User talk:Tundrabuggy/Archive 1

This is my talk page. I use it to talk to myself. If you wish to talk to me, please talk softly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described 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. Please bear in mind these principles when you contribute to articles on the topic.

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. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shopping for uninvolved admins
Some might call it trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FTN#Charles_Enderlin_and_Muhammad_al-Durrah more shopping here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

Link to the Court Decision re Muhammed Al-Dura
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF

Rough translation re AugeanStables: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/category/france/

On Wiki Policy
WP:OR

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

WP:TALK The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary. Objective proof means something which can be validated by a third party. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you is not proof of bad faith! Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) --my bolds

from an Al-Dura Op-Ed from Jerusalem Post
THE RECENT verdict, besides usefully underscoring the right to criticize the press and its sometimes dangerously hasty product, also calls much-needed attention to the ways in which world opinion is shaped by perceptions that are themselves shaped by a not infallible media. The al-Dura affair, like the myth of a massacre in Jenin in April 2002, has been so fervently seized by those who seek confirmation for their belief in Israeli culpability, that it is likely never to be erased from international consciousness. It by now stands well beyond the reach of refutation.

That fact ought to give pause to Israeli officials, like Israeli ambassador to Paris Danny Sheck, who criticized Karsenty for so doggedly pursuing the matter. As for the rest of us, the sordid affair teaches a valuable lesson about the dangerous enthusiasms, especially in Muslim societies, and especially among those who claim to speak for an awakened conscience, for modern myths of Jewish evil. --my bolds Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The warning above
Please note that ChrisO is an involved administrator in several ways, and cannot personally sanction you for disagreeing with him. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO misrepresenting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theory_and_BLP_issues_-_eyes_requested

BE BOLD
from WIKI BE BOLD:

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article—it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator". Be bold and drop your opinion there. and Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

Editing advice
When editing articles under probation, if you are reverted, you should avoid edit warring, and instead engage in discussion on the talk page in order to establish a compromise. Please note that I'm advising you engage in discussion instead of edit warring, not edit war and debate simultaneously. Given the tense nature of the current dispute, I recommend that you establish consensus on the talk page before making any significant changes. If you continue to edit war, then you are going to be banned from editing this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah Page now locked
Muhammad_al-Durrah page is now locked until consensus can be achieved that he was killed dead, and that to believe anything else is to adhere to a conspiracy theory. Isn't consensus a neat thing? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
With edits like this, it has become evident that you are unable to contribute productively to Muhammad al-Durrah. As such, you are banned from editing Muhammad al-Durrah or Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah for a period of three months (until September 10, 2008). Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * G'day, please dont feel silenced by this topic ban; admins are starting to hand out topic bans liberally whenever one editor is making problematic edits, and primarily editing only a single article. Please take this in your stride, edit some other articles for a month or so, and then ask me or another admin to review your topic ban.  If you have demonstrated that you are able to work effectively on other articles, this topic ban will likely be lifted. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can read about it here. The topic ban by MZMcBride should not been seen as "discipline".  He made a decision along the lines of: as you have thus far primarily edited a single topic, and that topic is controversial, and you made a very controversial edit, ... you should go edit some other articles for a while.  It may seem crazy, but the task of administrating controversial topics is a bit crazy.   The best thing you can do is to edit on a different topic for a while. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy, based on your excellent progress and solid edits to other articles, I'd like to partially lift your ban for now, and invite you to resume participation at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. Please avoid actual edits to the article for a bit longer, but if you keep on in this vein, we should be able to get that lifted as well. I recommend that you endeavor to find a balance, where no more than 50% of your edits are related to al-Durrah, and that will help to address any remaining concerns.   Best, Elonka 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya, just as a spot-check: Your recent contributions to Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah have been excellent, so good job on that.  Your comments are thorough, thoughtful, civil, and you have been making specific article-based suggestions for changes. I am very pleased.  :)  I would love to lift your article-editing ban as well, but I see from looking at your contribs,, that over 90% of your edits are still focused on the al-Durrah article, so I'm afraid that I cannot lift your editing ban yet.  If you could please try to find a better balance of editing though, I am confident that the editing ban could be lifted quickly.  There are definitely lots of things to be done on Wikipedia!  You could help out at a cleanup category, or add a needed stub to keep something from being a redlink.


 * If nothing else, click on Random article a few times and see where it takes you. If a page doesn't look interesting, or as though it's something you'd like to help with, click the button again, and keep clicking.  :) When I do it, I'm usually stopped within a dozen clicks, and find something that I either want to tweak, or at least tag as being in desperate need of a cleanup or unreferenced banner.  ;) Or, check one of the RfC lists:
 * Requests for comment/Biographies
 * Requests for comment/History and geography
 * Requests for comment/Language and linguistics
 * Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
 * Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media
 * Requests for comment/Politics
 * Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy
 * Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex


 * There are usually dozens of articles listed there within the last 30 days, where other editors are literally begging for a third-party to come in and just offer an outside opinion, which could be anything from a superficial "off the top of your head" comment, to an in-depth analysis of the subject and/or the dispute. Any comments you could offer, I am sure would be greatly appreciated, and each such comment would "count" as working on something non-Durrah.  Also, any edits in a cleanup vein, even if just something as seemingly simple as adding a cleanup tag, would also help to improve the balance of your contrib list. --Elonka 02:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This BBC article from 27 November, 2000, lies:

TV footage shows that for 45 minutes, Mohammed and his father sought sanctuary in vain behind a small metal barrel as bullets rained around them. Eventually both were hit - Mohammed four times. [....] The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Fatah group has called on its supporters to step up the two-month uprising against Israel during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began on Monday.

ruling in French http://www.debriefing.org/26492.html

Mentoring
Just FYI, AfDs are not "votes". Technically, they are discussions. It's also important that you avoid any perception that you are canvassing. Truly, the best way that you can help right now, is to make actual substantive edits (even if they are just formatting edits) to other articles. There are lots of things that need doing in cleanup categories, I strongly recommend picking a few. --Elonka 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're doing some work on other articles!  It really will help strengthen your voice in other controversial discussions.  :)  Also, for your userpage, what I recommend is phrasing things slightly differently.  Instead of "edits that weren't on al-Durrah", instead try making one section that just lists, "articles I have worked on".  Pretty much any editor who will be looking for your contribution history, will easily be able to review things from there.  We have tools where we can hover our mouse over an article link (or username), and instantly see the most recent changes or edits (let me know if you'd like to learn more about how that works).  Best, Elonka 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're doing some good work on other articles, and your userpage is looking a lot better, too! After you've worked on two or three other non-Durrah articles, it'll be much easier to get some of your restrictions lifted.  :) For your userpage, you might also want to look into adding some babelboxes to give an indication of which languages you can understand.  If you'd like help with that, let me know!  :) --Elonka 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Sorry, I was away for a while and missed the discussion. I also see you have been banned from the Al-Durrah article; rather unfortunate, considering that there are others equally, if not more, deserving of such bans. Well, apparently a group named CAMERA tried very ineffectually infiltrate Wikipedia (as opposed to a pro-Palestinian Yahoo group which do so quite effectively for a couple of years), and, as a result, pro-Israel editors are getting rather the short end of the stick these days. Don't let it get you down, though; these things are cyclical, and as the relevant articles deteriorate even further into POV mush, eventually the masses will rise up in disgust. Have patience. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for your note; the feedback is much appreciated. It was always a difficult article to write neutrally, and it's even harder now with this court decision, but hopefully as more people turn up to look, something will get sorted out. SlimVirgin talk| edits 07:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO Appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPalestine-Israel_articles


 * Thank you for your note. I think you should still consider making a statement of your own. One of the things I left out of my statement, in order to keep it brief, was the comparison with your case. It would be helpful if you could describe the appeals made on your behalf to have your ban shortened, and the response you received, which amounted to "a single-page ban is no big deal, go find something else to do". That should be the response to ChrisO, as well. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's useful for other voices to make their own statements. Regardless of whether you support the appeal or not, everyone's statement is usually an interesting snapshot of their own view of the situation, and it is useful for the arbitrators to get a well-rounded view of things.  And especially since you (Tundrabuggy) were one of the editors banned from the page at one time, and you are a fairly new editor, your honest appraisal of the situation would be valuable.  It doesn't need to be diffed, either.  Diffs are helpful, but not required. The main thing to keep in mind is to write from the assumption that the arbitrators reading your statement may well have never heard of you, or  me, or ChrisO, or even Muhammad al-Durrah, so don't assume that they already know anything, just write as though you were giving a quick explanation of things to a "man on the street". Just give an honest appraisal, in a post that's no more than 500 words, and you'll do fine.  :) You may also find this page useful, though it's for a slightly different venue (actual cases rather than an appeal).  Still though, it has some good suggestions: WP:ADVICE. --Elonka 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple other suggestions on your statement: Most people tend not to bold parts of their statements, because it makes it sound like they're SHOUTING.  A calm and understated demeanor is usually much more powerful at ArbCom.  The language there tends to have a somewhat formal style that can take awhile to get the hang of. I find it helpful to think about "putting on the kimono" and being very Japanese.  Bow a lot.  :)  Also, it's usually considered good form to sign your statement. If you do decide to modify your statement (and you are definitely allowed to do so), keep in mind that the arbitrators probably won't know anything about the article content, so when you say "the boy was killed", they'll probably have no idea who or what you're talking about, and if you "lose" them there, it can weaken your further points.  So you might want to tone down the "content-specific" comments, and just stick with user conduct.  Up to you though!  :) --Elonka 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. I appreciate your help and suggestions. Not sure about the kimono part though. Would you take a look and let me know if it still sounds too harsh? I added something on BLP -- it is somewhat content-specific though, but I wasn't sure how else to approach it. Is that ok ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, okay on the Kimono. What would be a better analogy?  :)
 * As for the statement, I wouldn't necessarily go the route of multiple dated comments. Instead, merge everything together into one comment (500 words max). My guess is that most of the arbs haven't even read any of the statements yet, because they're probably busy with something else. It may take a week before we even get a single response, or several arbs may suddenly weigh in with "reject reject reject reject" all within an hour, it's hard to tell where their attention is. But for now, you can probably assume that they haven't read it yet, so just massage your statement until you feel that you like it.  :) The main thing to look at, is to keep it from getting too detailed.  Like as soon as you say "recent court decision", you're implying that the arbs will understand what that means, and I assure you, they probably won't. For a practical example of this, go to WP:ANI, pick a thread at random, read through it, and try to glean from that one thread what's going on, and further, what it is that should be done next.  I think you'll rapidly find that it's very difficult to come up to speed on a dispute, when you're "coming up from zero".  That may give you more insight on writing a statement for a similarly "clueless" audience.  :)
 * BTW, if you're on IMs, I am usually easy to find on AIM, MSN, Yahoo, and Google.  Feel free to chat directly if you'd like to speed up communication. :) --Elonka 21:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

some new article suggestions
As you are working productively on the talk page of Muhammad al-Durrah, here are a list of related topics that need to be researched and written about: Also, on Charles Enderlin it mentions a few related legal cases, the rulings of which need to be found, and it would be great if they were transcribed and placed on Wikisource. I am an admin over on English Wikisource, and can help you if you wanted to contribute in that way. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Metula News Agency (Mena)
 * Ben Kaspit of Maariv
 * Nahum Shahaf, a physicist
 * Yom Tov Samia, IDF Southern Commander Major General
 * Palestinian Centre for Human Rights; source of this
 * Middle East Report; source of this
 * Iranian Ministry of Education; source of this (that looks like a website rather than a page; perhaps the citation needs to be more precise)
 * IsraelInsider.com, a website which is the source of this
 * Bloomberg Press, publisher of ISBN 1576601889; mentioned on Bloomberg
 * European Jewish Press, source of this
 * Suzanne Goldenberg, author of this
 * Other Press, publisher of ISBN 1-59051-159-X


 * Wikisource is a "sister" project to Wikipedia, used to archive public domain documents in entirety and unabridged. The French court ruling should be placed on French Wikisource, similar to Ordonnance de référé, Mme M. B., M. P. T., M. F. D. c. Wikimedia Foundation Inc..  The English translation you have found is not usable as it is not a public domain translation (the translator owns the literary rights to it), but if you put the French original onto the French Wikisource project, we can collaboratively create a fresh and free translation on English Wikisource, like was done for Order of relief, Mrs M. B., Mr P. T., Mr F. D. vs. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.  I am an admin on English Wikisource, and regularly talk to the French admins, so I can help you with any queries you may have. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link's at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah. Probably should've specified the MedCab talk page. Wizardman  13:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Restrictions
Elonka, I was hoping you might reconsider and lift my edit restrictions for the Al Durrah page. I have created several stubs on my 'vacation' including Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel), Israelinsider , Palestinian Centre for Human Rights , Kaleet River and am working on putting up something about Yom-Tov Samia shortly. I have learned a lot in my time off and would appreciate an opportunity to try again. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been very impressed with the excellent work that you have been doing, especially in creating some much-needed stubs. Thank you for your efforts.  I am lifting your editing restriction at Muhammad al-Durrah, and you are free to resume editing.  I do still strongly encourage you to continue and find a balance, with no more than 50% of your edits being al-Durrah-related.  Other than that, welcome back!  :) --Elonka 01:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

 * I've replied to your message on the articles talk page.--SJP (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)



SJP (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Al-Aqsa and the Temple
Actually, I mentioned that when I re-wrote the first paragraph. There's no need to duplicate information, and I think the lead has a better flow where I bring up the information.--SJP (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be nice if we could make it read smoothly, and include the Jewish and Islamic name for it in the first sentence. However, if this can't be done we should use the smoothly written lead that mentions it in the first paragraph, rather than the no so smooth one that mentions it in the first sentence. It can stay for now though;-)--SJP (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

give up
i was just given a time out by Elonka on the al-Durrah page. there isn't any reason to continue fighting NickHH or ChrisO. nothing is going to change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

lol
ok thanks. ill try. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

haha thanks
yeah i appreciate that. im just kinda exhausted over the arguing. i dont have as much time as i had last week and this ridiculous justifications for POV in al-durrah makes me want to go somewhere else. clearly nobody wants change. and obviously they have resorted to name calling since they have no other logical ways of persuasion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your question
Sorry, I didn't understand your question. Could you re-phrase it? Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in, I think you (Tundrabuggy) may be slightly confused: the AFD that was closed (by me) as delete wasn't for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, but for Allegations of Apartheid, a separate article. The latter has been deleted.  The former continues to be a redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy.  Does that answer your question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was responding to your first message left on Jayjg's talk page (which I have watchlisted for unrelated reasons), so it wasn't really that fast a response. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for protecting that section. Its saddening when one writes something quite well and people delete it. It think it would make more sense to delete the other stuff in that section. There is more that needs to be covered there, particularly the question of Zionism and colonialism but I need time to read up on the subject. Telaviv1 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Zionism and racism
I have no objection to deletion. The article as it is at present is not worthy of wikipedia and there are too many of these little pieces of garbage about the ME conflict. I noticed one about the boycott campaign yesterday. In a way we need a mechanism for controlling the constant mushrooming of articles (as opposed to encyclopaedia entries) on the topic.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Congrats on your first archive. :) I'd recommend moving the subpage to "/Archive 1", as that's more standard, and will work better with some other nifty utilities that can auto-recognize archives.  But it's not a huge deal at this point, so up to you. :)  Also, we can set up an archivebot if you want, that'll automatically check your page every day and archive any threads which have been inactive for a certain amount of time. I can set that up for you, or if you'd like to read up on it yourself, check User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Let me know, --Elonka 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To move the page, see WP:MOVE. It's very simple, just go to the page, and at the top you should see a "Move" tab.  Click on the tab, and then enter the new name of the page.  Be sure to leave the slashes alone, so it stays in your own userspace.  :)  As for the bot, yes, it is very configurable, just tell me what delay you'd like, and I'll configure.  I can also do the page move if you want, just let me know!  --Elonka 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested, bot is set up, with a 30-day cutoff. I also gave you an automated archivebox, though if you ever want to handle that manually, let me know and I'll put up a manual archivebox for you.  Enjoy! --Elonka 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
If you'd like to help out more with vandal fighting, that would be a wonderful way to participate in the Wikipedia culture. See WP:CUV for more. Or if you just want to report the "occasional" vandal, just list them at WP:AIV and they're usually dealt with quite rapidly. :) --Elonka 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC) --copied from Elonka's talk page so I can remember.

Question re biased reporters
I understand where you are coming from, but the rules of the game do not allow us to exclude O'Loughlin, no matter how biased you (or I, or Landes) think he is, becuase he was published in a reliable source. The proper course of action is to include other reliable sources, such as Poller's Commentary article, which give a different account of what is on the tape. It is also appropriate, as you have just done, to highlight the fact that O'Loughlin's account is based on an unidentified tape, which he acknowledges to be a heavily edited, spliced-up video. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by 'can't we ask for someone else as well?'. we can certainly add other accounts of the video's content, such as the one by Poller. If there are others, add them as well. What we can't do is add comments about O'Loughlin from someone who questions O'Loughlin's neutrality. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

sandbox
I have moved Tundrabuggy/dura to User:Tundrabuggy/dura. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD
The AfD page explains it fairly clearly, but it can seem intimidating. What specifically can I help you with? Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you might find this source on Al-Dura helpful. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup
Hiya, just as a reminder, I'd like to see you try and find that "50-50" split between al-Durrah edits and other work. And don't worry, we're not yet into the red zone on this, especially because you've done so much excellent work on other articles in the meantime. But over the last week or so, your contribs: seem to have been almost entirely on the al-Durrah topic. If you could break this up a bit, and be sure to work on other articles as well, it would be helpful. It can also be very useful in helping to give you perspective on things, not to mention being a great benefit to the encyclopedia! Thanks, Elonka 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ok
i commented and added my opinion on the page. hopefully elonka wont consider my imposition out of line. ;D i only skimmed through the complaint as it was very long, but i didnt see anything that mentioned my name specifically. am i missing something here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

uh
i dont think i was ever banned from al-durrah, though i was told by elonka to take a one week break...but that was several weeks ago. i did however receive a 24 hour edit ban from israel and the apartheid analogy, but that too was awhile ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm just confused as to what I should be looking at. I saw your section on Chris O, but cant seem to find anything else.  point me in the right direction maybe? :DWikifan12345 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia!

In reply to some questions you were asking at WP:Requests for comment/Elonka: Re determining what is a fringe theory: policy WP:NPOV and guideline WP:FRINGE may provide some guidance. I suppose you can post a question at the fringe noticeboard. How much weight to give to 8 year old information? That would depend on how fast things go out-of-date in that specific topic area. It would have to be negotiated among the editors at the page. When having trouble negotiating, it can help to bring more people into the discussion, for example by using WP:3O or WP:RfC (article content RfC, not user conduct RfC), or by posting a message at a relevant wikiproject or perhaps the talk page of a related article (WP:CANVASS sets limits on sending messages to individual editors). Two reliable sources providing different information? Easy: have the article say something like "On the one hand source A says X, and on the other hand source B says Y." See WP:NPOV. Is every reporter a reliable source? I say it depends. And a source may be reliable for some things but not for other things. Newspapers may be a good reliable source for some things, but not for example for results of medical studies (they often don't have the technical knowledge to get important details right). To ask these questions, try RfC (article content), or various noticeboards. In general, answers are by consensus (which can be hard to pin down!!)

If you have questions about how to use Wikipedia, feel free to post a question on my talk page; or try the help desk.

Sorry for this message if you were just asking rhetorical questions! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know if you saw it already, but I replied at my talk page. (By the way, when I said "good questions!" at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka, those sounded like rhetorical questions to me! Anyway, I don't have simple answers to those ones.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting your comments on Elonka's RfC
Not a great idea, if somebody has already endorsed the old comments and you leave their endorsement for the new version. Please check this with the other endorser. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Requested
I'm having a problem of validating input which an editor(s) with a Lexis-Nexis access is adding. Sometimes the issue sourced is quite contentious and there seems to be no other source for it other than an inaccessible article. Any ideas as to how to proceed? Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say to assume good faith, but if you think that it's contentious, you could try talking to the editor or filing a RFC. You might get the attention of another editor with Lexis-Nexis who can validate the info for you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust but verify! ;)

Camp 1391
Thanks for your input on the Camp 1391 article. Proxy User (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification
Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Daily Mirror
I suggest you raise that question at the reliable sources noticeboard - WP:RSN. I don't know that much about the DM, so I can't comment directly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder
FYI, I'm going to be working on an alternate version of the Cyrus cylinder page which would limit all the "reviews" and subjective interpretations of the cylinder (negative or positive) to direct quotes fully attributed to their authors. I'll be making an attempt to replace the sections As a charter of human rights and As an instrument of royal propaganda with a Legacy section. It would be made up of two sub-sections called "proponents" and "critics", containing the various views on the cylinder as direct quotes, while leaving the rest of article to a factual description to give readers a neutral presentation of what the cylinder is, as opposed to what it represents or means -- free of spin or speculation. Feel free to contribute to the temporary page at User:Khoikhoi/Cyrus cylinder. Khoikhoi 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning
Your comments here about my supposed motives are completely unacceptable and a blatant violation of civility. Please confine your comments to discussing the article, not speculating on what you think people's motives are. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute
You might be interested in here: --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Goldmann
please look at the correct pages next time....Tundrabuggy you unfortunately incorrectly noted the page numbers as 22-23 whereas the number I gave (look in history of article) was 22 and 31-33,....The statement was neither inaccurate nor misleading....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote did not say 22-23,....it gave 22 and 31-33.. check the history of the quote to confirm....as you misread you failed to look in the right place....please next time double check....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My quote was pgs22-23 because those were the pages that would either confirm, or not confirm, your edit. Your pages 31-33 did not confirm your edit. Your edit was apparently your interpretation of those pages. The earlier pages demonstrate that the edit is wrong, as their was indeed a campaign by noted Zionists in relation to the quota system...further, as I have said in the talk page, your edit implies that there were no European Jews allowed into US and that is simply incorrect. Please let's keep this on the talk page and refrain from a revert war. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah
I've left a note on the talk page which mentions one of your edits. I don't see how the article is benefiting from a lot of what's going on there at the moment. --Nickhh (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help
Hi after seeing WW1 erupt over the Battle of Opis, I DO NOT want to see that over a disputed translation, of a battle in February 539 BC. That user ChrisO denies dispite my commentary and evidence to the subject, he lacks common sense and ignores all the evidence, its like a child asks you to give candy to him, and when you give candy to the child, the child rejects it. This is how ChrisO is. As you already know for some reason they do not become neutral, and he has recruited Aknillies, I now I spelled it wrong but it is the user who is uncivil, and loves Kurht, the translater that through her writing downplays Cyrus' acheivments. So please go on the talk page of Opis first read all my signed messages then read ChrisO's compare the two writings and see if ChrisO is correct or I am correct. I am tired of ChrisO waisting my time over this issue, ever since the first Opis dispute I barely got time to edit articles, if you could do this task I greatly appreciate it.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Tundrab they want to erase the memory of the Battle of the Tigris from the histories, please help me out, Xerxes hordes are closing in on my position!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Wikistalking
I am displeased to see that you have continued your wikistalking of myself following Ariobarza's canvassing above. Your behaviour is unacceptable; I have raised the issue on the administrators' noticeboard at WP:AN/I. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be intimidated
Hi you might be interested in the defamation against you here:. Note if someone does a google search, that can easily comeup. I have filed a minor complaint to another admin here:.

There are good sources here that shows the Cylinder and positive character of Cyrus had nothing to do with the Shah: (note many of the sources are before the late Shah). For example Plato praises Cyrus (another item that was deleted from the battle of Opis archive). Plato(A Greek who at the time were rivals of Persians):Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community(Laws). Plato was not a victim of the Shah's propoganda. But on an important note which is for outside of Wikipedia. One thing I do want to warn about that the recent propping up of Nabonidus by euro-centric scholars (I do not know what other term to use since Nabonidus enslaved Jews) and belittlement of Cyrus (going against all classical sources and just one contested translation of battle of opis..and recall even in WWII the allies had to bomb euro-centrists like Hitler or else people enslaved by hitler would not be free) is a dangerous issue. The reason is that 1000 years from now, there could be revisionist type scholars doing the same about events in World War II. Oh so: "Nabonidus enslaved Jews..big deal, he was still a good guy". So this is an issue that is more important outside of Wikipedia and I hope you can make more people more aware on what the revisionists are trying to accomplish. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That could work
Hi that is interesting template. I created that template based on other templates such as the template for Turkish literature, Azeri Turkish literature, Persian literature and etc. Note I did not create any of those templates, but seeing those templates, I created one for Kurdish literature.

By the way take a look at the Iranian Nationalists I have listed here: (I will add more and feel free to add more)  who were influenced by the last Shah's propoganda and now must be condemned to Iranian nationalism by the "enlightened" unbiased euro-centeric hysterians(I mean historian) who are promoting Nabonidus. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza
I'm happy to help, but I can only do so much. I'm mainly attempting to teach her how to write an article, not necessarily trying to get these articles saved. Something I've noticed from her talk page comments is that she seems to have adopted an us vs. them attitude. You can help be discouraging that. I know both of you feel put upon by ChrisO, and the less you make this about him and the more you make this about the material the better both of you will be. This is the first interaction I've had with him, and I've found him to be reasonable, though clearly that isn't your experience. The best advice I can give to anyone in a dispute here is to: I know you're unhappy about his "Ancient Persia problems" page, but don't let that get to you. Instead, go make some edits and back them up with extraordinary reliable sources. A ni  Mate  04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Find sources to back up your position.
 * 2) Never say anything about the editor you disagree with.

rewording
Shalom! :) I was r.v.'ed on the Battle of Opis topic, but I had quoted Lambert in full, word by word. Can you rewrite a summary of Lambert's without the exact word for word?  We need to mention what he says about Dakku and Nishu as well as how he translated it.  Also I sent you the other article about Isiah.  Best Wishes.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed link from Talk:JIDF
I'm rather puzzled that you removed a linkk to where he reliable source the Jewish Chronicle reporte that the official British regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission had rejected a complaint against them. I can't see the logic in it.


 * The link had to do with a complaint in relation to the name and location of the person at issue. He did not want his name, or at least some of his information publicly available, and that is the kind of issue that WP takes seriously as it could have legal implications for WP.  BLP allows any editor to remove such material immediately. I hope that helps clear it up.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. It just strikes me as strange that when the regulatory body in a major Western English-speaking country has turned down a complaint about the publication of the material, that it is an issue on Wikipedia. It's not as if the JC is a fringe publication within Anglo-Jewry. I know that Wikimedia is based in the US not the UK, but I assumed that if the info was cleared in the UK, then it would be okay in the US which tends to have looser controls on free speech. It also strikes me as hypocritical when the JIDF has tried to out Wikpedians on more than one occasion, but that's another matter.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The matter is still being adjudicated, however. As for the hypocrisy issue, well... as you say, that's another matter. :>)  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, I happen to be privy to various issues related to the JC (note that the editor is leaving / being forced out over a range of such issues)... the Press Complaints Commission actually had words with the paper over this, but found taking any other action would either be outside their remit or be inapropriate. The paper's reporting of a complaint against themselves is naturally a COI, and the way it was reported actually caused further complaints within the British Jewish commnity. Anyway, it's not as black and white as the paper reported it and the paper is I believe not a RS when it has a clear COI. Not sure any of that info helps, but I expect you and Tundrabuggy would find it interesting. Thanks also for the ntoe on my user page, I've responded there (but really only to say thanks) Oboler (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done.
Hello, Tundrabuggy. I would like to congratulate you for the civility you showed in this reply to a comment by another editor. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Finderskey et. al

 * I put up a SSP report, an RFCU, and commented on the AN/I report put up by Nickhh. It's up to admins now. NoCal100 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to What if?
WP:NPOV provides guidance when reliable sources contradict each other. I hope this helps.  RJC  TalkContribs 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RJC. I did go look over NPOV again and remembered Assert Facts which helps somewhat. In really contentious areas, both sides actually see differently. What one person sees as justice another sees as stealing. We actually see what we want to see. Journalists are not free of this either. the worst possible evidence is the eye-witness. So we get journalists on one side of a conflict reporting "facts" differently from journalists on another. That's where I get really flummoxed. And if there are no objective witnesses, what then? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Tundrabuggy, I currently have a problem with a user here, who seems eager to do anything when trying to halt the creation of this article User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris (which I have only begun to edit, and its still in its early stages), even going as far as to propose a topic ban on me on old accusations that are now false, if you could respond on my page, I appreciate it. Thanks. Read my response on User:Ev's talk page.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Your note
Of course you are correct, as was obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University
What you call a "Blog" just happens to be Oxford University archives of London Book reviews. In my humble opinion I do believe that Oxford University just might be considered as a reliable source...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Montezumapass.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Montezumapass.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Headwaters
The Jordan, Lebanese and Syrian plans were the headwaters diversion plan, it was all three....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What did happen with the intro
You violated WP:3RR. I think it was on good faith, so I am just letting you know, not accusing or anything. We all do it once in a while. In fact, I am not looking at those things closely right now, because that's just free drama. The other thing is, the intro at the moment you edited was subjected to intense discussion based on a proposal from me. Some of the concerns you raised were discussed, but not all. Regardless if I agree or disagree with your views, you owe to your fellow editors to try and reach consensus with them, specially if we all recognize that we need to reach neutrality and be in the watch for biased slants. Be aware that bias can be entered into unwittingly: what you assume to be the truth is not what others assume it to be. Eliminating the point of view of the others is the basis of bias, which is different form NPOV.

RomanC, really stepped out of line above, and I am sorry he did, but he has clearly been good with discussing things. Don't think we all share his opinions on your editing. Perhaps you need to try and see this not as an "us v them" zero-zum situation, and one where we can work together. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Find my fourth revert/post in 24 hours. Let's see the evidence. I made numerous changes to the intro but I don't think even one of them was a staight revert. I added references and changed the wording to deal with concerns raised.  I discussed every change I made numerous times. I then followed the wiki precept to be bold. RomanC was also wrong in making the claiming that I had blanked the intro.  That never happened by me, sorry.  I am taking a break from this article, since it is clear that it is all gang-up and get your WP:POV in. Neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources to tell the story, and balance by putting in the perspective of both sides in a conflict. There is precious little attempt at balance or neutrality here.  I don't need a lesson in WP:NPOV.  Your bias is as evident as any.  This will be a POV and bad article until people start remembering that this is supposed to be a neutral project, and start looking to themselves rather than others, as culprits.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As to 3RR, as I said, I am not accusing you, but indeed look at your editing. In fact, pretty much everyone, including myself, has done tiny 3RR stuff, most of them. But the real fact is that the bulk of the edit warring has been by people who do not discuss the article: one of the reasons I approached you was because you did a rather sad posting on the talk page, thought about it, and I wanted to comment on it here, but saw RomaC's warning. There is no reason why our eidting environment should exclude valuable editors like yourself.


 * I am sorry you feel this way, but what bias I have? I have attempted, at all times, to ensure that no bias enters my convo, focusing on the intro. An example of what you feel where biased actions on my part would be helpful to allow me not to exhibit bias in the future, as that is not my goal. Perhaps we can work together, since we are both looking for the same thing? As to RomaC, I defended you, and I agree: in fact he is now accusing me of stuff. As to ganging? Who ganged up on you? I think we all could use a chill pill, but for the most part, people have argued from their mind, I see no meatpuppetry and stuff. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't believe I have done 3RR but I am in no mood to go check. Don't forget that breaking that rule means 4X. Any changes that I made in the intro had been discussed ad nauseum, if not by me, by others on the talk page, regarding there being 2 sides of the conflict, essentially.  I wrote my reasons in the edit summaries as well.  I am sure that you do not see your bias, and I have no problem with people having a bias -- we all have one, it's a perspective.  Your sympathy for the Palestinian side is obvious, as clearly mine for the Israeli side is obvious as well.  But hopefully one can still be fair and balanced and write a neutral article despite our respective biases.   I did not mean to suggest that I felt that people were personally ganging up on me, I don't.  But they are indeed ganging up on the Israeli perspective, both in this article, and on its talk page.  I am taking a break on the page until some kind of stability is reached.  It is frankly too much work & disappointment to have a well-written, balanced, and referenced sentence trashed and turned into a POV, illogical, inaccurate, unreferenced piece of trash before I even have a chance to refresh the page. :(  Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sympathetic at all towards Hamas, and have sympathy for the plight of Jewish Nation (a sympathy that can be described as post-Zionist, in the academic, not partisan, sense). Some of my greatest heroes are the people of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who died against all odds standing up for all of humanity, not just for the Jewish people. I am, however, indeed also sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, and unsympathetic of how their very real suffering is abstracted into a cartoonish view of good vs evil - and of late have had their very existense questioned in a sad mirror of Holocaust denialism. I am not dispassionate, but I do have empathy for Israel - and it pains when it is assumed that because I also have empathy for the Palestinians is automatically means I do not.

That said, we should not expect neutral editors, we should expect neutral articles.

It is interesting, because some of the very concerns you raised above are what you hear from Palestinian editors. Now, if I assume good faith, it means both sides feel the same way. However, how can that be possible? Surely one side is cynically lying?

I think it can very well be: it seems the dominant narratives of either side are so partisan and one-sided, that in an environment like Wikipedia's, where one-sidedness is against the house rules, any deviation from the dominant narratives will seem shocking and non-neutral. If you side tells you the sky is cyan, and another side tells their side it is dark blue, you will be shocked to find out it is neither, but Sky blue.

For a pro-Palestinian person it might seem non-neutral that Israel actually called upon the people of Gaza to move from targetted sites hours before the first air strikes. For a pro-Israel person it might seem non-neutral that inspite of these efforts there are a large number of innocent civilians dying and getting maimed. For me, both are verifiable facts, that are neutral in as of their own, and deserve to be in Wikipedia. So while I think your feelings are genuine, I think they are baseless upon the evidence: the same way I cannot expect you to defend the Palestinian perspective, you cannot expect those with a Palestinian perspective to defend the Israeli perspective. Yet you can certainly expect that your vigorous defense of the Israeli perspective, and their vigorous defense of the Palestinian perspective, arbitrated by more moderated elements of either side and non-involved editors, will result in a neutral article worthy of wikipedia. What you cannot expect is your perspective to be the only one, because that would go against everything this project is about: collecting the world's knowledge in a neutral fashion. Does this make sense to you?--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict response
Hi. I noticed your edit. Please make your views known at Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

rant
Hey am glad we can find common ground! BTW, I didn't see your respond on the other thread... --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Respond on talk
You have made this without addressing the concerns regarding this edit raised on talk at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead. I think this is unfair. I'm waiting for you there.VR talk  04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You responded on the wrong place, I've moved your comments to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead, responded to you, and am waiting for your response.VR talk  04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded ad nauseum. Going for a little walk now.  You guys discuss it among yourselves.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is disruptive editing, you have been asked repeatedly to stop. RomaC (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tundra.
 * I never intended to make any remarks regarding you, only on your editing. Even while doing that, I should have been more respectful. I apologize for any hurt feelings, (as often happens on touchy issues).VR talk  05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you
The anti-Israeli (feels like that more than pro-Palestinian) majority relentlessly tries to pull the article in a very specific direction (most of them, to be fair), and it's been really hard trying to make it more accurate and objective and thus closer to the actual truth. I've been noticing your help in trying to stop the anti-I deluge, and I really appreciate it. Rabend (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to find consensus
I have started an attempt to find a consensus regarding the inclusion of image you removed of the dead Palestinian baby from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

lead
I am sorry you feel that way, but unilateral changes before any discussion in not acceptable. This has been discussed at length, that you do not like it is not reason to continue to persist in making disruptive edits. Nableezy (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Innumerable discussion has already been made at the talk page that the previous edit was not (far from) universally acceptable. Rather than the same old argument which one side consistently opposes and reverts, it is time to try another, fresh attempt at the lead. Such attempts are not disruptive, on the contrary. What is disruptive is constant reversions of the lead back to unacceptable versions, with warnings being placed on anyone's page who tries to be bold break this deadlock. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to tell you this one time, I dont care what you think is important or POV or anything, you have not once made a single objection based on logic. That Michael Safyan has now entered the discussion is fine with me, desirable even, because even though I disagree with what he says, he at least uses logic and reason for his discussions. I am done talking to you, as you clearly cannot understand the basic ideas of rational thinking. Now, respectfully, leave me alone. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much there is a need to stop ninja edits. Perhaps there will never be complete consensus on this matter, but there is definitely a rough consensus to keep it, which is why you get reverted so quickly and only Doright helps. Discussion might be endless, but there is also the need to have what is supported by sources. I think your argument is weak: and in particular has become weaker as time has passed and more sources developed. This is why I opened in OR noticeboard, and in fact all non-involved editors have agreed (the few that have commented) to keep. Same with "intensified". Stop edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

er...not. Here are the responses from the 2 non-involved editors at the OR noticeboard. In fact, the way I read their comments, they do not agree with you.
 * "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you get consensus out of that? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, both argue for inclusion of the term: it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions and the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". One is uncontrovertibly for inclusion - and for pretty much the same reasons I am. I do agree the second does skip mention of the lead, but I offer that the lead is not separate form the article. This might support the due weight argument at the beginning of the discussion, but I do not know this to be the case. They are not strong responses, and they are only two, but coupled with futher arguments in the talk page, and new sources that have emerged, I no longer have such a weak support as I did once (I might remind you that I opened the thread because I saw value in the objections, but felt discussion was gettting unproductive). That said, I will not revert your edits, because WP:CCC, unless I see tag-teaming, meat puppetry, and the other editors are up fro 3RR - I have a good eye for those things. I do agree you are just being bold, but so are those that revert you.


 * But lets discuss, because in spite of some of your friends and I not losing any love, you are always willing to talk which I greatly appreciate...


 * Lets forget rules and all that crap, lets talk about why we are here: writing an encyclopedia. The point is that this is how the conflict is seen and named by one side, as a counter-point of how it is seen by another side. I do not see how encyclopedic value is decreased by the inclusion of this perspective, in particular because it is extremely verified as the mainstream (not fringe) description among those on the other side. True, the facts reveal that this is not a massacre other than in the sense that all wars -just or unjust- are "massacres". This might speak of a sense of melodrama in Arab and Palestinian society, well, any reader with two fingers of brain will see this (as naming a military operation for a children's song speaks of the melodrama of Israeli society). But it is fact that this is the perspective. And we must report relevant facts. I feel other editors - including of your POV - understand this and have let the discussion drop, to concentrate on other, probably more important consensus questions, like the photos etc.


 * Lastly, consensus is ultimately not the result of discussions. It is a result of editing, but this is why we frown upon edit warring: it would give dedicated individuals the ability to single-handlely create consensus by sheer force of editing. Please consider that. --Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors' comments regarding the Gaza Massacre in the lead
In fact many other editors have left the page due to feeling insulted by it rather than moving on as you imply. Here is my list of editors who have disagreed with the "Gaza Massacre" being in the lead. Not sure if I have them all. Some of the editors have attempted to remove it from the lead and been insulted with accusations of vandalism on their talk page, with the resultant dif not being allowed to stand for 5 minutes. It seems to me to be 50-50% at best, with the pro- people being entirely unwilling to compromise on any of it - ie to move it out of the lead, to say that Arabs call it a small em "massacre", or to balance it with Israel's perspective of "not massacre" but "self-defense." It is not trying to achieve consensus by refusing all compromise and insisting on something that is considered by others to be POV and OR. We do not need to argue the points over and over again. These editors have done it already and have been bullied and insulted by by those who insist on maintaining it.


 * tundrabuggy original dif link re massacre:

The following are not difs but sections:


 * doright *The last sentence of the first paragraph claims: "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in much of the Arab World.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]." However, after having read each of the references, it is clear that some have made the claim that massacres have occurred. However, none have said that the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre. Therefore, this sentence appears to be in violation of WP:OR. Doright (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * cerejota "I do recognize a weakness I recognize: they do not explicitly refer to the "Gaza Massacre" but rather than "massacre in Gaza" or "massacre" and specifiying place somewhere else, etc"


 * Itsmejudith "And also I'm not sure that right now the conflict is known in English as "the Gaza massacre". But the sources cited are all or mostly reliable ones, so you could use them to develop the "International responses" section, and there you could say that those sources had used the term "massacre". Prefer English-language sources where you can, but also bear in mind the need to reflect views right across the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar"I think that, within the context of a neutral discussion media manipulation by both sides, it would be quite appropriate to mention that Hamas leaders use the term "Massacre" to describe Israel's actions. Otherwise we should be skeptical of such words. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC) []


 * brewcrewer The third problem is sort of collateral of the second. Apparently this term massacre in relation to Israeli actions has been around for a while and has been applied to a number of other incidents. A look at Google News archives reveals that this is not the only incident that the Arab world has called a massacre. The term "massacre" is not unique to this particular action. Thus it would be wrong to call this a "massacre". They are not calling it a specific name. Every Israeli action that kills multiple people gets a "massacre reaction". The Arab world is not giving the action a proper noun. They are merely describing the action. Look at this way: instead of calling each Israel action a "killing", they are calling it a "massacre". That being said, there is no intention of giving a specific name to the Israeli operation. The action taken by editors in naming this conflict is original research, at best.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rabend I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Coreywalters06 I agree with the viewpoint that it is very POV-ish to say "Gaza Massacre". Israel's view of this is defense in response to Hamas's 144 rockets and 86 mortars fired from Gaza at Israeli 'civilian' targets. Two extremely differing viewpoints from that of the "Arab world". "Gaza Massacre" suggests that Israel has cruelly and hastefully killed a huge number of innocent people intentionally and violated international law. This is very much more POV than "Operation Cast Lead" could ever be. Operation Cast Lead has no accusations, no bias or hateful connotation. Nothing. Its just random words as said above.Coreywalters06 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DrorK Another thing - calling and event "a massacre" is an accusation. It is not merely a different choice of terminology, it is a straightforward accusation. Therefore, if you say the Arab world call the events "a massacre", you are saying "all Arabs accuse Israel of deliberately and intentionally killing civilians". If this is the case - fine, but think well what you are writing here. The fact that many media resources use terminology in an irresponsible way doesn't mean that we should do the same. DrorK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gabi S. It is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jaakabou This standard "massacre" naming convention doesn't work well for Wikipedia as it is applied to each and every Israeli operation regardless if it's foe calls himself victorious (Nasrallah's divine victory / massacre, for example). I have no objection to listing this controversial accusation/nickname next to POVs from both sides in the body of the article rather than the lead as that a proper location. The main problem here is that Hamas is attacking Israel and has made declarations that they are martyrdom seekers... clearly we can't play up the double speech of Hamas on one side while ignoring the other side of the coin. This is just too controversial to tackle in the lead in a neutral fashion and should be avoided like fire. That said, if someone can come up with a neutral and wide-scale acceptable version then I'd be ok with having it included in the lead as well as in the body. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CptnonoMost of the sources cited and google news hits state "...Gaza massacre". It is being reffered to as a massacre but not actually titled as one by most news sources.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it sounds like pulling hairs but most of the sources cited after the line use it in the headline but not as a title which is why it is not capitalized and why it is put in quotations whenever an Arab leader uses the term. ....Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just rereading some of it and sometimes it is being reffered to as a massacre. I think my biggest concern is that it is being referred to as a massacre and not titled a massacre. I don't think it history will label this event as The Gazan Massacre so if it stays for now (which will prevent the lead from becomming to argumentative) I anticipate it will need to be changed sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009


 * MichaelSafyan attempted a compromise of the lead, but was reverted as a vandal