that it is not controversial that it is a killing. That is precisely why the use of the term "killing" is NPOV.  We've now advanced the discussion, as we agree on that.

As to the phrase "assassination" -- at best, as I've evidenced above -- its use here would be controversial. At worst (which may well be the case), it would be wrong. To use it would therefore be POV. That's why it should not be used.

Your discussion of other matters is a red herring. No offense intended. But to discuss the matter before us, especially when it has taken this long to agree that "killing" is a phrase we agree is appropriate, suggests that discussions of extraneous matters may be less than helpful, and might well serve to divert our attention from the issue at hand.

You again seem to miss the point. As authoritative as Solis and Sofaer are, they needn't be viewed as having "final say". All that is being indicated by the above half-dozen professors, etc., is that there is significant RS controversy (at best) with regard to the use of the term assassination for the killing of a terrorist. No such controversy exists with regard to the use of the word killing. Which is why -- in the interest of NPOV -- that is the direction we must head.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, I never suggested it was not a killing. Making self-evident points like this really does nothing to forward your point.
 * I'm guessing you refuse to address my "red herring" because you can't.
 * The fact is still that the gross majority of RS are still for "assassination". In the face of the gross majority, a half dozen quotes by authoritative sources doesn't throw much weight.
 * I noticed you didn't revert. Thanks.  I'm a little tied up in-real-life at the moment.  I'll address this later. Best, NickCT (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The issue is which is the better term to use, as less imbued with controversy/POV. "Assassination"?  Or "Killing"?
 * 2) You've agreed that it was a killing. That, it just so happens, is the word that I am suggesting should be used.  No controversy attends its use.
 * 3) As to assassination, the situation is quite different. I've reflected how significant RSs say it would be incorrect to use the term in an instance such as this, where the person killed is a terrorist.  Further, you do not know who killed the person.  Or what their motive was.  To use "assassination" is not only therefore controversial, it is synth and/or original research on your part.
 * 4) As to your red herrings, there is no need to address them, as they are off-point. It seems to be taking sufficient time to establish the above, that diversions would be counter-productive.
 * 5) You have no evidence that there is any such "gross majority". You are simply making that up.  In any event, the point that I made still stands.  At absolute best, controversy attends the use of the POV-laden phrase "assassination".  As I've reflected above.  There is no reason therefore -- other than POV -- to use it.  Rather than the POV-neutral phrase "killing".
 * 6) You have admitted that you agree it is a killing. I don't agree it is an assassination.  Nor do the RSs I've quoted.  Controversy attends that phrase.  It does not attend the word killing.
 * 7) I assume you are seeking to have the phrase be a NPOV one. As you agree that "killing" is accurate, that would be the NPOV phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok... Point by point I'm not sure we're really getting anywhere here. Let take it to the talk page to get more voices. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Killing" is less imbued in contraversy than "genocide". Should we replace genocide with killing?
 * 2) To say that genocide involves "killings" is not contraversal. To call a genocide a killing (to the exclusion of calling it a genocide) is contraversial.  In the same sense, to say that assassination involves "killing" is not contraversail.  To call an assassination a killing (to the exclusion of calling it an assassination) is contraversial.
 * 3) I'm not 100% sure who killed JFK or why. I call that an assassination.  Is that wrong?
 * 4) My "red herrings" aren't off-point. They use the exact same logic you are trying to apply in a different context.  You don't like it, because they demonstrate the falacy of your argument.  If you don't think they are valid (i.e. off-point), explain why you think that's the case.
 * 5) Google "assassination of MaM" 86K hits --- "killing of MaM" 50K hits --- Note that articles related to killing often also call it an assassination.  This goes to show that the majority is for assassination.  Please don't suggest I make things up.  Focussing on a few references that support your POV is "making things up".
 * 6) Contraversy may attend the phrase. That doesn't mean the phrass is not correct.  See my comments on "genocide" above.
 * 7) I seek the truth, in the hopes that it might set me free. Something is non-neutral is misrepresents the view of the majority of RS. You seem to think something is non-neutral if it might cause contraversy.  By your logic we would have to scrap all sorts of things.
 * Actually, I think we've solved it. You agree it is a killing.  All manner of RS do not agree it is an assassination, nor have you indicated the elements requisite to call it an assassination -- so that is the only term as to which there is a controversy.  I'll make the appropriate move.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving this conversation to the talk page. NickCT (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

AE
A case has been opened about you here. If you'd like to respond, you are invited to do so. Breein1007 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given you a 48 hour block in relation to the above, specifically because of this comment. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Another admin who fails to take a careful and considered approach. @BW - Note, you don't really explain "bigot is clearly a violation of WP:NPA, ".  Also, saying that it's "pretty unbelievable" that I think I should have been given time to respond to an AE is, "pretty unbelieveable".  Curt and cursosry admining like this only encourages battlegrounding. Poor show. NickCT (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times in your Wikipedia career do you need gentle prods into behaving in a collegial manner? How many times do people have to politely remind you to be nice?  Additional time was not going to solve anything - 22 minutes was a mere breath in the windstorm of warnings and notices.  As such, AE needed to be swift, because you already knew the repercussions of your personal actions.  Not only is this block well-deserved, it's far too late, and wikilwayering around was not going to work.  I truly hope that your suggested threat of battlegrounding is not the way you intend to edit in the future, as you are now hanging by a thread with your behaviour. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This block was for breaching the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and calling another editor a bigot is way over the line. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bwilkins - As I'd said, if you'd taken the time to review my discourse, you'd have noted that the vast majority of it is more than collegial (unlike Breein's). I think "windstorm of warnings and notices" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's more like a litany of mostly baseless complaints coming from a group of editors who object to my pointing out thier POV issues.
 * Additionally, when did I threaten battlegrounding? I said your actions encourage battlegrounding. I find your stand-offish nature and willingness to read my comments poorly a little disconcerting. Are you trying to enforce your unfairly preconcieved notion? The only thing worse than cursory admining is cursory and agressive admining.
 * You have still failed to really address any of my individual points, as you have failed to take the time to review the record. I'm guessing you don't intend to. If you're going to simply reiterate your misconceptions, don't bother. I bid you sir, a good night. My best, NickCT (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Phil - Ok Phil. I appreciate the higher bar for civility on I/P pages, but I would point out that the comment toward Bree comes after repeated requests for him to cease interacting with/hounding me.  Tell me, might it be possible to request a formal interaction ban with/restraining order from this editor?  Thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On vandalism warnings, and why I didn't do it...
Hi!

I'm assuming good faith, in that the editor seems new to Wikipedia. They'd already been warned about WP:NPOV once before (a few days ago), but I appreciate it's a difficult concept, particularly if you hold strong views on something.

Vandalism is a bit of a nasty thing to accuse an editor of, when they may be editing in good faith. I'd prefer to engage with the editor, encourage them to speak to other editors, and - ideally - get them to discuss their edits on the talk page. If that doesn't work, I'm more than happy to move on to templated warnings, however...!

Hope that clarifies why I was reluctant to warn them. Do feel free to ask me if it's unclear.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock
Prove it or shut up. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel gag order
All of the other examples of a gag order in that article have sources. Could you add sources for the Israel gag order as well? Thanks. Sorafune  話  15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How's this? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of liked "Archie"
Actually, I kind of liked "Archie" ! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... this reference is a little too erudite for me... NickCT (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit
I'm really curious about your reason for accepting this edit, given it seems to be a pretty blatant violation of the BLP policy. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, Mea culpa.  I got a little confused.  I thought the edit I was looking at was removing the BLP violation, not adding it in.  I recognized I'd made an error and I went back to fix it, but by the time I did, someone else had reverted! NickCT (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just couldn't figure out any legitimate reason for it and had to ask. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador at GWU/Georgetown
Hi NickCT, thanks for your interest in the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role!

More details about this role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell: The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this position will be in charge of training and supporting the participating professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add references, how to add images, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Wikipedia articles, for example by setting up Wikipedia-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events. In general they will become known as Wikipedia experts on the university campus (in your case, on the Georgetown University or George Washington University campus). The estimated time commitment for the Campus Ambassadors is about 3-5 hours a week; most of the work will take place on the weekdays, when faculty members and students are more likely to be on campus.

The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.

If this sounds interesting and feasible to you, please let me know, so we can talk about next steps in the application process. Feel free to email me if you prefer: alin@wikimedia.org.

Thanks. I look forward to hearing back from you!

Annie Lin, Campus Team Coordinator Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I responded to your questions on my talk page. Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy
Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. -- Ludwigs 2 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted to the poll. Thanks for a well setup straw poll. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)