User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 8

MfD nomination of User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay
User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rd232 talk 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wikifan12345/RRoss
User:Wikifan12345/RRoss, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikifan12345/RRoss and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikifan12345/RRoss during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rd232 talk 22:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Subpage drafts
I've MFD'd a couple, but perhaps I should have thought to ask you first if you want to delete them yourself. There are a few more old drafts here by the look of things - just add db-user to tidy them up. (See WP:STALEDRAFT.) cheers, Rd232 talk 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding the Israel-related info to the United States diplomatic cables leak article! John Hyams (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard
Sorry, broseph, but this has gone on for too long. Here's the link, it's about you and Finkelstein. Sol (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, they say it's for AE so AE it is. Sol (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, you keeping talking about a content dispute but I have no idea what edit of Wayne's you're referring to. Please don't tell me about it, please link it here. We can deal with it but the AE has nothing to do with current content and everything to do with behavior. Sol (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Dude, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You go and file two dubious incident reports singling out an editor involved in a content dispute you expect me o take your claim of ignorance seriously? I've been more than explicit in both the BLP and AE, have provided numerous links - even copied and pasted the original edit. You want me topic-banned, I understand that - but I really don't have time for these kinds of games. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed that the shotgun approach to communication isn't effective. Like everyone else at the Finkelstein talk page, I have an extremely hard time following your lightning subject changes. Just link it. That's it. I don't want to see you topic banned, I want editing to continue but those two seem mutually exclusive. Sol (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm trying to assume good faith but I'm beginning to think you're playing dumb here. Or your actual presence in the talk discussion is not as comprehensive as it should be. I explicitly mentioned the edit a total of five times. There is no way you could have missed it unless you are deliberately ignoring the edit.
 * Sole, do you even read my edits Sole? Let's forget me for a second. Do you or do you not support Delia's edit? Yes or no?.
 * Again
 * Do you support Delia's proposal that you agreed to? Yes or no?
 * So anyways, the real issue here is your failure to accept Delia's proposal. You and Wayne agreed to it in the RFC, but now you support its removal from the article.
 * If you look above Sole, I asked you and Wayne explicitly if you still endorse Delia's revised edit to replace the current introduction. I asked you in talk. No response. Instead we get this..

You responded to each of those edits without an answer, and now you say you don't know what edit I am talking about? Hmm.

Here is the edit you and Wayne agreed to in the RFC, again: "Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hezbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the 'fundamental principle' is that 'people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers."

And it is suspect that these incident reports suddenly showed up the moment I questioned why Wayne gutted an edit he originally supported in the RFC. These are edits that were made months ago and debated extensively, well before you showed up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was pretty short. Here's the problem: Delia made the edit then you reverted her and included the fake Finkelstein quotes and were subsequently reverted by WLRoss. Your constant references to something I've done or am at the center of obfuscated what you are talking about. The edit in question directly quotes the material used in the wording from the RFC, as Delia explains on the talk page. If you prefer it then talk to Delia and WLRoss. My problem stems from the material you added alongside reverting Delia in conjunction with long-term battleground mentality (say, accusing people of making edits they haven't) and misrepresentation of sources. Sol (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sole, did you actually read my edit? Did you read the edit you linked? Delia it reverting the RFC as well. Here is Delia's proposed text everyone endorsed (in her/his own wordS):

"I must admit that you lost me there. You refer earlier to 'unchallenged quotes like 'people have a right to defend their country from foreign occupier...'' which makes it appear that you object to the use of that quote. I don't object to using it; my proposed text was Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the 'fundamental principle' is that 'people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers.' However, you refer now to something that was removed by Wayne, and I suspect that you are talking about something altogether different than the 'occupiers' Delia Peabody (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"


 * Again - "I would suggest the following version: Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the 'fundamental principle' is that 'people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers.' Delia Peabody (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)"


 * Is it my fault editors flip-flop on talk discussions? I can't baby-sit editors, I didn't start the RFC but I did participate it in the best of my ability. It seems you are more concerned about removing my presence in Israel/Palestine rather than recognizing the shared responsibility of the content dispute. I guess that would involve admitting your error which would weaken the legitimate of the BLP and AE. This was all discussed in talk. Perhaps it would have been better to focus on the discussion than find edits made months ago by me to claim BLP violations. I mean really, months ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is some truly masterful spin. None of it changes your BLP violations, source manipulation, violation of 3RR (and 4RR and 5RR, but who's counting?), impenetrable tendentiousness, endless pettifoggery, or any of the other reasons I filed in AE. You might find this hard to believe, but this isn't about my likes, dislikes or personal agenda. This is about your actions. I came here to see if you had a valid issue with me. Your issue is with consensus changing (or possible changing, it never played out). Talk to the relevant editor. That's not me. This will not be productive to continue. Good day. Sol (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you done? Please talk about my source manipulation. Evidence of 3RR (none exists)? Anymore buzzwords? It takes two to tango and there were multiple editors involved in this discussion. While you continue to ignore the cause of this dispute, you selectively and distort my contributions in this article to get me topic banned. I wish you would have started your AE with that edit above instead. Notice how you cannot dispute the fact that these incident reports were filed after I demonstrated Wayne's warrior mentality and hounding my presence that you and Roland tacitly supported. Why you had to go back months, literally months ago to find disputed or already discussed edits to paint a false picture of disruptive behavior is quite telling. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA, you are hereby banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA, for eight months. You may appeal this sanction as provided in WP:ARBPIA. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never appealed an AE before. What do I do specifically? Do I file a claim here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement has the instructions. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi
You have been served Passionless   -Talk  21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)