User talk:Unomi/Archive/2010Aug

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib‎
The removal was done as a compromise for DYK promotion. Please see the discussion at Mbz's talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the compromise between a good version and a bad version is a bad version, are you seriously defending removing the quote, which nicely mirrors the quote of the section above, due to her not being able to retain the 'better than blowing up children in busses'? Unomi (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I started a request for comment on Fox News's reliability at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. -- Ludwigs 2 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

your comment in my section
I moved your comment up to your proposal. if you want to add another section, be my guest, but do not add it to my section.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not your section, ANI is not AE, I am free to respond to you where ever you write, and welcome back to my talkpage. un☯mi 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I removed my comment then. Here's an advise to you. At AN/I your proposal is going nowhere. It is not to pass. Bring it to AE instead. You've already collected more than enough "evidences" to ban me for life. Go for it!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that the proposal is not going to pass, I am however still going to respond when you talk about me, also, you were previously made aware that you cannot remove your talkpage posts anywhere but on your own talkpage where you retain editorial control. I have restored your comment, lets not fight over this. un☯<b style="color:#435">m</b><b style="color:#335">i</b> 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * see here but I am not an admin, and if you've chosen to continue to harass me I cannot do anything to prevent it. You should be proud of yourself D= DX --Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may become one some fine day :) As you can see from the diff, that was regarding AE, arbcom related pages are structed somewhat differently. ANI is for all intents and purposes just another public talkpage. You may want to refer to WP:TPOC. <b style="color:#525">u</b><b style="color:#424">n</b><b style="color:#324">☯</b><b style="color:#224">m</b><b style="color:#124">i</b> 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I was trying to prove a point on my friend's wiki profile that it was easy to edit pages and spread misinformation. I stand corrected.

Yours

Toby Hall

Israel and the apartheid analogy
With respect to the mediation, I think a small group of editors sabotaged its result by their refusal to participate.

As far as the title is concerned, I've always maintained the current title is best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I may ask, don't you find it problematic that the title has been, and will likely continue to be, used as a reason to exclude sources which make direct claims and do not posit an analogy? One of the reasons I preferred a rename was because this very tactic to seek to exclude or misrepresent sources. See for example and  which got the rename discussion started. It also looks like the discussion which precipitated the last move is the one here which does really seem to be involving as many editors as I expected. <b style="color:#719">u</b><b style="color:#618">n</b><b style="color:#518">☯</b><b style="color:#418">m</b><b style="color:#318">i</b> 04:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My recollection was that the previous discussion about the article's name involved many more editors, but I may be mistaken about that.
 * This article is always going to be a battleground, no matter what its title is. To be honest, I didn't really see sources being excluded as "out of scope" because of the article's title. But if that has been the case, the exclusionary editors need pushback from the editors who want to include the material. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights
You have my detailed explanation on the article's talk page, and I humbly believe you would like to reintroduce my edits after reading it. By the way, I see here above the paragraph I'm adding that you are engaged in another politically-heated article about Israel. I must ask - has anyone without Israeli/Syrian/Arab/Jewish affiliation, or engagement in articles related to the ME, ever read the article about the GH and expressed his opinion about the way it is written? 79.181.9.231 (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider myself to be without any such affiliation, I think at times what happens is that the 'tug of war' gets too intense and parties develop the same 'all or nothing' mentality that seems to cloud the judgement of those involved in the real world dispute, we should try to not let that get the better of us. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#956">u</b><b style="color:#855">n</b><b style="color:#755">☯</b><b style="color:#655">m</b><b style="color:#555">i</b></i> 05:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the discussion we both engaged in turned from intellectual task to threats. User talk:79.181.9.231. I don't know if you have any connection to Nableezy. If you do, please tell him to conduct the discussion in a civilized manner. I would appreciate that. Thank you very much. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, I hope you don't take too much offence at Nableezys bedside manner, many areas of wikipedia is awash in sock puppets and such suspicion is natural, if unfortunate. Nableezy has no more or no less authority than any other user to ask such a question. There is no such argument as he is a newbie user, comments throughout wikipedia are, ideally, judged on their merits not on the user who forwards them. An important exception is in the case of confirmed or duck tested sockpuppets. At this point I have no reason to suspect that you are a sockpuppet, but then I don't have Nableezys experience with other users, being myself a relative newcomer to the I/P articles. I would suggest that you simply answer him truthfully and take what precipitates from that in stride. Best, <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#824">u</b><b style="color:#723">n</b><b style="color:#623">☯</b><b style="color:#523">m</b><b style="color:#423">i</b></i> 18:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Skipping to another issue within the same subject. I do want to better understand your point about sourcing. If I understand you correctly, you believe that every term should be given reference to a certain source that uses it, and in case of several options, you go by the majority. I can think of too many absurds that might result from this approach, and I wonder if you considered them. For example, there are many sources referring to the US as "The Great Satan". Would you consider it an alternative name for the United States of America? I suppose it should be mentioned this way or another on the article about the US, but by your logic, we should do even more than that, we should actually treat it as an alternative name to the US.
 * Here is another example - Until 1979 the US and the UN did not recognize the People's Republic of China, and alleged that the Government in Taipei is in fact the Government of China. Since 1979 both the US and the UN switched their recognition to the Government in Beijing. As a matter of fact, nothing changed but the political view of the US and the UN. Had WP existed at that time, do you believe it should have given the same description of the situation (save the specific recognition issue) before and after 1979? If so, how would you source the terminology?
 * A very large number of people, societies, and subsequently sources, regard Mohammad Bin Abdullah from Mecca as prophet of God. Would you refer to him as a prophet on a WP article based on these sources? Of course there are other sources reject this notion, but if you need to summaries Mohammad Bin Abdullah's role in a few word, would you insist on having the word prophet there? What about the sources that simply ignore him, where do you count them?
 * These are not idle questions or an attempt to bring things to absurd. In my opinion, these example are not very different than deciding about the use of words like "occupation", "terror", "aggression", "massacre" and the like. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had earlier linked you to a discussion at IPCOLL, where I address some of the same questions. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#988">u</b><b style="color:#887">n</b><b style="color:#787">☯</b><b style="color:#687">m</b><b style="color:#587">i</b></i> 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

208 1RR vio what if?
The reviewing administrator expressed an opinion that 208 is in 1RR vio and put a warning on her/his user page. I know 208 mostly agrees with you, still Wikipedia policy matters more IMHO. What do you think is the proper way to handle the alleged violation? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the admin will likely take the course of action that they deem appropriate. Maybe its a cop out on my side, I can't say that I know myself. I agree that one could argue that minimal moral integrity calls for me saying that if it is wrong when you do it, it is wrong when he does it. On the other hand I don't think that one can reasonably argue that reverting to what seems to be A. the status quo when discussions began(bar some olive branches I tried to extend) and B. the version that the majority of engaged editors seem to prefer, is equivalent to reverting away from A and B. To what extent this is IAR or the spirit of the policies I do not know, I can make no claims to perfection. I do believe that this matter is much less clearcut in a contextual sense than the other policy arguments that I have made regarding the content dispute. Please also note that I had tried to retract the 3rr complaint against you(not because I didn't think you were in the wrong, but because the desired outcome had been met), and that wgfinley likely became involved not from 3rr but from a message I left on his talk page before this whole thing blew up. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#622">u</b><b style="color:#521">n</b><b style="color:#421">☯</b><b style="color:#321">m</b><b style="color:#221">i</b></i> 17:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I never questioned your moral integrity. Seinfeld's pedantically ref was a silly joke on my side, I assumed you saw it too. We talked also previously. I hope you don't question my integrity. I agree with you partially. Good arguments were put forward from multiple angles. I'm not going to revert 208, it is not what Wikipedia is about. However I still think the diff was neutral. I trust you could articulate neutral request based on points from all sides raised in the discussion. Would you mind approaching NPOV noticeboard with the suggested change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I need to sleep about 14 hours or so.. I will probably approach npovn with a number of sources, I would suggest that you gather some as well. Then we can present them together and see what the reaction is. We have 7 days before the protection is lifted anyway, and I doubt we are going to finish wikipedia anytime soon :) Sleep well, when you get around to it. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#876">u</b><b style="color:#775">n</b><b style="color:#675">☯</b><b style="color:#575">m</b><b style="color:#475">i</b></i> 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your warm words, I could use some sleep ;) Agree nothing is burning, we have all the time in our lifetime. It could be a good idea if you start a sandbox to prepare the request, wearing neutral hat. I don't intend to take part in the noticeboard discussions, though I'd appreciate some sandbox review rights, prior to submission. Hope it could work. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * hope you're up to it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Move your sources
You should move your sources to its own section so people can see what he added and what you added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just thought it would be best if they could be seen side by side, I did add his sig so it would be clear what he had added. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#997">u</b><b style="color:#896">n</b><b style="color:#796">☯</b><b style="color:#696">m</b><b style="color:#596">i</b></i> 10:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User IU
Thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)