User talk:Shrike/Archives/2012/May

Indian Sociology
Thanks for sorting out access per the WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request thread. Hopefully it will resolve a somewhat lengthy & tedious discussion at Saint Thomas Christians. I've grabbed it now. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in the IP topic area.
Regarding your comment on the Hasbara fellowships page, where you claim that it is undue do report an organisations activities as described on it's own website because no RS have been presented. I am interested to know how you square this with your support for the inclusion of CAMERA and NGO-monitor opinions on the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, despite them not being reported in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This different if we had some other site that talk about that for example some think tank similar to camera it may be included in the article but what we have now is cherry-picking one item from many other.--Shrike (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First time I've ever seen anyone try to claim it is undue to use an organisation's own website for its wikipedia page. It is not cherry picking, other activities are also mentioned. For some reason you have selected this one activity as a problem to report in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because other activities was reported by WP:RS.If not those should be deleted too--Shrike (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CAMERA and NGO monitor are not WP:RS so I hope you will be consistent and remove the material based on posts to their websites which have not been reported by RS from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions page. Dlv999 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already explained to you that Camera and NGO monitor are notable think tanks.--Shrike (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are activist organisations. Labeling an organisation a "think tank" has nothing to do with any of our policies and could never justify inserting non-notable material into Wikipedia pages. As you have argued, if they are notable on a particular topic they will have been reported by RS. I'm sorry, but I can't have any respect for you if you are not going to apply the policies of the encyclopedia consistently.
 * Please read WP:NPA.You were already counseled not to make comments on the editors.--Shrike (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The source is not reliable its clear WP:SPS even if not take in account that its clear agenda site.--Shrike (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)" and the exact same point applies to material posted on the CAMERA and NGO monitor websites being used in the ICAHD page. In fact Sheizaf's opinion has a better case for inclusion as he is a journalist published in notable mainstream RS, while NGO-monitor and CAMERA are pure agenda organisations. Dlv999 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But they not SPS not they blog site.--Shrike (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Palestine is/is not a sovereign state". Thank you. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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 uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Just dropping this notice for absolute clarity. Hasteur (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem 1847
I already wrote about the blood libel at Talk:1847 Jerusalem Pogrom. I don't have Gilbert's book handy, but his version comes mainly from the book of James Finn. You can read the original starting near the end of page 107 here. Zerotalk 12:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted accusations
Shrike,

This is the third time now you posted on my page, questioning my behavior in the topic area without good reason. The last time, I specifically asked you not to post allegations to my page but to make the your accusations through the appropriate channels if you have any issues with my edits.

With respect to me, you clearly do not have the required objectivity (or authority) needed to stand as Judge and Jury to decide that I have violated the 1RR rules. I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please look at this and this, and perhaps reconsider who is making the unwarranted accusations.' Ankh '. Morpork  10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly will not. I demand that Shrike withdraw the accusations or make a formal complaint through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the user asked I made a complaint the user was blocked for edit warring as a result of it.--Shrike (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Benzion Netanyahu
Maariv interview: new source added (leading Scottish newspaper The Herald), and not sure if my cite from The Jewish Week is new too. Are they OK by you? Do add your response (if you feel the need for one) on the article talk page, this was just a heads up from me to you. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge of sockmaster's ID?
Hi, Shrike. I see from your last edit to this section of Tnxman307's talk page that you thought I was out of line to call an apparent sock an apparent sock. Perhaps, but I doubt it. Maybe checkuser results will shed some light. But your post reminded me of something. The following is buried in this section of AE Archive 113:


 * Comment by Who is it, really?

This case is identical to one brought against Shuki a couple of weeks ago, by none other than Zscarpia, where it was found that "using the ADL, an organization with an obvious agenda (whether one agrees with their agenda or not is irrelevant), as the sole source for that kind of claim claim is plainly tendentious. " Shuli was indef topic banned for this. Let's handle these cases with some consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who is it, really? (talk • contribs) 14:37 & 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)  ( Account indefinitely blocked at 17:24, 10 April 2012 UTC for abusing  multiple accounts . See hidden text. )

I meant to ask you about this at the time, but simply forgot: Your comment to the account going by the name, "Who is it, really?" suggests to me that you may have known who that was, really, or that you at least strongly suspected the account was a sock, and that you didn't want the account blocked for that reason. I'd like to think there's a different interpretation that I'm missing in reading your comment, but I can't think of one. Can you enlighten me on this, please? --OhioStandard (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't knew who it was.I only thought that user should comment under his real name that all.I didn't called him a sock or anything it would be considered as personal attack.--Shrike (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, Ohiostandard likes to throw out politely worded accusations against editors he perceives as pro-Israel in the hopes that something will stick. Don't be surprised if he brings up this issue in the future if something completely unrelated gets you in trouble. A simple explanation would be that an editor with a total of 9 edits finding his way to AE is very likely a sock and shouldn't be participating. Only someone who totally lacks in AGF would assume that Shrike knew who it was or was trying to somehow protect him. "I'd like to think there's a different interpretation that I'm missing in reading your comment, but I can't think of one". Right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's just so cute. Anything else you'd like to tell folks about me, since you know what I like? What sort of breakfast cereal I prefer, perhaps?
 * Look, the bottom line for me is that I'm just extremely tired of seeing all the pro-Israel socks, and I'm almost more tired of seeing your pals welcome them as if they didn't know they were socks, when they obviously do know. Shrike did suspect the account was a sock; she's made that clear. When an editor has a reasonable basis for thinking that, it's his or her responsibility to file an SPI or contact a checkuser, assuming the editor puts a commitment to the encyclopaedia above a commitment to his or her own POV.
 * Shrike didn't do that in the instance I asked about. And now she's followed me to Tnxman's page to tell me not to make personal attacks on the latest throw-away sock account. That's what prompted my post here; it's been my experience that almost all the regulars who support Israel's right wing policies jump to the defence of even the most obvious socks every time one shows up to support their cause. If that consistent behaviour makes me more likely than I'd otherwise be to incline toward cynicism, well, stop rushing to defend accounts that are obviously socks, and we'll have no future problems. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was at least several admins and one check user that comment in the AE so I didn't see any need take of any action.Ohio must have forgot WP:AGF and WP:NPA not every account that reverts on his first edit is a sock if Ohio thinks that someone is a sock then she should file a SPI.--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you like since I've seen you around. Thanks for the "the regulars who support Israel's right wing policies" soundbite. I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bickering aside for a moment − we can get back to that in a minute, if you like − what on earth is your objection to "the regulars who support Israel's right wing policies"? I'm not asking that to be condescending; I'd really like to know.
 * I'd first written "Zionist policies", when I was composing the preceding. Then I decided against that: One of your group has told me he doesn't like that description. That surprised me, btw: The prominent men and women that you all seem to admire don't dislike the description. I didn't see them boycotting the Jerusalem Post's recent "Fighting for the Zionist Dream" conference, because they objected to the word, for example. Quite the contrary, actually.
 * Then I wrote, "pro-Israel editors", and decided against that, too. That description's not fair to liberal/left-wing Israelis who also consider themselves "pro-Israel", i.e. patriotic, and so forth, but who believe the nation's current policies toward the Palestinian people and the occupied territories are not in her best interests.
 * It's seem pretty silly to me for us to try to pretend that the editors in the I/P topic area aren't generally divided into basically two groups, when we all know better. Is there something that offends you to hear either side named? Or is it that each side thinks of itself as "the NPOV side" while the "opposing" faction are the POV pushers, is that your point?
 * Would you rather just try to always use some too-long (but more politically correct?) construct like "users whose edits seem to generally favour Israel's current policies"? If you find a phrase I use objectionable, you need to tell me the nature of your objection. Although you seem to assume otherwise (didn't I hear someone just urging AGF a moment ago?) I'm not trying to offend anyone with any description. Again, please make your objection specific. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you tell us which editors "support Israel's right wing policies" and how you reached the conclusion they do? It would also be interesting to hear who "my group" is and which "prominent men and women" you think "we" admire. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your response seems to me to be trying to continue the argument, and I'm not interested in doing that just now. If you actually maintain that there aren't essentially two opposing factions in the I/P topic area then I don't see how we can have any sort of productive discussion; I'd find any such assertion just too silly to discuss.
 * If you agree there are basically two factions, then I don't think there's any doubt about which of the two you favour, nor about which I favour, for that matter. Since you don't like hearing me refer to the side you favour as those who "support Israel's right wing policies" then I have to repeat the question: What would you prefer? Believe it or not, I intend that as a simple, good faith question; I'd appreciate it if you could try to answer it. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You made a statement about other editors. I asked that you clarify. You seem to be refusing to do that. Please provide a diff of me supporting "Israel's right wing policies". I'm also interested in knowing which men and women you think I admire, since I don't recall disclosing that information here.
 * How would you feel if I said I thought there are basically two factions, one of which includes editors who support the destruction of Israel, violently if necessary, and another which I belong to. I don't think there's any doubt about which of the two you favor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See, now? We should have these little chats more often: No, I don't support the destruction of Israel, but I'm not offended at your mistake, either. Why would I be, if the assumption was a good-faith mistake, as I imagine it was? Since you're evidently asking, my own overall view of the I/P conflict is probably most closely aligned with Israel's left wing. I can try to get more specific in some future gab, if you like, assuming we can stop bickering with each other, first.
 * I understand that you don't like "right wing". Will you understand that I didn't and don't see the phrase as an offence or condemnation? To me it's simply descriptive. For example, I consider the view that the Golan and the West Bank belong to Israel, and should be treated as such, to be a right wing perspective. Am I incorrect in my recollection that you support that view? And as to the men and women I expect you admire for their political orientation, Alan Dershowitz and Caroline Glick come to mind; that's why I linked to the "Fighting for the Zionist Dream" speakers list. Am I mistaken? Am I mistaken that you prefer the Jerusalem Post or The Times of Israel to Haaretz? And if I am mistaken, why not just politely tell me so? --OhioStandard (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not a good faith mistake, I was purposefully taking an extreme end of one "side" and attributing it to you to mirror what you did.
 * Please provide a diff where I say or imply that the West Bank and Golan belong to Israel. Please provide a diff where I show admiration for Alan Dershowitz or Caroline Glick. Please provide a diff where I say or imply that I prefer the Jerusalem Post or The Times of Israel to Haaretz.
 * I doubt your views are "closely aligned with Israel's left wing", unless you mean Hadash or Balad. That you considered describing me (and Shrike and who else?) as "pro-Israel" but then decided against that because it would be "not fair to liberal/left-wing Israelis" which apparently your views are closely aligned to (as if describing you as "pro-Israel" would be more correct than describing me as such), is probably one of the more self-delusional things I've read on wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've paid you the honour of assuming here that you might actually like to have a discussion, rather than a pissing contest. I suppose it's been time well spent, in one sense: I've learned not to make that mistake with you again. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's there to discuss? You said I "support Israel's right wing policies". I asked you to back that up with diffs. You made more ridiculous statements about me. I asked you to back those up with diffs. You can't do that either. Feel free to withdraw if you like, but don't pretend it's because I was trying to have some kind of pissing contest with you rather than you not being able to back up statements you made about other editors. Bye now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DRN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "British Pakistanis". Thank you. --  altetendekrabbe   18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Re; your now removed comment on my talk page
Sorry about that, I got distracted by something shiny and didn't realize it had bogged down. Looks like it was eventually dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu
Second Prime Ministership: 2009–presentShalom, my Israeli friend! The aforementioned section is too long really, and I wanted to condense it down as the tag recommends. As a person "on the other side", would you be prepared to read through my condensed version before I post it? I don't intend to introduce any substantive changes, but it would be nice to avoid being immediately reverted, and so I was wondering if you could give your seal of approval to my shortened version before it goes live? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Shrike, my friend
Since you live in God's Cradle, I'm sure you are familiar with the wonderful Arab custom of constantly telling each other they love each other. I have attempted to spread this habit to the English Wikipedia, with marginal success.

I was irritated by User:Seanhoyland's accusation of sockpuppetry and bad motive, and equally so by what I perceived as your support of said accusation. I think it may have colored my judgement in opposing your AEz against Users Nishidani and the tuxedoed gentleman from the above section.

Though I still think AE is not the answer for modest PA and non-habitual traffic incidents, maybe I was being passive-aggressive and should have responded to all the incidences with just plain passivity.

Which brings me back to my point. I love you. And I think it's cute when people say we are bedfellows. By the way, I think you're being a bit off-base with the British Pakistani thing, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. But if you ask me, BP having sex with women at partys with alcohol is a Summer of the Shark. British lads probably do it all the time, I would wonder why they are different from the lads in the rest of the world if they didn't. So I guess a model minority like the BP (not the company) is a man bites dog story. Again, see Summer of the Shark. Wikipedia is not that kinda media.

But again, I got banned for posting on my own talk page and then told that I'm in my own world, so maybe Imma dumb bear. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to hear my friendly suggestion:I suggest you tone it down.In Wikipedia people usually don't like drama makers.--Shrike (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So an AE aint drama. It's litigation, friend. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you remarks are colorful that for sure.You may find that people don't like rainbows in Wiki.--


 * [Nor in Iran].
 * Jesus taught to love one's enemy. Moe the bartender said you should turn an enemy into a friend. I think if one is starting an AE, more likely than not they are contributing as much or more to incivility than the target of their ire. I'm confused by the whole process, the legal processes on those boards remind me of the court of Pilate. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best solution is not post on those boards and concentrate on article improvement.--Shrike (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, lets both do that. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I presume you are already aware of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to explain the apparent contradiction in the comments you made about me in the ANI discussion?
 * Just to give a little background User:Dlv999 and User:AnkhMorpork don't see eye to eye in I/P conflict  User:Dlv999 was blocked for edit warring. (17:21, 15 May 2012)


 * You say my statement wasn't true they do see eye to eye in I/P conflict  just a bit of information for editors to consider anyhow its red herring. (10:27, 18 May 2012)  Thanks. Dlv999 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have amended my post--Shrike (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean?
Out of what section? make my statement, then below follows discussion. That's my understanding. No More Mr Nice Guy has not made a complaint, I fail to see the problem. It only makes sense for me to comment on your accusations below where they are made. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heeey! No need to be like that. I had actually assumed the error was on your part, since I believed you had gone against the set up made by the person running the ban request by setting up your own statement section, rather than posting in the designated discussion section. I'll move my stuff now. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, see you saved me the effort. Cheers. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much--Shrike (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

My Email
My email is apokryltaros at gmail dot com

Thank you so much for your assistance!--Mr Fink (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

NGO Monitor
You might want to join in with the current talk page discussion as it bears on your recent edit. Best, BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nation article
Hi Shrike,

I've uploaded the Nation article here. There's also a letter to the editor from the Ford Foundation, and a reply from the author here. Best, GabrielF (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)