Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-21 Hezbollah

Lets divide this into a few discussions

Layout
I saw this on the talk page, and thought this needed to be brought up.

* 1 Introduction (including summaries from each of the following sections) * 2 History o 2.1 1982-2000: Under Israel o 2.2 2000-2005: Post-occupation * 3 Ideology o 3.1 Religous o 3.1.1 Initial o 3.1.2 Evolving o 3.2 Social o 3.2.1 Initial o 3.2.2 Evolving o 3.3 Political o 3.2.1 Initial o 3.2.2 Evolving * 4 Structure and activities o 4.1 Political o 4.1.1 Elected Members

Discussion
Thank you for the attempt, but the issue (as far as I'm concerned) is not so much the result of the layout discussion as the process. I opposed Elizmr's proposed change, but would certainly not have 'gone to the wall' to oppose it, or have been particularly angry if consensus had gone against me. What does irritate me is the idea that it doesn't matter what gets discussed and agreed on the talk page - any editor will feel perfectly entitled to do whatever he pleases at any time for any reason. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JiHy please refer to Editing policy on this. And please try to look at the changes I actually was making and see if they've warranted all this fuss.  I was not introducing anarchy into the page.  I was not doing vandalism.  I was not disrupting the article.  For example, I moved Al-Manar TV from Social Servies to its own section.  I don't know if you've ever seen Al-Manar, and I'm not suggesting you haven't, but it is not all sweet kids cartoons, reading lessons, and cooking shows.  It is pretty blatant hate-inspiring violence-inspiring politically motivated stuff.  This may all be ok and in the service of Allah, (I personally don't think God wants any human to hate any other human), who knows?   What I do know is that most definitions of the english speaking world it is not a "social service" to provide this type of programming, and thus is actually misleading to put it there.  I personally feel the station is a military functionality, but please note that I did not put it there in the structure.  I gave the thing its own section.  No one had said on the talk page, "Al-Manar belongs in Social Services because x, y,z." There was no discussion.  There was a little tree and that was the end of it.  So I changed it with an edit summary and a plan to summarize changes on the talk page.  Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this nonsense and so have you.  If I've hurt you at all or dissed you in any way I apologize.  OK?  Let's move on.  Elizmr 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it very difficult to believe that "ignoring consensus" is considered an acceptable editing style. While the attempt at an apology is appreciated, you are not making any committments whatsoever with respect to future activities - in fact, you are refusing to acknowledge that there is, or was, any issue at all, to the point where you are claiming that there is no need to consider an edit contentious after it has been reverted twice. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JiH, Please try to read my comments suspending your anger and indignation at me for a few minutes and see where I am coming from. Please ALSO at least read the section on editing styles that I've referred to.  I know you are really upset and think I have done something really heinous, and I apoligize for editing in a way that has upset you and will try to avoid similar edits in the future.  OK?  At the same time  I don't think I willfully ignored any properly developed consensus and you are not going to be able to bully me into saying that I did.  Please consider giving me the benefit of the doubt and meeting me half way on this.  If you are not able to do this you could always bring a user conduct rfc against me.  Elizmr 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read the section on editing styles. It provides leeway and discretion. It does not provide carte blanche to do anything you like without accountability. You are sounding more and more like an al-Manar apologist claiming that the right to free speech means they can say anything they like. Bully you? You're here voluntarily. "user conduct rfc"? All I'm looking for is an end to the evasiveness and commitment from you that you will cease your arrogant POV-pushing activities and try to work with the other editors ... and really work with them, not your usual nonsense on the talk page, where you and Sa.va spend all day talking past each other and all night reverting each others' edits. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Points by JiH

 * ensure Elizmr understands meaning of word "consensus"

Please read WP:NPA, assuming he doesnt understand a simple concept such as consensus is not acceptable. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be insulting to assume that any user doesn't understand a simple concept such as consensus. However, Elizmr showed a lack of understanding with the concept through his post referenced here. Another attempt at showing familiarity with the definition was made here, but the crux of this complaint is that Elizmr is flouting consensus in the edits under discussion. This may be due to lack of understanding, in which case he needs to be informed; or it may be done deliberately, in which case he needs to be corrected. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Elizmr here. For a sense of where I was actually coming from on the consensus thing, please see |here.  Elizmr 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be most interested to learn how Elizmr reconciles his actions specified in the "extracts" under "Points by Elizmr", below, with any of his various definitions of "consensus". JiHymas@himivest.com 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply from Elizmr: I think it would be appropriate for JiHym to apologize to me for bringing me to mediation in part to be educated in the correct definition of the term "consensus" (see his original point, above), when the definition he mocked me for using is actually the standard meaning according to the Oxford English Dictionary.  Instead, he insinuates that I am using all sorts of definitions of the term "consensus" while following none of them.  I have commented below as requested, but basically there was really no prior explicit consensus on those points that I could really identify in the old talk pages.  I made edits using appropriate edit summaries.   If JiHym had waited instead of jumping all over me, I would have made a talk page section labeled "recent edits" to discuss all the edits I had made at one time as I've done on other pages after a series of edits.  In any case, when JHim asked me to seek consensus and use the talk page, I did so right away. Elizmr 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * get Elizmr to seek consensus prior to making contentious edits

Valid Point, I would say back to you that you should do the same, as from what I've read everyone editing the article needs to just step away. There have been 211 edits in the past week. 207 is you exclude vandalism, and reverts, roughly 200 if you exclude copyedits, and a little under 200 if you exclude minor edits. Elizmr has had about 25% of those edits. For an article that still has a cleanup tag on it, thats leads me to believe that there aren't a whole lot of productive edits. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of only two circumstances in which I became involved with contentious edits, to wit:
 * "terrorist" vs. "devotee" in paraphrase of US State Department document. I changed this a few times (perhaps two or three; certainly less than six!) then realized that an edit war was developing. I therefore sought consensus on the talk page and abandoned my preferred paraphrase when insufficient clarity of support was obtained. See here for the last talk page edit concerning this matter.
 * The edits under dispute. I reverted twice while attempting to convince Elizmr to seek consensus, then sought mediation when this attempt proved futile. Elizmr thanked me, in fact, for stepping away here
 * Was my behaviour in either case objectionable? Or, if you are referring to other edits, I would appreciate your specifying in which case(s) my behaviour was improper. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * get Elizmr to respect consensus on points discussed by others

see the previous point. All editors of the page Hezbollah need to think and plan before editing. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ultimately block Elizmr if the unilateral pattern of the edits is not reversed

First off, thats not for you to decide. A block in general would be rediculous, he's done nothing that would constitue blocking, an ultimate block (i.e. indefinetly) would be way out of the question,

Secondly, this isn't Arbitration. This is two people wanting to settle a dispute. There are no punnishments resulting from decisions. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is my hope that agreement will be achieved through this mediation. Such an agreement would lead to an end to the unilateral pattern of the edits. However, if the unilateral pattern of the edits is not reversed, I would be seeking to move the dispute to those with the authority to block. It may have been extraneous for me to mention the potential for further action here. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Points by Elizmr

 * 1) I do not think I have ignored consensus on the page. I have entered into rather long discussions with other users with opposing opinions to mine and have reached compromise wording that, I think, was mutually acceptable. Please see Talk:Hezbollah#Current discussion and Talk:Hezbollah#Widened or Abandoned.


 * 1) I do not think I have refused to seek consensus on this page. I made some structural edits last night, all accompanied by descriptive edit summaries. JiHymas reverted my changes and ask me to discuss on talk first. I thought this was perfectly reasonable, and did create a new subhead on talk for every change I had made: Talk:Hezbollah, Talk:Hezbollah, Talk:Hezbollah and Talk:Hezbollah.

I Believe that these points are valid, but 50 edits to the same page in one week, without anyone else editing it leaves me to believe that you need to try and plan out ahead of time what you want to do. Maybe you could use a subpage instead of making constant edits. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An extract of changes to the article:
 * 2006-08-20-23:25 Elizmr changed structure of article here with the edit note "Social Activities - remove umbrella term "social activities" over "media activities"; arguably Al Manar functions in service of the military arm as a propaganda organ--goal is not merely social"
 * 2006-08-20-23:33 I reverted with note "Revert to version Revision as of 23:22, 20 August 2006 : Structural changes have not been discussed"
 * 2006-08-21-00:34 Elizmr deleted the Al-Manar section with the edit note "taking this out of social services; this was discussed on talk"
 * 2006-08-21-01:14 I reverted with the edit note "Revert to 23:39, 20 August 2006 - see talk"
 * 2006-08-21-01:14 Elizmr tagged the section with the edit note "tag section. AL MANAR doesn't belong in social services---this is a whitewash"
 * 2006-08-21-01:34 Elizm again changed the structure of the article with the edit note "I have made a reasonable argument for not putting al manar just under social activities; stop reverting this change without any defence of why it is only a "social service""
 * And in this particular case, you processed a change to a page:
 * After having asked for consenus
 * After having allowed the period of 37 minutes in the middle of the night (EST) to enable other editors to air their views
 * After having received exactly one reply to your request for consensus
 * Ignoring the fact that this one reply was negative.
 * I have to ask again: how can you possibly feel that an assumption of good faith can be maintained? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An extract of changes to the talk page:
 * 2006-08-20-23:35 I posted a note to the on-going discussion of structure asking that structural changes be discussed properly. It may be noted that a structural change had been agreed at this point and that at no point had Elizmr contributed to the discussion of the proposed structure.
 * 2006-08-20-23:41 Elizmr created a section to discuss the structural change to the al-Manar section. It may be noted that this section is not situated near any other discussion of structure.
 * 2006-08-20-23:42 Elizmr added to the al-Manar section, claiming that the change was necessary to avoid POV. It may be noted that no mention of such an issue was made at the time he had placed the tag on the article (02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC))
 * 2006-08-20-23:47 Elizmr created a new section on structure, completely un-integrated with any previous discussion.
 * 2006-08-20-23:48 I disagreed with the (proposed?) change in the structure with respect to the al-Manar section.
 * 2006-08-20-23:48 Elizmr deleted my notice of disagreement


 * NOTE: This was an unintentional edit conflict.  I have never deleted anyone's remark on the talk page intentionally.  Elizmr 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, I haven't been in too many edit conflicts. But I seem to remember that on those occasions in which I have, the system has warned me, prior to accepting my edits. Did this not happen here? Perhaps the mediator can advise - is this a universal feature of the Wikipedia software? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elizmr has claimed that he did not "intentionally delete anything written in the talk page by another editor." As far as I can tell, there are three possible scenarios that fit the observed facts:
 * It was an edit conflict and the software did not warn Elizmr that another editor's contribution was to be deleted. In such a case, no blame can be attached to Elizmr for the deletion - it was to check the possibility of such a scenario that I asked the question above.
 * It was an edit conflict, the software warned Elizmr that there was a conflict that would result in the deletion of another contribution and he ignored this warning. I would consider this to be wilful negligence, an unethical instance of bad faith - particularly considering that both edits entered at that time were simple one-paragraph affairs that could easily be copy-pasted.
 * It was a deliberate deletion. I normally would not consider such a possibility, but Elizmr's conduct throughout the episode encourages me to verify everything. I regret that I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia software to state definately whether the public information regarding this deletion (e.g. the timestamps of the edit records) is consistent with an edit conflict. There may be additional non-public information in the system records that would conclusively answer the question. Perhaps the mediator can help us out a little with respect to this question.
 * JiHymas@himivest.com 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this for a scenairo, "JiHy could see that his comment was deleted, assume good faith, leave a comment on elizmr's talk page about the deletion, put his comment back, and just chill out. When elizmr said she didn't do a delete intentionally (and she would have apologized for doing it even unintentionally if given half a chance), he could believe her and just drop the matter rather than perseverating on it for days and days and days and days. Elizmr 23:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your continued evasiveness on this point lead me to conclude that, at the very least, the Wikipedia software informed you of an edit conflict and that you wilfully ignored this warning - possibly after examining the post to determine your action. This would be disgraceful conduct at the best of times, but considering that it was a post opposing a change that you had proposed and were desperate to process immediately, your lack of action was completely unethical. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JiHy please please please lighten up. Please consider putting yourself in my shoes for a minute.  I was editing at what was like 5am here, no one else was editing on the page.  I was trying to improve the article.  All of the sudden you started reverting my chages, saying I was ignorning consensus, making the reasonable request to discuss on talk.  So I started editing talk to outline all my changes.  You were also editing talk at the same time in a rapid fire manner to reply to what I had said.  It was really CONFUSING and unexpected.  I honestly don't remember if I might have saved a page after a note informing me of another edit.  This is not something I typically do.  I am not being evasive here, I am being honest.  Occassionally I have been in your shoes and after askign someone about what happened was told this was an edit conflict.  That is why I told you this was what this was.  If I did something unintentionally, I have apologized and I apologize again, OK?   In your thoughts on this matter, please try to put this in context and ask yourself, has any damage been done?  And try  to give me the benefit of the doubt.  One thing you are not going to be able to achieve is to get me to say that I did this INTENTIONALLY because I did not and would not ever do something like this intentionally.  If you are going to persist in your belief that I did this intentionally for a nefarious purpose then a user conduct rfc will be your only recourse.  I can't say anything more in this context than I have alreay said, and will say the same in a user conduct rfc.  I will answer your other comments later.  I am not late for work.  Elizmr 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 5am? Now you're claiming that it was 5am when you indulged yourself? That's kind of interesting, because here you claimed you are on Eastern Time ("also in Eastern time", you claimed). Now, I don't know about you, but when I look at the timestamps on the edits on question, everything happened at midnight-ish UTC - in other words, 8pm-ish EDT, a time which is much more in accord with my own recollections than a pre-dawn skirmish. How do you account for this discrepency? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also pretty clear that you feel that claiming your actions were unintentional makes a difference. There's not much real difference between wilful negligence and a deliberate act, Elizmr - and virtually no ethical difference. Your continued evasions all over this page, your continued misrepresentations, your conduct with respect to the Hezbollah article for months all make it very difficult to give you any benefit of the doubt. Apologies? Apologies from you have to be considered meaningless. Make a committment regarding your future conduct and put it in the "compromise offers" section. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I work as an internist and keep some weird hours. I thought it was early in the am, but time stamps don't lie. I am not being evasive. Elizmr 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 2006-08-20-23:52 I reinstated my notice of disagreement
 * 2006-08-20-23:54 I asked that the new section on structure (created at 23:47) be integrated with prior discussion.


 * NOTE This isn't "asking" it is more like an order: "Take it up in the discussion of "Structure" on this page" Elizmr 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When you show blatant contempt for the opinions of other editors, Elizmr, you can't be too surprised at a little curtness. Why did you insist that your ideas be discussed only in an isolated section and not integrated in any way whatsoever with the ideas and opinions of other editors? JiHymas@himivest.com 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I note that Elizmr is continuing his refusal to address this issue. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is very time consuming to repeatedly address all the issues you raise. I have already given you honest answers, several times, from my point of view.  I hear that you are upset and that you feel I have done bad edits, but saying that I have shown "blatant contempt for the opinions of other editors" as demonstrated by my starting a new talk page section for discussion of something that came under the general umbrella of a past discussion topic is way way over the top. I thought your orig comment to me directing me to move the discussion was overly controlling (and noted someone else had done something similar and he or she was not directed to comment in the "right" place.  I do not understand why you are perseverating on this issue.  Elizmr 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you managed to create so many issues in a relatively short period of time is indeed regrettable. You are again evading the issue by not addressing the question of why you felt that your views on structure merited a separate section from the structural discussions of every other editor on the page. That was the origin, Elizmr: if you had made any attempt whatsoever to work with any other editors there would have been no issue. Why didn't you? Your statement dismissing any notion of cooperation with anybody on the grounds that the discussion was a 'bit old' was thoroughly ridiculous: any reasonable person would assume that a discussion that


 * had achieved concensus - not just consensus, but unanimity. There was not a single objection to the proposed changes, not even from an unregistered commentator
 * and that had resulted in a commitment from Banzai that the agreed changes would be processed on the very weekend in which our contretemps occured,
 * and that you had never bothered to join despite your fervent view that "media" had to be separated from "civilian activities" in order for the article to be neutral
 * that had not been challenged at all
 * was stronger than a more "fresh" discussion, not weaker. But then, paying attention to the other editors is simply not your "editing style", right? JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 2006-08-21-00:15 Elizmr dismissed any consideration of the prior discussion of structure
 * Given this history, I fail to see how any assumption of Good Faith can be maintained. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: When I added a specific structure question under its own heading on the talk page, and JHim told me to use another section (see his language above), I was irritated as I felt he was being overly controlling. Another editor had done this the previous day and JHim did not jump all over him telling him to use the "correct" talk page section.  Moreover, I had looked at the old structure discussions, and none of them had addressed the particular points I was addressing that I could find.  I didn't want the question of order of topics to get lost, so I started a new section for this specific discussion.  I fail to see how this shows editing in bad faith.  Elizmr 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe that I jumped all over you Elizmr, you ain't never been jumped over! If you were concerned about the other editor's structural change and felt it needed to be addressed, then it was up to you to address it. You've complained that I act as if I own the article - you are now complaining that I don't act as if I own the article. Make your mind up. Your rationale for starting a new section on structure is absurd. How can there be parallel structures in a single article? You showed bad faith in this matter by:
 * ignoring the discussion of structure that other editors had engaged in while at the same time asserting that a structural matter was so important as to warrant a POV tag on the entire article. This was despite the fact that the existence of a discussion of structure had explicitly been brought to your attention.
 * attempting to use the POV tag as carte-blanche to force through any changes you happened to want.
 * changing your rationale for the POV tag to suit your concerns of that immediate moment
 * not making any attempt whatsoever to specify precise changes desired prior to voluntary removal of the POV tag
 * insisting on ram-rodding the change with respect to the al-Manar section despite the fact that in your attempt to achieve whatever you thought at the moment constituted consensus you had received precisely one response (within half an hour, which isn't bad), which had been negative, which you had then deleted.
 * JiHymas@himivest.com 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Looking through the talk section, I didn't find any EXPLICIT discussion of why Al-Manar belonged in "Social Services" and JHim did not make any explicit argument about why it belonged there.  There was no thoughtful discussion that had led to a consensus about this.  I asked JHim to express why he thought it belonged in "Social Services" rather than just putting it back there reflexively and I thanked him when he did.  I fail to see how this shows editing in bad faith.  Elizmr 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the proposed structure, you will see the proposed section 4.3: "Civilian (including media)", "media" being the title of the section you were changing. If you did not find it, then you were negligent in checking. If you made a unilateral change to the discussed structure because a new argument suddenly occurred to you late on a Sunday, then you were showing disdain for concensus and contempt for the efforts of the other editors of the article. If you had wished to make a change to the proposed structure based on some argument that a television station is not a civilian activity, then you were more than welcome to start such a discussion on the talk page. You showed bad faith in not allowing any discussion on an issue that you claimed was so important as to warrant a POV tag if you did not get your way and have the article parrot the Israeli line. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elizmr has objected to my statements of 8/29 and claimed that I have assumed bad faith when, in fact, good faith was assumed until bad faith was demonstrated. He has defended his actions by asserting that "there is no Wikipedia policy stating that anything I did was wrong". I believe that such an attitude is referred to as 'wikiLawyering' - perhaps the mediator can clarify whether this is the case. In any event, I have the following question for Elizmr: how did he expect his actions to be viewed? Regardless of what he was intending to accomplish, regardless of whether my characterization of his actions could be objectively considered "fair" or not, regardless of whether the world would be changed by rapid and effective Wikipedia edits, his actions will be viewed as I have stated, with varying levels of intensity dependent upon editor committment to the project. He was not told to shut up; he was not told to go away; he was not told his ideas were stupid; he not insulted in any way. He was asked to look for consensus on the talk page, to integrate his discussion with extant discussion and wait 24 hours so that all editors would have a reasonable chance to view and comment upon the changes. That's all. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JiHy, I have "no comment" on your remarks above on what a great and reasonable guy you have been, except to say that I am not in total agreement with your statements. How did I expect to be percieved?  In an ideal fantasy world, I would have expected to have my edits viewed with gratitude for bringing some well-written and well-referenced and missing but valid and real viewpoints to the article.  More realistically, I would have expected questions and discussion on changes made and necessary reworkings and compromise wordings to be arrived at.  I actually did not expect rapid-fire reversions without even a polite comment on my user talk page.  I did not expect a mediation case to be opened after I had already started the requested discussions on the talk page (which I would have started anyway when I was done with the string of edits I was doing).  Elizmr 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that we have arrived at the crux of the matter. In the case where you wish to edit the work of other editors, you have shown that you consider it your "editing style" to ignore consensus, indulge in multiple reversions and simply provide brief explanations of your actions afterwards. However, should another editor wish to edit what you have done, you expect "questions and discussion on changes made and necessary reworkings and compromise wordings to be arrived at". You additionally require personalized notes to be left at your user talk page. Would you agree that this is a fair summary of your position? If not, why not? JiHymas@himivest.com 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So you believe you have arrived at the "crux of the matter". Good for you. You ask, "would you agree that this is a fair summary of your position?" Well, no, actually I would not. If you want a fair summary of my position please read those that I have actually offered on this page and the project page for this mediation. Elizmr 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, Elizmr, I've looked all over the pages, including the page you wander off to every now and then to declaim your lines in blissful isolation ... and I can't find any other section in which you clearly state your views on how you expect to be treated as opposed to how you expect others to treat you. If my summary is so wrong, Elizmr, show it's wrong. Back it up with some evidence. And stop being evasive. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

JiHy, I am done. Every answer I provide becomes fodder for your next personal attack. Elizmr 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I have not made "contentious" edits for "avowedly" political reasons. I want the page to acurately and fairly reflect all povs in a neutral manner. I am trying to work towards this goal. SeeTalk:Hezbollah#JiHymas reversions


 * And in your vocabulary, "Whitewash" as used in your edit summary is not an avowedly political POV is it? You have made no secret of your views on Hezbollah, particularly with respect to Israel, and have sought to have them reflected in the article, throughout your hundreds of edits. JiHymas@himivest.com 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Both of you both need to just step back realize that this is controversial topic, and when a dispute arives, people can get tense and over react. Take a week off and then come back to the page. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I think I understand the meaning of the word consensus. In consensus, all opinions are given consideration before decisions are made. Consensus does not mean, "majority rules." In a few instances, I do not think that JiHymas's sometimes dismissive comments have always honored this definition, see Talk:Hezbollah.

There is no need for those types of remarks. You were both out of line in those comments. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me which of my comments in this section were out of line? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no detail from Elizmr, anyway. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * JiHy, I did not say that you were out of line, so why I offer a detail here? Elizmr 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Just so you know, others have been editing the page as well. As far as the subpage thing goes, I am willing to try it and have done it before when I have been working on something really complicated. I generally prefer to make small edits rather than editing on a subpage and bringing it in wholesale for two reasons. First, I can use the edit summaries to make sure people understand the thought behind each edit individually. It makes things very explicit. Also, since many people are often editing at once, when one person brings in something done "off-line" it can end up wiping out work that was done between the time the editor grabbed a version to edit and the time the new version was imported in. I don't want to delete someone else's work. Elizmr 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)