User talk:Untwirl

fun time with ms
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * you seem to be guilty of this same infraction. Untwirl (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: you have a right to remove any material from your own talk page you would rather not have there. For instance, there is no reason not to remove this entire edit warring section. I usually leave almost everything, but what is on your talk page is up to you....as long as you do not make changes that distort what transpired. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * if i want to add a comment to my page to reflect the context of past events then i reserve the right to do so. i therefore choose to update this section with regard to your history of edit warring (and being blocked for it repeatedly).  this is not a distortion, and anyone who would like to review both your reverts on the page in question and your block log would find that this is undeniably a factual representation of "what transpired."  your unsolicited advice is not welcome. Untwirl (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What does my block log have to do with your edit warring? The fact remains that an administrator took the problem to AN/I . I see that Ceedjee, in a comment just below this, told you how to finesse the AN/I situation (an initiation at wiki-lawering). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * how to finesse? as a newcomer i was being bitten repeatedly by you, and when you reverted not only another editor's sourced edit but my attempts to restore and discuss (brd- sorry i don't have markup skills like you) I asked that editor how i should respond to your accusation of the very thing you had done as well. whew!  your attempts to votestack not withstanding, i was simply getting my feet wet and sought a little advice from a more seasoned editor. what does your block log have to do with it?  plenty, it shows disregard for wiki policy.  Untwirl (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave explanations for all my edits. That is not "vote stacking" (actually that term does not seem to apply to this situation). If you think I am wrong, you need to take some time to explain. Also, my trying to stop your edit warring is not "disregard for wiki policy."  Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * once again you have "distorted" reality and misread my response. your lengthy block log ( as i stated clearly above) shows disregard for wiki policy. i have taken more time than you deserve to explain all of my issues with your behavior, even offered an olive branch once, but at this point it is obvious you are fine with creating animosity and dragging out ridiculous personal attacks. i am no longer interested in your arguments or explanations on my talk page, take it off your watchlist and stop wikistalking me. all future posts (excepting, of course, your heartfelt apology) will be promptly deleted Untwirl (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * It is better you answer on wp:an/i but without attacking anybody.
 * You can say that there must be 2 people for an edit war.
 * And if you don't have to justify yourself for anything, underline your are not a sockpuppet (if you are not one) etc.
 * I have "blued" your user's page. You know, most people here have american ancestrors. They don't like the "red skins" and so, it is better if you take the "blue" uniform. Don't hesitate to expand this section. (humor)
 * Best Regards,
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard
Rome wasn't built in a day. You might find working on less controversial articles more fun. There are rules and processes that take some getting used to. Patience and a sense of humor help a lot, but strong medication works too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

please repost your last edit
Hi, sorry I had to revert an edit made by you, because the formatting of the talk page had gotten messed up and we had to revert to an earlier version. Could you please repost your last edit on internecine conflicts. thanks, and apologies again. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't catch it on my page

 * I appreciate your confidence, perhaps misplaced, in my potential to help. But technically this is, itself, a violation of WP:CANVASS.
 * It is an honour to edit wiki, and the honour requires scruples.
 * We are asked to edit to NPOV, while we all have points of view that militate against objectivity.
 * In I/P articles, you will find bad faith in abundance, but you must assume good faith
 * In I/P articles, intellectual honesty is not common, but you should strive to exemplify it.
 * In editing, you will often find your work elided on insufficient, or spurious grounds. If this worries you inordinately, it means you are naive. You can only work in this area if you are prepared to work overtime reading, preferably, quality books to inform your edits. Googling around is not excluded, but it requires considerable background study before one can feel sufficiently self-assured to edit to the text, and not against or for some POV.
 * Never loose your cool on-line. Never be impatient to make an edit stick, even if it is maliciously contested. Never get dragged into arbitration. Never respond to assaults except with irony or jocularity. One strategy here is to make people loose their cool, and badger them in arbitration till their page of violations creates, in passing administrators' eyes, an impression you are an intrinsically bad, or incompetent contributor to the project.
 * Strongly sourced edits, grounded in wide reading and background knowledge of history and context, are themselves their strongest argument. One of these is better than a hundred trivial edits.
 * Much good editing simply consists of checking spelling, grammar, and notes to see that the text reflects its sources. This is a less flashy way of contributing, but those who do it are the backbone of the project.
 * Any cause is best defended by the rigour of its presentation, in terms of equanimity, precision and balance.
 * I could go on. If you are new to the place, remember, to contribute usefully means to learn the ropes mainly by watching articles for some time, and learning from those editors, of whatever persuasion, who manage to keep a fair standard of quality editing, and rational defence of their edits. One should never hurry, and one should not make this a major hobby. It should be, optimally, a place to which one returns when one comes across, in one's reading, qualitatively important information that, on checking the appropriate article, has not yet been mentioned.
 * If you do wish to push on and encounter real difficulties, ask for a mentor. I'm only back here for that single article, and, in any case, cannot mentor because I've never read the rules.
 * Best wishes, then Untwirl Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you so much for your thoughtful response. i apologize if i seemed to be canvassing, i hadn't read that rule, and i think votestacking seems to be the one that applies here, although i believe it was done against me and got me in this! :) and i actually was just seeking advice - which you have given generously - and not trying to get you roped into that discussion. i should familiarize myself with more rules as well. i see now that "seeking fellow editors " implies much more than i meant to, esp considering you are the only one i sent this to! i will try follow your example and i think i will seek a mentor as well. thanks again, and good luck with that page. Untwirl (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote stacking is constant, and intensely annoying. However, in such cases, look closely at the quality of arguments provided by each voter. If the person just alligns his name with an opinion, does not offer an independent analysis, and just pops in to take sides, whatever side, then he is a vote-stacker. Never weigh in in these situations just with your own 'opinion'. Try to see the merits of the arguments, do a little research (google books is the best place for it, rather than 'google'), and throw in your ten cents or dollars' worth. Above all, if you find material that contradicts your own POV, but which is important, never hesitate to mention it, even if this may mean those formerly opposing you might profit from it. I'm sounding like that blowhard Hamlet stabbed behind the arras, Polonius. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In instances like this, you might be best served by notifying some of the relevant WikiProjects, like maybe WikiProject Judaism of the discussion by adding comments to the project's talk page about the discussion. You might also want to consider filing a request for comment about the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would like to make a suggestion that has nothing to do with our current editing disagreement. I just took a look at your editing history, and pretty much every article you are editing has to do with the Israel/Palistine conflict, or ties in indirectly. That would be considered WP:Single-purpose account, and diminish your standing in WP. Also, those particular articles are very stressful, and focusing on them exclusively will not benefit you peace of mind. (I have just taken almost all the Israel/Palestine articles off my watch list because it was getting heavy, and distracting me from other interests that are important to me.) You might want to think about editing articles in other areas to give yourself some balance. Hope you don't take offense at my giving this unsolicited advice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i will refrain from sarcasm in my response, although it will be a herculean effort as you have previously expressed only suspicion and contempt for my good faith attempts at collaborative editing. your own history of edit warring, and being blocked for it, accusations of sockpuppetry directed to administrators about me, and prior comments such as "stop complaining" add to my perception of insincerity in your concern for my "peace of mind."  in my (admittedly short) experience editing i have politely disagreed with several editors, none of whom have been as rude or unwilling to consider another opinion as you.  please refrain from disingenuous comments of concern for my "peace of mind" and giving myself "balance" on my talk page, as it only serves to highlight your disdain for the cooperative nature of wikipedia. if you care to apologize for your repeated attacks, i would graciously accept and leave this nastiness behind us. Untwirl (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a good faith suggestion. If it is useful or not, that is for you to decide. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i think i was clear that i do not find it useful, i find it disingenuous. and since you make no attempt to retract your serious allegations and patronizing remarks and instead express concern for my "peace of mind," i do not accept it as a "good faith suggestion." instead i see it as another attempt to silence my participation in the article which you seem to think is yours alone to edit.  Untwirl (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest that you stop editing the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dead links
Hi Untwirl! Sure I'll adopt you! Here's the best way to go aboat treating dead external links: 1. First try to find the current location of the link. If you can find where the content has been moved, replace the dead link with the new link. 2. If you are unsuccessful in finding the link, add dead link next to the link. This lets other editors know that the link is broken. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck!   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, just click on edit this page at the top, and then paste the text " " next to the link. Now save the page - and that's it! Let me know how it goes.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew
Hi. May I recommend that you stop responding to Malcolm. That may mean that he gets the last word, but so be it. There's no need to answer every message of his. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I get caught up in that cycle myself, so I know what you mean. Read No angry mastodons for one perspective on the problem. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Non-English sources
Unless a source of higher quality exsists in another language, an English source is always preferred (if possible). See here for more information. I hope this helps,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need some basic information
If you wish to find basic info, and want someone who may know the answer (provided it's not something like Wikimedia Commons, which I put off for a couple of years and am now learning to transfer from other sources)... feel free to contact me. What are your areas of interest on Wikipedia? You can read my User page- I've left you some formatted information regarding the Wikipedia. The Village Pump is good for sources, as well. I'm by no means an Admin, but have been working on various articles here for the last two years or more. --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Watchlist question
Hi Untwirl! Those red and green numbers on your watchlist show you how much larger (or smaller) a page has become in bytes. If the number is green, the page has increased in size that number of bytes. If the number is red, the page has decreased in size that number of bytes. Sometimes, the number will be gray when the page's size has not changed (0). I hope this helps,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Okay but I'm not separating out the whites from the coloureds and hand-wash/dry-clean-only labels are filthy lies in my world. Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Administrator question
Often administrators (also called sysops) indicate that they are administrators on their user page. You can find a list of administrators here or you can search through all accounts with administrator rights here. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also add "Adminhelp" to your talk page, and someone will show up. I happen to be one; what do you need? BTW, since it seems that you found a mentor, I will remove the template adoptme, so your request won't show up in our Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user anymore. Best wishes! &mdash; Sebastian 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to add   to your user page to let others know that you have been adopted.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 12:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for copy-paste accident
Untwirl, thank you for noticing that somehow "cerejoGaza" get into my commit into talk page. It was not my intention. I fixed it and I'm really sorry, it was honest copy-paste accident. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you see Walsz with Bashir already? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185616/ http://waltzwithbashir.com) It is nominated for Oscar, I saw it 3 times already. War is extremely ugly. Do you live in Israel? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes
Some people around here really are quite unpleasant. Oh well. C'est la vie. It's probably diabetes or something. I'm just grateful that these people can't elect politicians, own guns, join the army etc otherwise who knows what might happen....oh wait.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the heads-up. You were right, I wasn't informed. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Arbitrartion and edit warring
If the edit warring on the article is in violation of the arbitration decision, then the incident should be reported at Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Does this answer your question? What article in particular are you referring to?   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for civility
rv good faith troll

No worries
I'm a fine one to talk, but you don't have to blame yourself for anyone else's actions. ^_^

And as the guy said after accidentally swallowing his wedding ring, "This too shall pass." (ba-dum-bum-chhhh!) arimareiji (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't know it was Solomon either until I looked it up. I'm not Jewish, though I got attacked by some dumbasses in NYC shortly after 9/11 because they thought I was. (sarcasm)Because, you know, 9/11 was the Jews' fault just like everything else is.(/sarcasm)
 * Leave him be for now... as another old saying goes, give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or does Malcolm's claim to being the hero who stopped an edit war sound increasingly like George W Bush nominating himself for a Nobel Peace Prize on the basis that he did so much to unite the rest of the world (against him)? arimareiji (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I snerked. ^_^ After all, he wronged them pretty greatly... arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for getting your extremity status incorrect previously. Argh, more of the same at AN/I - I think perhaps it's being TLDRed to death in the hopes that no one pays attention to the screaming pot's color. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your versions better, but in this case I meant "Too Long, Didn't Read" - i.e. written filibustering. Alternately, I guess it could have meant Theatrical Logorrhea Degrades Rationality... but that's probably too nerdy. arimareiji (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, this too shall pass. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oy vey. At least I didn't fill in the blank with "obstacle," at the tail (no pun intended) end of my last response at AN/I. Not that I thought it or anything. arimareiji (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Much-belated, but good luck with your upcoming trials and tribulations. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you; let me know how it goes? ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm befuddled what he could have been agreeing with when he said "there was that," given that he segued into "So that's how I ended it, because I am the compulsive master arbitrator (try saying that three times fast) of edit wars." arimareiji (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have email enabled, but if I didn't and someone tried to get me to allow it I'd be completely suspicious of their motives. So hopefully, it won't get the editor you're talking about anywhere.
 * I guess it really depends on the context. If two editors talk about emailing each other and soon thereafter start ninja-ing in out of nowhere every time someone disagrees with one of them, it's probably canvassing. The trouble is, proving it would require sifting hundreds of edits at the least. That's a lot of time to spend.
 * But if the editors' paths only cross periodically, then probably it's a harmless instance of trying to let someone know "It's just fun talking to you." Hypothetically speaking. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, already got it - #6. But I think I should probably lie down, as I really do have a massive headache now. (One of the things that happens when you get old and cantankerous like me.) arimareiji (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame on you, using SELFPUB sources like the Huffington Post and The Guardian. ^_~ arimareiji (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Self-hating Jew
Thanks for the response. I don't normally write comments using transclusion from a user subpage. But I wanted the same comment on three different pages - Malik's user talk, the Template:AS article and the SHJ article. I probably should have included a hidden note in the bottom of the template that would indicate that they were editing a section in my userspace, rather than on the page itself. I will probably just add a separate section below in eacn page with "replies" as the header, so they wont have any trouble.Regards, -Stevertigo 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) PS: I agree about the epithet concept, and it certainly needs mentioning in that article. I will add it there, and I'd appreciate your input on the talk. -SV

untwirl (talk)  04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Articles

 * The Skies are Weeping
 * Philip Munger
 * Phil Goldvarg
 * Talk:Phil Goldvarg
 * Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie
 * Linda McCarriston

Can you help me with the articles. Kasaalan (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie nominated for Wikipedia Articles for deletion Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie
Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page nominated for Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie can I have your opinions for the deletion and help on the article.

Your recent requests
Hi Untwirl, I never told you this before, because I came to Wikipedia to edit and not to fight or argue, but the situation has become such that saying it could spare both you and me some frustration. (Brace yourself because it's going to be harsh.) Since you have been extremely rude and malicious toward me in the past, including writing lies about me on several occasions; since in my opinion you make little, if any, actual contribution to Wikipedia; and since your editing patterns and talkpage style seem to me those of a particularly insidious POV-pusher; I long ago ceased to assume good faith on your part. I do not believe that collegial editing cooperation with you is possible, and I always make every attempt to have nothing do do with you. That is why I ignored your recent requests and some of your comments. In retrospect I should have told you this right off the bat. You are obviously an intelligent person, and (for what it's worth) I think you could be an excellent editor if you drastically changed your attitude. I wish you a happy life. To be perfectly clear, just as there was no exaggeration or intent to hurt in my negative comments, there is no irony or insincerity in my positive ones. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from talk page) well, i do appreciate your responding, even if it didnt address any of the issues (other than personal ones you have toward me.) first and foremost, i am unaware of any "extremely rude and malicious" remarks i have made toward you in the past, or having written "lies about (you) on several occasions."  in my estimation we have disagreed several times in the past - but if you really think i have done either of those things you should point me in their direction with a diff, and i will promptly strike and apologize unreservedly.  my saying that you appear to have an inconsistent standard is not a personal attack, or even a lie - i quoted you directly and showed how i thought that standard wasnt being followed. i, for one, appreciate your reasoned and (usually) consistent approach to applying standards for inclusion to that article.  however, it seems that your personal distaste for me has clouded your judgment in this instance.  if i have misunderstood how you believe those standards should apply i am more than willing to reconsider my statement about your inconsistency.    i will refrain from commenting on my opinion of your decidedly antagonistic stance with regards to me, and your favoring of one POV over another.  i have tried to ignore your snide comments and focus on issues with editing.   i'll take your comments on this matter in good faith, even though you do not grant me the same, and take time to review my own statements to see how i can avoid offending editors such as yourself in the future.  hopefully you can accept my lack of malicious intent, even if we disagree on certain issues.  as i said, i am willing to take your harsh criticism in stride and bear no grudge toward you for your attack on my character.     untwirl (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Sheree Silver
Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shamir
I will make that particular reversion, but only because it's in the lead. You can see that the moderators agreed that Shamir was an anti-semite and could be labeled as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamir&action=history Drsmoo (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamir&diff=270375808&oldid=270367157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review For Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie
I asked for a deletion review for Deletion_review. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Intimidated?
In your comment on my talk page, you indicated that you are "afraid to get involved?" Do you find the editors in question intimidating? If so, I suspect (and hope) that after this arb case is over you won't have reason to feel threatened by them anymore. I'm going to note the edit you told me about somewhere in the case, perhaps on the Workshop page. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and yes. Take a look at my talk page Cla68. Look at Colouinthemeaning's talk page. Look at Ynhockey's and NoCal100's. What is going on around here? How is that people can intimidate others, edit-war, wikilawyer, stonewall, be generally unproductive and unpleasant in their dealings with others and nothing happens, while others get slapped with crazy blocks for the smallest things? Anyway, I'm sorry, I'm totally pissed right now. Untwirl, the answer to your comment is at my talk page. Something has got to be done.  T i a m u t talk 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cla68, can you also please also take a look at Lydda Death March, both the article history and talk page. You'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. How is anyone supposed to build featured content in the I-P arena with this kind of editing environment? Take a look at the sourcing at Lod before I edited it today and after. What is going on?  T i a m u t talk 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
The IP has opened a thread about your actions at WP:AN/I. Just letting you know, though it should be closed really soon. AniMate talk 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your remark on the Jerry Seinfeld talk page
I sincerely hope you meant and not me. Drone2Gather (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As seen in your recent edit to Shamir, you seem to have taken a liking to protecting antisemites. If I'm wrong in this assumption, I sincerely apologize in advance. Drone2Gather (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Consolation barnstar
Thanks, that's sweet :) pedrito  - talk  -  15:51 14.05.2009

how to reign in subtle incivility?
Hi untwirl, thanks for your message on my talk. I never know where is best to respond to talk page messages; some people like to keep them together, some don't care; I go back and forth.

I took the time to look over some of your contributions, and liked your editing and your manner in discussing edits. And I learned something. I've never actually looked into those articles and didn't follow that arbitration very closely, since it's not an area of concern to me (I mean, not as far as Wikipedia goes) but looking a little further, I think I was wrong about i/p and other geopolitical and ethnic disputes being somehow different from science/fringe disputes and needing a different kind of resolution. I assumed that in those areas, it was a matter of two groups of good-faith editors with strong beliefs about something having trouble finding the middle ground. But it looks just like more of the same thing; you're right. It's the people who are trying to maintain encyclopedic content vs those whose interest would be served if the content were biased in a particular direction. I don't know if you've been following the Macedonia2 RfArb; it's very distressing to see how that's going.

I have been thinking about posting a comment to the RfC that ArbCom opened to discuss the problem of how to deal with content disputes; I may or may not come up with a coherent statement before the RfC closes.

About subtle incivility: it's a big problem, but raising consciousness among people who don't see it as a problem is a real uphill battle. You saw how little discussion followed when the question (where do we discuss this) was raised. I don't know if you're aware of the page on civil POV pushing but that was one place where it did get some discussion, although I don't think it generated much interest in the community as a whole. I don't know the answer, but it's good to know someone else that is concerned with the question. Woonpton (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Zionism
Good luck! Your edits seem good to me.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND
FYI, this edit, while entirely proper to revert, does not meet the definition of vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No you
Must be one of the most thoughtful and genuine people around here. Thanks for your note. Sorry I did not answer back sooner.  T i a m u t talk 11:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've got my share of callouses too (both literal and metaphorical). I'm still learning how to handle rough things more delicately. See you around me dear.  T i a m u t talk 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help at ANI :). Factsontheground (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shamir blp concerns
I have replied to your comment on the article talk page. You commented on my own talk page that some of the other editor's concerns were valid. However, if you look at his contributions record, you will see that virtually all of them are attempts to smear antifascist activists -- including Expo magazine -- as communist extremists. This calls into question his motivation in removing Expo and other antifascist sources from the article. RolandR 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup
Thanks for the note my dear. They are damn good at baiting, but I've bitten before and been burned as a result, so I'm trying to be smarter than that. Distracting though ... My article productivity takes a real hit when they get active. Anyway, thanks for restoring your comments and keeping an eye out. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised you have any time to be here at all between those three life roles. I've only done two of three of those so far at the same time. I'm hoping the third will be one I'll be privileged enough to experience some time soon.
 * Would love to have coffee with you. Was lucky enough to meet up with one of those that you mentioned very recently. We shared a few cups of coffee in the old Roman bathhouse in Nazareth. Great person, already missed. Anyway, take care of yourself untwirl. Let me know if you ever come here too so that we can do the same.  T i a m u t talk 11:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Study of Islam versus the study of antisemitism
The study of prejudice is no less a respected and learned academic endeavor than the study of the Qur'an. Yes, anyone can claim something is antisemitic - just as anyone can claim something is not antisemitic, or any other claim they want to make. Those facts, however, were irrelevant to the dispute you raised. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(responses copied from jayjg's talk page)

from your note on my talk page i sense your concern that i hold scholars of "prejudice" in lower esteem than those of the Qur'an. quite the strawman, there. if you'll reread, you'll see that i compared the training needed to translate and interpret the Qur'an to that needed to "simply [call] a statement antisemitic."

you claimed,: "Indeed, using your argument, one could insist that if someone is a Qur'anic expert, but not an expert on antisemitism, then he shouldn't be used for deciding if verses are antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

an expert in one field should not be cited for novel interpretations in a completely unrelated field.

lets say Qur'anic experts agree that a phrase translates to "we hate all jews." if one of those experts said, "why, that's antisemitic!", that would be noncontroversial.

however, if you have an expert in "prejudice" interpret the Qur'an, and he comes to conclusions not drawn by actual Qur'anic experts, well, this is rightfully opposed.

tell me, do any of the sources used to support the quote farm contain experts on "prejudice" who declare those statements antisemitic? if you believe that all wikipedia entries containing statements which label people/events/'incidents' antisemitic should be sourced to experts, then please say so. the overuse of that label in contemporary debate would probably lead me to agree. untwirl (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument does, in fact, appear to be exactly that; that scholars of prejudice are just spouting opinions, while scholars of the Qur'an are of a higher order than other scholars. Experts in Qur'anic verses may be able to argue about what verses mean, but that doesn't make them qualified to decide if it constitutes prejudice or antisemitism. These are different academic disciplines, and you cannot privilege one discipline over the other when attempting to decide if and when the two intersect. Walter Laqueur, the scholar in question, is a respected academic, and his book on Antisemitism is published by the Oxford University Press, a highly respected academic publisher. This is not some editorial by a blowhard on a website. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

you are mistaking my argument for my observation. my argument is this: an expert in antisemitism cannot make novel interpretations of the Qur'an. just as an expert in the Qur'an cannot make a novel interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism.

now, my observation was that, in wikipedia, "if the standard for inclusion in an article on antisemitism was expert testimony, we would have far fewer "(blank) and antisemitism" or "antisemitic incidents ..." articles sourced to one-off news reports."

thus, the statement which so offended, "interpreting the Qur'an requires vastly superior scholarship than simply calling a statement antisemitic." taking an accepted definition of something (hating jews=antisemitic) and using that descriptor is not the same as creating an uncorroborated interpretation (the qur'an is referring to all jews in such and such particular phrase) in order to apply the descriptor. untwirl (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
You seem like a good editor to help me with the Anon-Jiujitsuguy Gaza War article War. Can you help me moderate this thread: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Jiujitsuguy_.28talk.29. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This thread has been inflamed. Please see the latest Wikiequette thread at the bottom posted by me.  The heading is Mr. Unsigned Anon. Thanks! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice, about same as Tyw7 gave to me two days ago. Probably in the spirit of Looie496 Notice of discretionary sanctions and the ANI notice from Basket of Puppies. The editwarring is not my problem even if it is of consern. I got problems with Jiujitsuguys personal attacks, lies and laetly trying with false and manipulative statements toget a admin to act upon me. But I think the problem going to be solved with help of editors and admins that spend their time helping out and solving this mess. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Advice
Good advice. I'll step back for a bit. Whew! what a relief. I can actually get back to my life. This Wiki thing really sucks you in.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re request
Well I tried. I think it helped a bit. I screwed up the formatting in my own request too. That template is pretty tricky.  T i a m u t talk 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Neve Daniel
Hi Untrwirl, I saw you restored the link in Neve Daniel regarding the Gush Etzion Convoy. The convoy attacked near the current location of Neve Daniel is not the Gush Etzion Convoy, but the Nebi Daniel Convoy. As the entry states, the Gush Etzion Convoy left Jerusalem on December 11, 1947, whereas the Nebi Daniel Convoy was ambushed on March 27, 1948. This is not the same convoy and the current link is misleading. Would appreciate your response! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.82.54 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you are totally right.  i changed it to Nebi Daniel Convoy.  could you please make a note in your edit summary about that next time?  it helps others to know why you are making changes.  i'll be a little more careful with my research, too.  thanks for catching that!   untwirl (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins Comment in Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations
FYI: I’ve started a discussion of the comment:The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR . at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC at List of Israeli cities
There's a RFC at to talk:List of Israeli cities about weather the articles inclusion of Israeli settlements (with city status) as "Israeli cities" in this context original research, or otherwise problematic. I'm telling you this because you made a related post on the article talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)