User talk:RomaC

Welcome to RomaC's Talk page!

If you post something here I will (eventually) respond on this page, so check back please. Just start at the bottom, write something interesting/informative/amusing and then sign your post by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Doylestown

Thanks for deleting the band-cruft. *Zero* Google hits tells the tale. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for a third opinion

Gregbrown You are listed on the 'third opinions' page, and I chose your name at random. Thank you in advance for considering this. Last week, I placed, onto the Jack Benny biography page, an External Link entitled 'Jack Benny Audio history free MP3 book.' http://www.geocities.com/jackbennyhistory Minutes after I put the link up, an Administrator took the link down. I looked at my online traffic checker (Statcounter.com), and it is almost certain that this Administrator did not even click on the link -- seeing what was on the site -- before he took the link down. If this is the case, all of the later explanations given about why he took down the link are for naught (in my opinion), because all he knew about the link were the words on the External Link: 'Jack Benny Audio History free MP3 book'

My question is how much consideration an Administrator should give to an External Link before acting upon it. Relatedly, what is the procedure an Administrator should follow when acting upon an External Link.

There is discussion about this on my talk page, and I went to the Cabal prior to coming to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13_Easy_question_for_mediators A person on the Cabal suggested bringing in a third opinion. Thank you.

Gregbrown 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Greg, I don't have a lot of time right now but my gut feeling is that the link was perceived as advertising/spam and deleted for that reason. If that is the case, my concern would be with determining whether that might have been a hasty and/or incorrect conclusion based on the name of the link alone. I assume you're arguing that the link is not advertising/spam. I'll look at the discussion pages later and comment there. RomaC 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregbrown Thank you very much. I truly hope that this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Thanks again I appreciate your help here. My note to you a few hours ago (it was in this spot) said that I was trying to find the third party comment. Now, I see that you put your comment into my Talk page(I thought that all comments went to the bottom of a page), so I thank you for giving a reply. I will make more progress, and I appreciate your help. Gregbrown 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there. Always nice to see someone using the policy trifecta.

I hope you have a nice holiday in Germany!

--Kim Bruning 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, is down to you always!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote

Hello RomaC,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Talk:Gordon Ramsay

sorry for the delay but I have finally replied to your last comment re the "vegetarian" pizza incident -- Barliner  talk  18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

article note

i replied to your concerns, at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded on Addhoc's talk page, thanks. RomaC (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for wiki-addiction

Ouch, 3rd opinion, and RC patrol? I hope you don't get *too* addicted. Have fun! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks kim, I have actually been on Wiki for four years now, but recently found some time (chilly outside), so stepped in a bit more, and seem to have landed in the fire hehehe RomaC (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Philostophy lyrics

I'm copy-pasting this from the Greggery Peccary talkpage, just to make sure you get the heads up. The correct lyric is actually "of". It makes sense when considering the quote in the context of the song. DeNameland, being an experienced philostopher, would be loathe to give too straight an answer to either central dilemma (either the cause of the New Brown Clouds, or, on a meta level, whether Greggary is the bad guy for creating the calender or if the young hipsters are just freaking out over nothing). Saying that "time is an affliction" would be casting his vote squarely on the side of the hipsters. Rather, what DeNameland is saying is that there is an affliction attached to time - similar to saying a pregnant woman is "with child". And, specifically, that afflicition is, as he leans towards proclaiming, that the EONS ARE CLOSING. A much more notable site within the Zappa community - in fact, the site from which your link seems to have copy-pasted the lyrics - has it as "of", further reinforcing my above statement. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

what seem to be the problem with my talk page?

I have blanked it - as I always does - inorder to archive things, and keep my talk page clean. Now it apears twice - on archive and talk page? is ther any kind of problem? --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking your talk page hides warnings against your conduct. Users do not 'own' their talk pages. These are for community communication. If you read the warnings why are you persisting in moving an article without consensus? RomaC (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even Shabazz says there is no problem with it according to policy ? but ok, i'll keep for now, not to caus dispute --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the content of Deir Yassin (not title yet)

Would there be any problem if I ad at list additional lines to it (The jews wounded etc). I'm not talking on the title at the moment ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article talk page. RomaC (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent

Thanks for your contribution to the page and also for pointing out that "half" is not a proper descriptor. However, I would like to ask for your opinion once again.

The point of the page was to highlight the ethnic background of the players, rather than their nationality. "Japanese" is both an nationality and ethnicity, where as "Canadian" is a generally considered as a nationality, but not as an ethnicity (as it is a mixed ethnic/racial culture).

In your opinion, do you believe that "Japanese, mixed ancestry" would be an acceptable term for an individual coming from biological parents of two (or more) different distict, ethnic backgrounds? "Japanese and European" is likely overkill, and hafu, I believe, is slang.

Thanks in adavance, TakTak (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi TakTak. This is an interesting and somewhat sensitive question. I started a talk page for the article and let's see what we can come up with RomaC (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that players born in Asia, from Asian/Soviet backgrounds should be included as Asian, not European. Examples are Alexander Mogilny (from Khabarovsk in the Russian far east), and Nik Antropov (or any player) from Kazakhstan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrynen (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dziekański Taser incident

I've just taken a brief look at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident. I'm concerned that the user you're dealing with isn't so much concerned with the logical points you've made on the page, but is more worried about getting a lot of people on his side and trying to gang up on you. It concerns me because everything you've said on that talkpage is absolutely right but user Ckatz would rather be disruptive and argumentative for whatever reason. I've added my own comments. Since he is so worried about third parties, maybe me stepping in and telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about will get through to him. Happy holidays! Coastme20 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Excuse me, but I did NOT "blank the lead" as you have suggested in your warning on my TALK page. In fact, it is you who are reverting sourced material in the lead. As per TALK, there are issues in the lead being discussed. The version you keep reverting to is inaccurate. The conflict did not start on the 27th of December nor did it start without any reason. Nor is it one-sided. Please stop editing out important clarifications from the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs in the lead. Check talk pages before replacing large section of an article. I used too strong a warning, sorry. RomaC (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line

What you put here at Tundrabuggy's talk page was way out of line. That tempalte's is reserved for serious vandalism, not for contentious editing. If you had an issue, you should have raised it in the talk page. I reviewed the history, and his/her edits seem contentious and WP:3RR, and of course happened without discussion, but declaring them vandalism without previous, less escalating discussion was out of line. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What ownership issues? Please explain. If you think you over did it, then just apologize, nothing bad with that. Its just now his intervention on the talk page makes much more sense. I can't control how other people feel, I can, however, control how I feel. And I feel for the most part we have been civil. Lets keep it that way, shall we? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerjota you are currently having arguments with several other editors, I propose a truce so you can focus there. Also things have not improved since you told me not to complain but to revert Tundra's disruptive editing, as you can see he's running roughshod over the lead. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

I recently had an exchange with User:Cerejota on the issue of including a concise casualty count in the introduction. I think its very important, because this what is most important for many readers -- the impact of the war in terms of human lives. I was reverted with User:Cerejota saying that this was "per discussion". As far as I could see, in the earlier discussions a majority of editors seemed to support the inclusion of this fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this understanding. If not, please look at the main discussion page and also the discussion page on the Lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your Talk RomaC (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre

Done, Romac. Check all those "high quality" references in the Lead ;). --Darwish07 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the references I have put are different from your proposed ones cause they weren't exactly from the middle east region. I know that this means that we should say in the lead that not only Arabs refer to the offense as Gaza Massacre but a lot of other journalists and approximately the whole Muslim world (which is much bigger than Arab world), but I'm not welling to enter another deadly debate now. Anyway, the new references handle the case of "Gaza + Massacre" very well. It's been clear that because people didn't like the term, they tried to outsmart the references by by using illogical false arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

totally disputed

User:Jaakobou has placed a totallydisputed tag on the page. Its quite inappropriate given that there are already tags that indicate that this is under development and documents a current war. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia policy on this issue... but what can be done when a disruptive editor places a tag like this without even a justification on the talk page? Can the tag be removed or can any administrative action be taken against the editor involved? thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is a very aggressive editor, there was an article years ago, "Media_coverage_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict" that was marred by wikilawyering nitpicking and just plain dogged determination. This editor was warned for his editing when at the highest level when a dispute on the entire series of Israeli-Palestinian articles went to arbitration. I suggest you explore all avenues, talk to some non-involved admins as well, I will try to back you up as I fear this editor will not back down and will try anything and everything to push his views on the article. RomaC (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

5+5

thanks for the message, but I would refuse to make such a compromise. I appreciate the warning, and I know this to be true. I have read almost every I/A article that wikipedia has, and almost every talk page and archived discussion, so i already know some of the players. But thanks again, peace Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I left out one word that changed the meaning entirely hehehe. "oops" ~I would also not make that compromise... RomaC (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

all good yo, was confused for a minute. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Dead kids are not 'porno'

V.Joe, your comments "(images of dead Palestinian children) can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three" are highly offensive and wholly inappropriate. Consider a substitution of the word "Jewish" for "Palestinian" and "Israel" for Hamas" and tell me what sort of reaction you would expect. You were politely asked to strike out the vile comments, your blithe refusal to do so is noted. RomaC (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, You did not politely ask me (and WanderSage, and Tundra Buggy)to change or strike-out our comments. You demanded it. I don't do well with demands. And I dislike your implied threat.

Unfortunately, the nature of Hamas is a death-cult, and the use by largely (but not completely) Muslim youths unhappy with their lives in both Muslim countries and non-Muslim country to compare the poverty they might face in Egypt and the discrimination (quite real) in France or Sweden. This is a form of pornography as I understand it. (Namely, literature or images to encourage fantasies.) Hamas does not belong to the level of Fatah or even the Muslim Brotherhood (alternatively non-Islamic terrorist organizations, like the PIRA or the 1930s era Ku Klux Klan or the Red Brigades), but instead to the likes of Al-Qaeda or Aztec priests with sacrificial knives dripping blood. (Instead of feeding Quetzalcoatl with blood, these men wish to feed God with blood, the blood of the Israelis, but also the blood of themselves and their children. I cannot envision a God, compassionate and merciful, who wishes these things.) This is not the faith of the Muhammad (to me, a historical figure, not a religious one) who banned female infanticide any more than the Inquisition was the faith of the historical Yeshua. I have a limited sympathy for the Palestinian people but very little for Fatah and none at all for Hamas. These images were also taken of a human tragedy, of whatever cause, and posted in a very public place to garnish sympathy for a cause. I appeal to you, where are the pictures of the dead children from Checyna (Russian and Chechnik) or from Tamil. V. Joe (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On a procedural note, please observed that I have moved your comments on my talk page about, but have not changed a word nor a comma. V. Joe (talk)

V.Joe, I am disappointed but unfortunately not surprised that you refuse to apologize for or strikeout your reprehensible comments associating dead Palestinian children with pornography and "death-cults." Your argument above provides me no evidence of coherent thinking, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks a lot for your note. Your are probably right. I agree, with Cerejota's latest suggestion that nothing needs to be done ... this lead was developed after a lot of discussion and we shouldn't get pressured by a set of POV pushing editors. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources are needed to back up OR claims

I don't see any concensus in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Original Research - The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World. As I wrote there, it is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. Until you find a source, please leave the charged "massacre" claims out of the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see you have an opinion, now please use Talk and get consensus before blanking the lead. Thank you. RomaC (talk)

You don't need a consensus where OR is clear: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." This is a clear case where multiple sources call the military operation a "massacre" yet no single source says that this is the widely used term. I can't believe that you don't understand it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your view is understood. Many other editors have discussed this, please consult the archives. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through the archives, and in archive 17 I found, strangely, that no one noticed that the claim is OR and has no RS backup. I'm sure that a vote will support deleting of OR, but I don't have the energy to start a vote now, so I will leave the OR intact, hoping that someone more brave than me will do some justice to this blatantly unbalanced poor article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

roof knocking

Hi Roma, I removed your comment from the article's talk page. Talk pages are not forums for editors to give their opinion; they are for discussing article improvement. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear you don't think talk pages are for editors to give their opinion. I rephrased the comment. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC's Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia

• RomaC, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." [[1]] In this case that would be you.

• RomaC, Exactly where in the vandalism policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
• RomaC, That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of WP:RS sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
• RomaC, That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
• RomaC, That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth.
• RomaC, I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on this subject as well as the references to be provided related to it.
• RomaC, You should know that WP:Good Faith does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."
• Doright (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's first sentence based on a WP:Fringe theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... RomaC (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not harass other editors with no basis

You have posted a baseless warning/threat on my user page. Do not post any more things on my page. Otherwise, I will complain to the administrators, or even Jim Wales if I have to. John Hyams (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a controversial article and that you have a strong emotional opinions on the content, but your talk page comment, "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." constitutes a personal attack and implied threat on editor Nableezy, and that is unacceptable. The early reaction on the article's talk page is that you should be banned from this article. Take that to Jimbo. RomaC (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me. John Hyams (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, poor you RomaC... Forget about speaking to him directly. He posted a report on the Admin noticeboard [2], so perhaps it is best that you post your comments there and an admin will deal with it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola Fala, no problem I have thick skin hehe. I see he was banned. RomaC (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain removal

This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.

There is discussion about this in Talk page - Background section - please join. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada. My reversion was because the information does not reflect the source. A person firing a rocket does not make the place they are standing at the time into a "military installation." Otherwise I think the RS information that rockets have been fired from inside Gaza is well represented. RomaC (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that a soldier firing a rocket from a crowded neighborhood, hospital or mosque doesn't turn them automatically into "military installations". Quite differently, what that soldier does make himself (and, purposefully or not, also the area surrounding him) is a "military objective". From the point of view of the laws of war, the question is whether soldiers firing rockets in the middle of civilians what really want is to spark off the (intentional) collateral effect of civilians being shelled, just for the sake of war propaganda. Is there the least possibility that things really happen this way in Gaza? --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No edit war please

RomaC - I discussed this change for 2 days now. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#.22Israeli_army_said_they_shot_the_farmer.22_-_removal_request.

I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Be fair. I hope you see my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

I noticed that you had earlier warned Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) not to continue making personal attacks - Elonka and I have also warned him, though he has deleted all three warnings. I have raised the issue of his conduct at WP:AE#User:Wikifan12345 and User:Brewcrewer. If you have any views on the issue, please feel free to comment there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. RomaC (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i understand

but i think this still accomplishes what is intended. We say it has a high density and in the sections where we have quotes we say why that matters. I think that is pretty fair. But I understand why you object. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence

These articles urgently need work to move towards neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

(your post on my page)
"I am concerned about this edit. Can you please show me the Wiki policy that permits you to remove others' comments? RomaC (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)"

The user in question is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Part of his MO is to use a string of alternate accounts to target users he is upset with (i.e. anyone who has disagreed with him) and follow them around the project, reverting edits, adding targeted comments, and so on. Comments can range from mild, seemingly innocuous messages (such as what you saw) to aggressive, full-blown attacks on- and off-wiki. Banned users have surrendered their right to contribute to the project, and as such their edits can be reverted when found.I hope this answers your question. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you deleted my comments both on the article talk page and on your Talk page, continuing this on the relevant article talk page. RomaC (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. The user in question is banned from Wikipedia. Not just blocked for a period, but banned for abusive practices, harassment of editors, edit warring, article ownership, the list goes on. He is not allowed to edit, his editing privileges have been revoked, and he is unwelcome on the site now or in the future. Read up on banned users and how we deal with them, please. When someone's editing privileges are removed, they forfeit the right to sneak back in under alternate accounts and target editors. Their contributions are reverted on sight. It is that simple. If you are irked about my commenting out the first sentence of your subsequent comment, I apologize. The text in question read:

"I was about to thank you for your encouragement CoastMe, but it seems you have no talkpage and now, no account!"

Looking at the sentence, it was immediately apparent that it made your post look strange given that the text you responded to was no longer present. If you like, I can restore your text, and leave it up to you to remove it if you so choose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quilem Registre AfD

Hi. Regarding your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, did you learn of the AfD from the notification at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident? There's a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles using the notifications I posted as an example. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your revert

Hey there. It's nice to see you again on the discussion page. I hope you could explain your position on OR argument on talk page on the long discussion, maybe here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi AU. I made Talk comments which I think explain my position. There were some ten sources for the term in question, these were removed to streamline the article. Were you not here when the previous discussion was held and the consensus was reached? RomaC (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could call me Agada or AgadaUrbanit, since we know for ages now :). "Many sources" is not a strong argument in my eyes. Sounds like a terrific recipe for WP:SYNTH: take zillion of sources, stir fry all together and make a conclusion none of the sources make. In my eyes not tasty. Some editors think OR should be removed. Consensus usually required for inclusion and see a surprise in talk page discussion: some editors supporting inclusion admit that the consensous for inclusion is not "very wide". And btw 10x for removing מלחמה בדרום (War in the South). Agree it is an ugly synth, and nobody even bothered to google for the term to make zillion of sources. Stay cool RomaC :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks God we got Google! Much more than 10 sources with this query. You could try it just for fun :). Would it be NPOV to restore מלחמה בדרום now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you support using "War in (the) South" in translation? I see it as a media term and therefore not as important as the term that the Gaza government used. Was "War in South" or "Operation Cast Lead" more popular in Hebrew-language media, do you think? RomaC (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, but thanks to Google (again), "Operation Cast Lead" (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) generates less (about half) hits than "War in (the) South". Surprise, surprise. Still first hit for "operation" is Hebrew language WP article describing this conflict. So I personally say be really NPOV and cut both South and Massacre out of lead, to improve encyclopedic value of this article. Do you see any logic in this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada can we just keep this on the article's Talk page rather than pasting here? thx RomaC (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo on Robert Dziekański Taser incident

Answer is here — when I deleted the image on 29 May, it hadn't been in use since the 21st, and nonfree images need be unused for only 7 days to be deleted. If you can get consensus on the talk page to restore it (it was a version of this image), tell me and I'll be willing to restore it. I know nothing about the subject of this article, so I'm not going to restore it and add it back to the infobox in place of the current one myself. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Can you please explain why my contribution to Israeli West Bank barrier was not constructive, and why you reverted it. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly conduct these sort of discussions on the article's talk page. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Linda McCartney

I uploaded a photo of her and her family when she was about 7, and two or three others (one was the last photo showing her suffering the effects of cancer) and all were deleted, even though they had the right tags, and were mentioned in the article. I found it strange at the time, as many other photos on Beatle-related pages were left alone. I took it as a personal thing against her.--andreasegde (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andreasegde. I read through the deletion discussions and it seems the family picture and the cancer picture were both seen as outside the main focus of the article which is her music and her celebrity. Can we just have a neutral picture of her from 1960s-80s or a performance picture or even her with a camera. RomaC (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegory

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment on "Middle earth" change suggestion. Did you have time to read sources brought? 10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

politburo sources

Politburo during Gaza War

January 6, 2009: Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau: Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.

January 13, 2009: ... at the organisation's headquarters in Damascus, 100km from the territory, Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel ...2009 (UTC)

January 18 2009: Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced ... a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip...

Palestinian sources describe elections mechanism of the "Political Bureau" and its role:

27/04/2009 Gaza - Ma'an - Hamas leader Khalid Mash'al has been reelected the leader of the movement's top decision-making body, the Political Bureau, for the third time, a high-ranking Hamas source disclosed on Monday.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None use the Soviet term, please mind that. RomaC (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the welcoming

and for the double welcome! I'l do my best to edit in a NPOV manner. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack?

I didn't attack anyone. I told somebody to take an English course and some spelling lessons. You consider that a personal attack? And I never called anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your claim of not being "constructive;" Unlike you, I generally don't revert. I just add sourced and relevant content. On occasion, I'll tweak something here and there. I find it interesting that you were quick to criticize me when you perceived an insult to Mr. Anon Unsigned but it's okay to accuse me of being a Zionist agent working for the Israeli government and its okay to indict and disparage an entire community based on alleged geographical location and ethnicity. These are some of the constructive messages your buddies left on the discussion page. Yet you remain silent. I thought better of you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Romac. I have always operated under the impression that if someone's editing is detrimental to the article the best place to bring it up was on that article's talk page and have done so. The recent arbitration enforcement request against me led to a 6 month restriction (I'll try to make it indefinite) on how to conduct myself. I asked the closing admin for some clarification and it essentially boils down to no personal attacks and keeping the talk page as a place to discuss content. Your recent edit there could be easily viewed as something that would have been better on a user talk page or noticeboard. It was worded in a way that spits in the face of assuming good faith and was less than civil. Just to keep a precedent and making sure all is square, I'll be reporting comments like this if I see them.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza lead and other issues

Hi there Roma. Assuming we can come to agreement on the lead (which seems to have generated other controversies beyond our dispute), is there a way we can come to consensus on the other issues? I'm willing to work with you and we can resolve this in a matter of minutes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)