User talk:Paul111

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/White Nationalism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Multiculturalism
My ' unclear/vague ' text did not need to be edited in such a way as to remove it ouright. Firstly, you forget to mention there have been 5 Race Relations Acts, and you assume their is only one. Secondly, you have not even bothered to create a page on them. I apologise for being so rude, but to be frank, that was the poorest edit I have seen. SnudgeB


 * I asked you several weeks ago to clarify the text on the Multiculturalism page itself. Please do.Paul111 12:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Paul111 What I mean is, is that the 2003 ammendment has been the most comprehenesive to date. the 1968 version did not include areas such as education and health, whereas the 2003 version did. Hopefully this answers your question. RSVP with what you think. SnudgeB


 * I asked you to clarify the text on the Multiculturalism page itself i.e. not on my talk page. I could not correct your version, because I still do not know what it is trying to say.Paul111 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

White nationalism
The Greek theory about Mediteranneans being the "real" whites isn't mentioned in your version of the article. 87.203.191.237 07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at some info on the Dimopolous book, and he seems to be a Greek nationalist. Does he describe himself as a White Nationalist? That is the point, for this article. Do other white nationalists promote his theory as specifically white-nationalist?Paul111 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK 87.203.227.114 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminder of 3 revert rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul,

I doubt PinchosC's "warnings" have any basis. He has been extremely abusive to me. I strongly suggest you report his excesses. Thank you. DavidCharlesII 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, PinchasC's warning was quite correct. Paul111 violated 3RR on Zionism; Paul111 please don't do it again. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. An edit is made, it is undone by other editors who request sources, and then the request is fulfilled. It's common sense that the re-addition of the material with sources shouldn't count as a revert. --Anonymous44 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
There are no more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, even on a loose definition. Initial insertion of text does not count as a revert. Only 4 edits were made in 24 hours, including the initial edit, so at most 3 can be a revert, even stretching the definition. In any case, since you have been involved in editing Zionism-related issues, it is not appropriate that you should rule on disputes there. The Zionism article is prominent for its editorial disputes, and is extremely unbalanced. One of its defects is that it downplays the nature of Zionism as a European nationalist movement. Some of those were notoriously anti-semitic, and in any case nationalism generally has a bad image. For this reason, the authors of the present Zionism article want to avoid the description of Zionism as a nationalism, used by most theorists of nationalism. This has led them to delete even uncontroversial assertions about Zionism, (which most of them proibably support themsleves). Zionism, for instance, claims territory for a 'national homeland' for the Jews, that is a central feature. However 'territorial claim' might suggest land-grabbing, so it is left out of the introduction. In this way the article has been sanitised of almost anything that has negative implications, leaving an incomplete and distorted article.Paul111 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first version
 * first revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * Fourth revert after warning above
 * I have neved editied the Zionism article and in related articles never edit regarding whether was nationalist or not. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

zionism
Hi. Please take a look at the current edit conflict about External links at the Zionism article. I badly needed some balance and see that you were also interested in this issue, recently. I have found a few links to help balance the perspective in the external links section but its being reverted by another editor. I would appreciate your imput on the matter. I do not want to violate the 3RR rule, but feel that my edit does have support among other editors involved in the article, such as yourself. Thank you Giovanni33 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue.
I'd like to keep this as narrow as possible, and focus only on the links section. If you're interested, could I ask you to provide me with:

a) a few diffs illustrating reversions on the article page that reflect bias on the part of career editors there

b) (if you feel like it) specific instances of incivility or bias you encounted on the talk page there.

Thanks, BYT 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the Zionism article
Wholeheartedly agree, but an RFC must focus on specifics. Which documentable problems trouble you the most about this article? BYT 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's do this.
The problems you outline are indeed quite serious, and I agree that they need to be addressed. What I would like to suggest is that, beginning, say, Tuesday, you and I work together on that page to make a sustained, coordinated attempt to remedy the defects you've outlined. I will follow your lead. (Not available till Tuesday, though.) If we improve the article, so much the better. If we get shot down, hey, we made a good faith effort, and we can then move on to filing an RfC together. Fair? BYT 12:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the prospect of doing good work on the article is worth pursuing; recording such work and appealing it through the chain, even if it is shot down, is more likely to result in positive change. Please let me know if you reconsider. Peace, BYT 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism
I think the article's title is extremely POV but at the same time ambiguous. And the article itself has no references. Yes I would support a deletion at this point. Taxico 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dutch people
Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following: Thanks! Rex 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions.
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Stop!
You might hold your own definitions of words, scolars however tend to agree. Germanic is a linguistic and cultural term. Stop removing it asa category from articles. Rex 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Germanic is indeed a linguistic term. That's why claims that the English people are a "Germanic people" are false, and that's why such articles don't belong in the category "Germanic peoples". (Apart from a minority of neo-fascists, no-one in England describes themselves as Germanic). Because of its misuse to promote a political agenda, I nominated the category for deletion, there are legitimate alternatives.Paul111 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can nominate and think what you want, but this doesn't make it right, Germanic is a cultural and linguistic marker. The linguistic use alone makes the English a Germanic people (As English is a Germanic language) you generally stand alone in your point of view, where are your sources if I might ask?Rex 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take the issue to the English people article (or its talk page) since that is the appropriate place for it.Paul111 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop starting the same discussion 10 times.
You do not have to place the exact same message on every talkpage which falls into the Germanic peoples category. 1 is enough.Rex 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion at every affected article was requested by user Arnoutf at Talk:Dutch people, and is the only way to raise the issue of placement in the category with the editors of each article. I earlier tried to simply take the articles out of the category, but in every case that was reverted by Rex Germanus.Paul111 10:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to show my support for paul111 that i agree that germanic peoples article should be deleted. Read sugaar's post on wikiethnic groups project page discussion, he has the same veiw to.--Globe01 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group)
Hi Paul111, I'm a bit confused about the timing of your message on my talk page, as I failed the article for GA status over two weeks ago. As I said at the time of my review, I do not wish to become a party to or provide support for any side in an edit war or content dispute (which would include NPOV disputes). One of the guidelines for a GA reviewer is that they should not have been a major contributing editor to the article they choose to review prior to that assessment. And as can be seen from the article edit history, I only made minor copy-edits and additions of citation-needed tags, which I did as I read through and reviewed, before I failed the article and posted the reasons on the talk page. After that, I have only occasionally checked the article's progress and the state of the discussion. So, your case should really be made to the other main editors of the article. Thanks. --Fsotrain09 17:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.Arnoutf 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group)
The discussion on the talk page is getting heated, and I'm trying to take some of the heat out of it. Now I'd appreciate your help in this. Do you think you could avoid accusations of editorial bias for starters, it doesn't really help further discussion along. Where you write something like "The accuracy of the article has been compromised by attempts to promote Greater Netherlands irredentism and to identify the Dutch, implicitly or explicitly, as a Germanic people, and as a continuation of the Franks.", that's quite adversarial, and the same effect could be achieved by writing "I have some concerns about the way this article presents some information. To my eye it seems to be perhaps leaning too far towards describing as a fact the point that the Dutch are a Germanic people and a continuation of the Franks." It takes the accusations out and focusses on the content, not the editor. Anyway, I hope the sting can be taken out of the debate. Steve block Talk 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Wikipedia articles related to nationalism, national movements, and ethnic groups are used to promote particular nationalist views, leading to protracted editing and accuracy disputes, see Zionism and Macedonia (region). The Dutch (ethnic group) article contained much pseudo-historical material, clearly intended to back up a particular version of Dutch history. Some of the historical details may seem unimportant in themselves, but it is their use for propaganda which undermines the accuracy, again see Macedonia (region) for examples. The problem of nationalist abuse of Wikipedia needs to be addressed, and not swept under the carpet in the interests of poliite consensus.Paul111 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not sweeping it under the carpet, it's dealing with it in a polite manner. I am well aware of the problems of editing from a point of view, but the manner of dealing with it should be that we eneter into a discussion politely and refrain from accusing.  I'm not sure whether you are aware, but Wikipedia does have behavioural policies which guide us in our interactions. They include Assume good faith and Civility.  Kindly comment on the content, not the user. Cheers, Steve block Talk 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from recent comments, some users take any reference to the nationalist content of edits, as a statement about themselves. Since one of the issues is that a far-right view is being presented as fact, it is not possible to avoid implications here. As you can see, people take rapid offence, even if nothing specific is said about them. Self-identification as 'Germanic' in the Netherlands is rare, and the Dutch-language forum at Stormfront.org is one of the few places where you can find it. I know that (Personal attack removed) who want the article to say that the Dutch are a Germanic people. But what do you suggest, that I should not mention this political background?Paul111 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, just stick to the content. If you want to comment on an editor's point of view, just state that it is their point of view, and that Wikipedia needs sources which verify what is claimed.    Perhaps avoid stating the implications.  Steve block Talk 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

just for the record
I have not edited the article besides the removal of the addition 'as in Khadra Sahal Roble' which is clear and blatant vandalism (IMHO) for which I made an exception (feel free to compare the versions in history). I have seen the anon ip's make edits which seem to imply me, but that was not me. In fact, I even doubted for a minute to revert those edits, but decided that would be breaking my own promise. So no, it was not me. Arnoutf 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of EUFOR image
Well, it's a fact that EU forces operates in Kongo and Kosovo. See EUFOR.

The nato flag wasnt a revelation at all. If you think the images gives a false impression, you can underline what EUFOR is all about in the article text. --Ssolbergj 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep content discussion on the article's talk page.Paul111 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of images from the EU page
Hi, Paul. Thanks for your input to the discussion on graphics. I've taken the liberty of deleting the obvious candidates identified by the vote. I don't think we have any major differences of opinion, but if you feel strongly about any individual item I've removed, please put it back (actually, I suspect that you may think I've been to cautious!). On a positive note, we no longer get the warning at the top of the article about it's size. Countersubject 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop reinserting disputed EU intro version
2 editors are in favor, 2 are rather against. Read Wikipedia politics as mentioned in talk. Stop your speculative POV version. Lear 21 18:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep content discussion on the articles talk page, which has a section on this point.Paul111 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no base for your version anymore. The EU page needs a stable, balanced, and accurate introduction. Stop your unilateral way of editing. Lear 21 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting in EU page
Paul111, if you revert further back than the last revision as you did just now on the EU page, please take account you may be destroying work by other editors that was not against earlier agreements. In any way to check what happens make always sure that people can find the version you refer to. If you revert only selected parts of the article this is not a classic revert but an edit and should have a concise edit summary. Thanks Arnoutf 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no revert to a full previous version, and it is explained on the talk page as the edit summary says. Some edits about sports have indeed been removed, but that was inevitable if the entire section is removed. The question is why an overview article about the European Union should discuss korfbal at all. Please save further discussion for the article's talk page, where it belongs.Paul111 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it was not a revert but another type of edit, please provide a different edit summary in the future to prevent confusion. Thanks Arnoutf 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutch ethnic group
I'll ask the question openly and blunt. Why are you please be open paul111. Maybe we can talk about it when we know your true motives?213.125.116.112 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Removing so much referenced information.
 * 2) Posting so many lies on the talk page.
 * 3) Refusing to discuss edits.
 * 4) Destroying the article?


 * Referenced information may indeed be removed, if its accuracy is disputed and no reliable source was provided. That was explained at the articles talk page, but you removed the item. Please do not delete other peoples contributions at talk pages, and please read Civility.Paul111 12:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You forget that referenced information may only be removed when sufficient reasons are provided. Flooding the talk page day after day with the same opinion (not facts) is not the same. I hope one day you 'll understand this.Rex 16:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the editors who wish to insert or maintain disputed material to provide a reliable source. If that is not present, then no other reasons are required for deletion. Editors who are not satisfied with this can use the dispute resolution procedures.Paul111 11:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing referenced information is vandalism Paul111. Don't forget that.Rex 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crown of immortality
Hi Paul111, to start off with. I share much of your doubts about the crown of immortality article; I do dislike unfounded mysticist claims as well. However; there seem to be some references in the literature and arts, so apparently it exists; and may even deserve an article. The creator of the artice is trying his best to get it up to acceptabe standards; but I agree he is far removed from it. However, please take into account this is a very inexperienced editor (about 150 edits); who is obviously enthousiastic about a topic. As long as he is not harming anyone (and I agree the EU thing was getting close to that), his article is fairly harmless. He is definitely not vandalising or antagonising anyone. Being this strict on his edits may take away his pleasure in editing Wikipedia; something I would not like to have on my conscience. You might consider it nicer to adopt a coaching role (as I try to do) instead of taking a quality-control policing role, as you seem to do. If you want to fight msyticism, parapsychology is a much more interesting article, I tried to edit there once, but bounced off the sheer wall of pseudoscience thrown at me. Arnoutf 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I created a new article where any bona-fide inconography can go, Circle of stars. There is a relevant iconographic background, but the 'Crown of Immortality' is a small subset of it. The user in question can place more examples there, if he wants to, since the iconographic motif is more widely described.Paul111 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar enough with the topic on that. You could have politely suggested that circle of stars would be a better and broader name for the article, explain the adantages and suggest to rename the article. That would have probably been a good idea, and might well have been accepted. Now we will probably end up with two semi-developed articles that have to go through merger procedures later on. I think it is more about the style which comes across a very blunt rather than the content of your approach. Arnoutf 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
I have filed in a mediation (Requests for mediation/Dutch (ethnic group)) as your behaviour is unacceptable and terribly unconstructive. Given the numerous time you proposed (but never engaged in) dispute resultion I assume you will accept to mediate very soon.Rex 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Flemish people
Yep I noticed, thanks. It's the repeated accusations of vandalism that annoy me the most. But in the end I realize there is nothing to be done as that annon seems to use a wide range of IP addresses. The only option would be semi protection, but I believe he's not active enough to warrant that. So essentially just a nuisance.--Caranorn 11:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make a point, for the sake of making the point
Reverting a recent edit as no sources were given. With that you imply I need a reference to state that Christmas is celebrated in the Netherlands; and that both Dutch and Flemings speek Dutch. Some things are general knowledge and need no sources. Arnoutf 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted items are listed here Talk:Dutch_%28ethnic_group%29, they don't include those two points. -- Paul111 11:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group)
Dear Paul,

Personally I have no opinion on this article, even though I am Dutch myself. But solving a content dispute via AfD is not the way to go. Perhaps you can consider taking this to RfC or mediation? Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me, but I have no opinion on the matter. Also, I want to restate that you are using the wrong forum to get your message across. My suggestions above will allow uninvolved editors to shed their light on the issue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I found them now in the archives. I also noticed that you were the one who refused to Mediation and who called the RfC "failed" when not quickly many people responded. I am sorry, but there is not else much I can do for you. Regards --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

wiki finally caught up == ==

hi paul. i just checked the page on nationalism, the one in which my attempts to do away with the flawed idea that nationalism = ideology "was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed." guess what? it now agrees with my original attempts to do away with the ideology shtick. glad to see wikipedia is finally on board with the more recent scholarship on the topic. Hongkyongnae (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neuropa
Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know that I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Neuropa. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)