User talk:Wood345

Cleanup on Palestine
Hi Wood345, it's always nice to have a new editor who actually knows something, so welcome. You might want to create a user page, click here, so your name doesn't always appear as a red link. Also, if you didn't do it already, put an email address in your preferences so that private messages are possible. You can send email to a user by clicking the "E-mail this user" link on their home page or home talk page; that only works if you have set an email address for yourself.

On the matter of article cleanup: even though I am an administrator, the rules don't allow me to use my powers regarding content disputes that I am personally involved in. (There are only a few exceptions such as pure vandalism.) One thing you can do is to list the problem at Requests for comment. You can also ask for official mediation at Requests for mediation. Unfortunately the dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia are time consuming and do not always produce a reasonable outcome. Cheers. --Zerotalk 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ive finally figured this page out
Thanks for the replies. Ill get on this when I have some free time.

Thank you

Talk:Palestine
You've recently blanked page Talk:Palestine. Please be more accurate as such actions considered to be vandalism. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sign your comments, put them to user talk page, and don't argue with me - I've provided link, supporting my claim. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not entirely sure of where to put this comment. This system is still very new to me. Apparently, you have taken issue to my recent edits to the Palestine page. I dont understand. I am putting a request for moderation listing at the top of talk:palestine. This whole process is difficult for me.

From the tone of your message, you seem unhappy that Ive blanked something. I dont understand what I've blanked. Is this a wikipedia term that I'm unfamiliar with?Wood345 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You blanked a talk page in the edit that Tasc pointed out. Just be a bit more careful in future. --Guinnog 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let keep discussion in one place. I've answered on my talk page, but I'd really appreciate if we could continue (if needed) here. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wood345, I am sure what you did was an accident, but Tasc was quite right to point it out to you. There's no need to overreact; just be more careful. Using the "Preview" function will often avoid such errors. --Guinnog 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is talk page. You can see User talk in an address bar. Please, don't leave any more comments on my talk page, thanks, -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is where the talk page is. I'm not computer illiterate at all, I promise. Its just that, seriously, I have no idea how adding what I added blanked the page. When I clicked refresh, It showed the whole page. it showed that i entered Palestine Demographics, rather than Palestine, and that was an error i was looking to fix. I really am trying to learn your format, but I'm seriously confused as to how that blanked the page. Is there a way that incorrectly filing a RFM wil inadvertently do that?Wood345 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I made no effort to select any text, manipulate the article, or anything other than add the small string required for me to add a RFM. I would really not like to repeat any wikipedia faux-pas in the future. I would like to understand what went wrong so i don't repeat it. Thany you everyone for your patience.Wood345 23:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the preview function I suggested above. Don't worry, we all make mistakes. --Guinnog 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * do you see that word blanked in my original post is linked? if yes, please follow the link - you'll be able to find editor's name (Wood345) and results of an edit (blanking). It has nothing to do with addition of RFM tag, which was added in later edit. You've got quite a bit of useful links above, why not read them before starting active editing. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I promise, all I thought i did was simply add the RFM tag the first time. The page loaded up with a box on top with the RFM yellow box and how it was referring to a non-existent RMF page of Palestine Demographics. I incorrectly added palestine demographics instead. I then went and corrected the mistake. I do not want to cause a stir here or start an argument. I admit I am very new, but I know I didnt select any text. I am sure you are right that the page was blanked. I'm not sure how i did it, thats all. I would just like to know what I did wrong so i can fix it. Terribly sorry, everyone. Wood345 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please use peoples' talk pages rather than their user pages to send them messages, such as your RFM request (that I agreed to). Generally speaking user pages are only edited by their owners (there can be exceptions). Thanks. --Zerotalk 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zero I'm fixing the remaining unsigned persons page, Almaqdisi, and placing it on their talk page. Also, I will approach AMA for help with the next step in resolving this conflict so I avoid the problems listed above.Wood345 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wood345, I don't think you did anything wrong. Around the same time I made a different edit where the whole page was replaced by some random other page after saving. I immediately reverted myself when I saw that the page contained nonsense after saving. When I just looked back, the mysterious diff had disappeared. Apparently something went wrong in the wikipedia servers, but the faulty edit was silently repaired a few days later. More information: Wikipedia village pump and wiki-tech mailing list. Han-Kwang 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This would make much more sense to me. I actually saw the page after the offending edit. I saw that I had entered in the "Palestine Demographics" rather than Palestine and there was stuff below it. Wood345 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I added an extra message on your talk page. In hindsight, I probably should have just kept it all here considering the ire this attracted before. At any rate, thank you.Wood345 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Thank you for providing the link to my edit confirming that I just added in a text string at the top of the page. I was working pretty hard to make sure my RFM was right, and to be then accused of vandalism was enough to have me doubt my ability to work this system at all. The whole experience was rather intimidating.Wood345 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strangely the History page in the link you provide has the edit history These edits, minus Amoruso's, dont appear on the palestine page now. Moreover, I see that this sequence, from Amoruso's Nov 27 entry to my dec 1 entry, there is now many other entries in the current palestine edit history (between Nov 27 and Dec 1). Compare the current article with the link'sedit history. Why is that? What is going on?Wood345 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur) (last)  23:16, 1 December 2006 Wood345 (Talk | contribs)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 23:14, 1 December 2006 Tasc (Talk | contribs) m (rv Wood345 (talk) to Amoruso (talk))
 * 3) (cur) (last) 23:08, 1 December 2006 Wood345 (Talk | contribs)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 13:56, 27 November 2006 Amoruso (Talk | contribs) (→Again POV issues)

I think there was some kind of glitch. Don't worry about it. --Guinnog 06:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Advocacy
Hi, I've read through the background to the matter (although it seems the conversation has stopped somewhat over the last few days). It appears there is a consensus that Twain and Katz should not be included, so I am surprised that people are not removing them from the article page. For me, ttwo policies seem relevant. First, per WP:V (combined with WP:RS), are these sources reliable? Second, per the undue weight section of WP:NPOV, is adding these sources giving undue weight to them, or in other words, if you have an abundance of peer-reviewed "expert" sources, do you really need to include less-expert ones?

You asked about the next stage in conflict resolution. At the moment, I'm not sure one exists. The Arbitration Committee can only deal with behavioural concerns - it cannot impose binding solutions on content. And all the editors involved have remained reasonably civil so I'm not sure there's much of a case there (and I would encourage you to remain as polite as possible; always argue based on the content, not the actions of another user). I think you would be justified in removing the disputed content, as the consensus on the talk page seems to support that. Then see how other users react. I don't want to encourage an edit war, but I don't think the majority of users support the current inclusion of those sources. Thanks. Trebor 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input and time. I'm guessing that User:Amoruso will object and revert the stated passages.  I'm suprised that there is not another way to arbitrate the issue outside of an 'edit war.'Wood345 14:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, do you think it would be a better idea to, rather than just remove the offending passages, but to put them together in a chronological order, making them more readable? In other words, rather than just delete, also move the article around in an effort to present a more fluid article?Wood345 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This depends on whether you feel they deserve inclusion at all. I am not qualified to judge on this issue, but don't feel obliged to include something due to editors' persistence, if you honestly don't feel it should be. A compromise is not always the right choice, if some editors are firmly in the wrong (acting against consensus). I'm not sure what I can do to help at the moment; if you want specific help with anything, just say here (or e-mail me). Trebor 22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No I don't feel that they deserve inclusion due to the rules listed above and relative concensus. These extra sources conflict with accepted peer-reviewed data and, through their contradictions with these peer-reviewed sources, confuse the article. Researching the archives for arbitration, an edit war is highly frowned upon, and, from witnessing the discussion on the Palestine talk page, I am certain that any deletion on my part will result in a edit war. I do not want to go that route. i feel that bringing in outside help to arbitrate this matter is the only remaining solution as the debate is clearly at an impasse with user Amoruso. Again, thank you for your time. Wood345 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but bear in mind they don't arbitrate on content disputes, only behavioural matters, so any case brought should focus on how editors have behaved inappropriately, not on whether the info should or should not be included. Trebor 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that two particular users Amoruso and Shamir1 want those sources in regardless of consensus, and will reinstert them forever if they need to. Similar situtations involving the same two users exist on many other pages. In my opinion the only remedy at the moment is an arbitration case against those users. --Zerotalk 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reading, Zero. Is that something that I will have to fill out? If so, I will be extra careful this time to follow every rule so as to avoid the problems coming from my inexperience with this system. Wood345 14:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please email me: nought_0000(at)yahoo.com.  --Zerotalk 14:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, sent a test e-mail. Wood345 14:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

White people
I have deleted the pic of Egyptian men because we had agreed not to include any pics. It's really silly to include only his pic as a "legal white". See relevant talk page. Lukas19 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19
Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)