User talk:Wikidemon

xrxty

Check the contributions list of Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42

Formal Mediation Request Filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Avi (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a very specific set of guidlines as to what is allowed on an rfM page, Wikidemon. I have taken the liberty of copying your questions to where they belong, on the talk page of the RfM. May I request that you therefore remove your questions from the front page of the form? Otherwise, either a MedCom member may remove it, or the RfM may be rejected as improperly formatted. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. You need not be so cautious on my behalf in uncontentious procedure but I appreciate the spirit. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A member of MedCom has responded to your questions here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

I resonded to your comment at ANIDie4Dixie (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your second one. I'm actually quite irritated with Lulu's comment. I tried to get the Syntacticus fellow to itemize his complaints so we could get the tag removed because I understand how people dont like it. My part about the WSJ op ed piece might have been a little pointy, Bali's arguments against its inclusion highlighted the inappropriateness of the Huffington post piece. I took the liberty of removing both parts. The tag is for others now. Although I still have neutrality issues with it, my contributions of getting the original peacok prose of Lulu moderated a bit have taken care of some of it. The threshold is with in barely tolerable limits without the Huffington Post op ed, and I am willing to talk about it on the talk page.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for California Avocado Commission

On 14 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article California Avocado Commission, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Acceptability of Capital Research Center Research

I have started a discussion on the Capital Research Center talk page to hash out the issue of the acceptability of citing the think tank's research in Wikipedia. Please participate in the discussion at [[1]]. Syntacticus (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggression? You have no evidence. Syntacticus (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the article talk page. I am about to give you a warning for disruptive editing, though. Please heed it or you will likely be blocked from editing. Wikidemon (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning? Are you an admin? If anyone can do it, I'm giving you a warning for disruptive editing. The user talk page is an appropriate forum for this discussion. My modest request for evidence that shows CRC research is bogus certainly seems to have altered the tenor of our discussion, hasn't it? Perhaps you should come up with evidence. Syntacticus (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, please keep the discussion on the article talk page. You should heed my caution - next step is a block probably. I won't bother responding here. Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital

Is there any chance I might be wrong in equating this org. with Media Matters?Die4Dixie (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CRC? - Wikidemon (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of the organizations are partisan watchdog groups that exist to support agendas, and as such their conclusions about other groups is unreliable. This is particularly the case in the dog-eat-dog world of Washington think tanks, advocacy groups, etc., that grapple with each other constantly and for whom planting innuendo, false claims, and unfounded allegations in the media about their rivals is a way of doing business. So at a basic level, I don't think we should include a statement "Media Matters has called X a bunch of lying, no good thieves" any faster than we include a statement "CRC has called Y a bunch of lying, no good thieves." I tend to see Media Matters as an earnest attempt to understand the political landscape, whereas CRC is a thinly veiled astroturf organization that sees its sole purpose as disparaging liberal organizations. But you could probably hold a mirror to that and say the same thing in reverse. Anyway, I am not a great fan of David Brock, MM's founder. He seems to be in it more for the entertainment and drama - he enjoys the thrill of the political fight, not the thrill of the truth. One has to be careful with so-called reliable sources also because mainstream media and scholarly sources are biased too, just not so obviously and unabashedly so. Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Demon. The comment you made on the checkuser doesn't make it to the main checkuser page where the request is listed. So if you want it to be seen by an admin, it needs to be moved.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Syntacticus (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how mediation would hurt anything. If we are right about this, then we shouldn't be worried about some second opinions.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The second opinion I would like to see before proceeding any further is from whoever runs the RfCU. This editor is nothing but trouble, and does not seem on the level. Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon has violated the good faith rule, which doesn't surprise me. Do you really think you can get away with pushing editors around like this? You called me vexatious and Die4Dixie is the only disputing editor who has responded with civility. Both Bali and Demon appear to have an axe to grind and are not being straight. As for being trouble, I have edited for two years mostly without running into opposition. The only opposition I have encountered is when I have edited articles pertaining to sacred cows of the left: then all hell has broken loose. I'm not going to be an obedient wuss and edit merely for grammar: if there is a lack of balance I'm going to say so. Syntacticus (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

{EC} Can you give me a link so I can see that discussion Wikidemon?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec - response to Syntacticus) Please stop harassing me with nonsense on my talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi

Wikidemon, I'm curious if you had a view on my proposal.[2] I saw you raised some specific issues with it, but I'm not sure whether on whole you thought it was acceptable. If I were doing it again, I'd adopt your wording for the first sentence ("Khalidi participated in Palestinian politics at different stages of his career," and would edit "He was critical of the PLO leadership then, and has become increasingly so over time...," but would otherwise likely leave it the same. I wasn't sure if you disagreed with this approach (it seems there's a little bit of waiting in general to see what others say). Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not bad, and my most significant objection is the synthesis of and over-emphasis of the old sources to suggest that they unanimously make these claims about Khalidi, something discussed on the article talk page (though "sometimes" tends to mitigate that). The point is that it is artificial to draw a line around some sources rather than others, and summarize them as making a disputed claim. Other items I omitted for one reason or another - the quote about being a political person is interesting and adds some color but overall does not say anything not conveyed in the text. The two introductory sentences seem a bit redundant. The Lassner/Troen quote about exposure to corruption is interesting and I do not know what to make of it. The Obama material is already in another section, and we have a separate issue over whether to consolidate it all in one place. Overall, I am not encouraged by the process and I am increasingly convinced Historicist is gaming things. The proposal I made seemed to get some interest, including his, but then he turns around and repeats his original position in its entirety, accuses me multiple places of "bowdlerizing" and NPOV violations, and without further discussion announces on the mediation talk page that I "refuse" to acknowledge the sources (on an issue where he knows my specific objection). That, plus continued "factchecking" and other taunts. He seems to be goading me and trying to score insult points. I've dealt with editors like this before and it is all very obnoxious. Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy

Regarding 18:58, 16 December 2008 Wikidemon "Undid" revision 258403725 by Hasbrook. Wikidemon claimed: "rm outlier source given undue weight". This edit balanced out a very opinionated, biased, and interpretable claim by Ayers. Ayers' claim could be mentioned as a "significant viewpoint" but, in accordance to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the preceding "quote" is established with numerous significant facts to this statement included by the "reliable source" (CNN). This quote is a needed source to "balance" what was already "undue weight" towards Ayers' claim. I will re-edit the article inserting the quote between the unbalanced/current version; I will add a sentence to clarify the list of facts and pertinence of the statement with the a heavily "impartial tone". Again: this is a valid and verified reference which balances the undue weight towards the vague Ayers claim.Hasbrook (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2008 (EST) CC Original Discussion

Responding in article talk space. Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarified needed Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in article talk space. Hasbrook 15:58, 16 December 2008

Respect for other editors

For the third time, please stop posting on my talk page. If you have comments regarding the content of the article please post them to the article's discussion page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your request and will honor it to the extent reasonable under the circumstances. Please heed what I said - there is a pretty serious behavioral issue at this point on both your part and Historicist's. If you calm down, stop making accusations of bad faith, assume good faith, etc., things could wrap up quickly and well. So please don't continue to do otherwise, or goad Historicist into further misunderstanding.[3]Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I know the fellow is extremely annoying, but it was good of you to be willing to evaluate this objectively, however you wind up viewing it. The "offending" editor has abad habit now of this type of behaviour( got annoying enough that I revealed my IP adress when he was calling me Brian. Anyway, if nothing comes of this, he must stop doing this, regardless of how he feels personally about other editors that are irritating as shit.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to understand and respect that there are two sides to nearly everything. Thanks for keeping the peace and encouraging cooperation among some of the editors who favor (for want of a more subtle way of saying this) a more conservative content position. I'll try to do the same among the liberals. This is supposed to be fun, not fun and games. Later, Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[[4]] is the offending piece.WP:OUTING explains why what he did here is outing. As you will see , the offense didn't happen at checkuser request, but somewhere else, hence my objection.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

December, 2008

On a series of edits to Talk:Bill Ayers you need to respect WP:CIVIL, assume good faith, and not bring a contentious attitude to the matter. These edits in particular[5][6][7] There is a long term consensus regarding the section of the article you wish to change. If you have a proposal, feel free to make and discuss it, but do not accompany that with attacks on me. Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Merged to owner's account Hasbrook (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You should review the talk page again. Multiple editors have have now made suggestions for you to correct your behavior. You have been uncivil and hast towards two editors currently and it seems other's too. Please cease and desist your disruptive behavior. I have reviewed the talk archives and their is a current discussion about a newly proposed quote which would solve the current biased POV.Hasbrook (talk)

You are being tendentious. Tit-for-tat civility warnings are themselves disruptive behavior. Please cut it out. Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rashid Khalidi. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

File:Pixels.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pixels.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Many thanks for the barnstar for working out why your talk page wasn't archiving - I've been on wikibreak for a while, hence the delay in responding. (If only I got a barnstar every time I added one letter to a page!) Happy New Year and warmest regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Logo rockyou.gif)

You've uploaded File:Logo rockyou.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Mobilefourstar.gif)

You've uploaded File:Mobilefourstar.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rocketdog.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rocketdog.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. This behavior is contrary to wp:civil. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. What the heck are you talking about? I am fine - others are continuing to make personal attacks on me. Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

request for suggestions

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might I suggest going for a Did You Know for Air and Simple Gifts. A very interesting article. Grsz¹¹ 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Mattogno

The addition: «The fallacies of Mattogno's arguments regarding archaeological research and logistical issues of Belzec extermination camp are addressed in a 2006 article headed Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research on the blog Holocaust Controversies, which contains further articles addressing Mattogno's poor research and dishonesty. Mattogno has recently responded to this article.» was removed. Why? If due to violation of Wiki guidelines, please specify.Cortagravatas (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) "Links to blogs and personal web pages (including fansites)" - I see. Question answered.Cortagravatas (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 2009

Making false accusations against other editors is inappropriate. As you can see from the article's edit history I have only made 2 edits in the last I don't know how long, so that's clearly not edit warring. Because of your harassment and incivility I have asked you repeatedly not to post on my talk page, and I'd like to take this opportunity to do so again. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)