User talk:MarciulionisHOF: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:00, 1 October 2014

Welcome!

Hello, MarciulionisHOF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarciulionisHOF, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MarciulionisHOF! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Kingsindian (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

@Kingsindian:, Why are you posting this exactly? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who edit in this area are supposed to be notified about discretionary sanctions. If there are some future problems, this is a required step for their behaviour to be investigated. As the notice says though, this is purely informational, and does not imply any misconduct to date. Kingsindian (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning something I should be aware of? "...no idea where that comes from. Unless KI is planning on an AE request" MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) add quote to existing link. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not planning any WP:AE right now, as I said already. But if I do, in the future, then this is a required step. Anyway, I got one when I started editing intensively as well. I also gave GGranddad one, though he seems to be a sock, indef blocked. Kingsindian (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool. Be cool. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to strike the "fascist" remark also there is nothing wrong living such notices. Don't take it personal I have left such notices to many people too.Also I suggest to read the recent AE filling how people banned for their own comments [1]--Shrike (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, but to put people of opposing views in jail or to use scare tactics is common fascist behavior. Pointing it out when it happens (someone trying scare tactics when you are in argument over mainstream source-based opinions) is the right thing to do. Fascism, if left unchecked, is one of the worst gov. systems and hopefully, no one here will stand for it. That's the only way to maintain a progressive establishment. I do appreciate the link. It makes clear that some editors will defend anything as long as the person involved is from their political affiliation. Does that fall under fascist behavior as well? Yes it does. Now, I've wasted enough words on this and hopefully, no political fascist, obviously waiting to pounce, will pick me for pray after Kingsindian marked the target. Peace. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the question you wrote at the Teahouse, it seems that you are taking this too personally Marc. You are also using a personal attack toward @Kingsindian: and @Shrike:. There's a policy about making attacks like this. I suggest that before you go off saying that someone's a fascist, you should think about what your writing. You made a big problem for nothing. Also don't accuse editors of writing threats when there was clearly, never one made.Mirror Freak 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Marciu - I have already stated twice that the message was only meant to be informational. There was no implication of any threat or any plan to file an AE report in the future. I got one, when I started editing intensively, as Shrike already mentioned. I don't plan to do much about your WP:FORUM except ignoring you, as I have done till now. Others might not be that accomodative though. For what it's worth, I also cautioned GGranddad about being civil. There was no implied threat there either. But he seems to be a sock, so my kind deed was wasted. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MirrorFreak:, are you a native to the English language? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Yeah. I also know Spanish. Why?Mirror Freak 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MirrorFreak:, I haven't called anyone anything here (Have I? Where?), yet, you say I have. I'm sure you know that in fascism, the leading "party" does the best it can to silence its opposition. Can we agree that this is standard under fascism? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there are fascist on Wikipedia. But look, the dude was just letting you know before hand. For example: A mother tells here son not to touch a stove-top that is on. She's telling the child beforehand not to touch the stove. Is this Fascism? No its not. Dude, are you native to English?Mirror Freak 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not personal and I have 'not called anyone to be a fascist (the sooner you correct that part, the cooler the beer I will hold for you). I did raise a legitimate concern and pointed out the origins of scare tactics against political adversaries. A few other editors have suggested there's nothing to worry about game play but that I should still tread lightly (an oxymoron?). All these words reminded me of a classic quote: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean about calling people a fascist. I see that you did not, it was my error. Can we drop this discussion? No one meant to be rude to you. Again I apologize for my error.Mirror Freak 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an copy of Courtyard with Lunatics and linking it to another editor's comment ([2]), referring to the posting of a standard notification on your talk page as 'fascistic' ([3]) and over-reacting when someone warns you that they'll go to AE unless you revert yourself ([4]) probably aren't the wisest ways of conducting yourself if you want to carry on editing in the ARBPIA area. ← ZScarpia 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a pattern of lunacy in "ARBPIA". For example, how an editor thinks "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." is a good idea and someone else goes a long way to support this. Do you honestly find "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." to be a good concept? As for the other issue, you've misrepresented a long discussion about what makes for improper decorum.[5][6] Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to your opinions about lunacy in the ARBPIA area, but doing things like you did with the Courtyard with Lunatics picture on your user page won't do anything positive for the impression that the editors there have of you (they will probably assume that you're calling an editor a lunatic). Neither will the difficulty you appear to be having understanding the 1RR restriction applied in the area and the purpose of notifications. ← ZScarpia 17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find offense by my rejection of "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." Leave me with a positive impression. Tell me you are not an administrator. *crosses fingers* MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpretting me. Refer to this list to find out who the admins are. I am not one. I have, though, been editing in the ARBPIA area for nigh on 9 years and have a reasonable idea of how things work there. By advising you to self-revert, Kingsindian was giving you the opportunity to avoid being reported to AE for breaching the 1RR restriction on an article. That is, he was giving you a get-out which he wasn't obliged to give you. ← ZScarpia 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R.H. (There was no 1RR). Unashamed support of battleground conduct is, in my humble opinion, a bad influence on the project. Hopefully, no one who supports "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." ever earns an admin stick. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC) clarify MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My error: Kingsindian's advice was aimed at Nishidani. But it was advice that friends of Nishidani will hope that he follows if he accidentally breaches the 1RR restriction over something he feels strongly about. What would you do in the same circumstances? Insist on being reported? Kingsindian gave that advice shortly after another editor was given a three month ban after deliberately breaching the 1RR restriction on a point of principle. Take a look at the recent AE case concerning SeattliteTungsten. ← ZScarpia 02:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: One down. Good show. Now what about the telling a 1RR offender to "wait 24 hours, and revert" elephant? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to file at WP:3O

Hi MarciulionisHOF. For your future reference, if you make a request at WP:3O, the place to do it is in the Active disagreements section, not by overwriting the instructions as you did in this edit. I've fixed that one for you and no further action is needed. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to decline your filing because per the main instructions page at WP:3O, this process is only for two editors who have thoroughly discussed the issue and that has come to a standstill. The discussion page that you linked was a user's talk page which contained not much about the dispute and the main dispute seems to be at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, which clearly has more than two editors involved...thus not eligible for a 3O. If I made any mistake here, tell me it so that we could file your 3O report again and properly. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugog Nizdast:, it was "requesting guidance on citation removal by another editor." (note: the reference was definitely reliable and relevant). Talk page discussion is of low importance to the main act. Text, which is under contention, must have citation. Editors who remove said citation need good reason. Not flimsy excuses that without the citation the text would somehow become more stable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with cheese ?

I see that you like using cheese metaphors, especially blue cheese and cheddar. I found several meaning for them being used as expressions, none clearly applicable to the situations where you are using them. Can you explain please? WarKosign (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To explain, would make it less interesting than to let others figure it out themselves. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, people tend to ignore comments that they cannot understand. Is it really what you want to happen ?WarKosign (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs and quotes make a good point. What happens next depends on the lunatics in the courtyard. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Your user page was mentioned at ANI. It appears there are several images on your user page with links, and some of those links may be seen as commentary on other users. Please review WP:POLEMIC and remove everything that refers to other users in a manner that suggests criticism. Wikipedia has enough problems as it is—things would be even worse if editors were able to keep clever denunciations of their opponents. There have been many cases where material like this has led to the deletion of a user page. Re the underlying issue: You might try engaging with other editors by thoughtfully responding to their comments, preferably by asking questions. Wikipedia has many highly intelligent and knowledgeable users and it is useful to learn as one contributes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went over POLEMIC and it appears I should make some major changes to my userpage. It is 5am and I might be busy tomorrow but I'll make some changes asap. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no problem with a short delay in a matter like this. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First five done. I'm taking exception with the case where I was caricaturized as a crying Jew. Will continue with the rest later on. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marciulionis. I still say the complaint you raised on ANI was nonsense, or rather the way you pursued it in the teeth of explanations was, but what's this about anti-semitic slurs? "Characterized as" sounds a little vague — do you mean somebody used the actual words "a crying jew", and referred to you? If I'd seen anything like that, I would certainly have slammed the person with a block, and I'd hope any admin would. I still will, if it was recent. Could you please give a diff and save me having to trawl through the links on your userpage? Bishonen | talk 09:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user writes on his page. Though I am not the only user being talked about, so, whatever. It is a harmless enough activity. I simply ignore this user 90% of the time, and have told him so. My only problem was the article space reverts of my edits. But that has been solved now. Ending the drama would be beneficial to everyone. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: Would you please be willing to strike through the part of your comment which violates WP:POLEMIC? Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what part of my statement violates WP:POLEMIC. This is your talk page, you can remove or strike out anything you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I'll leave you to it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

@Bishonen: I've added a few notes from the past month.

"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic"31 August 2014
"The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created."31 August 2014
- Crying Jew typecast, often used in pro-Palestinian cartoons.
Placed under an editing restriction indefinitely (May 2009) (rescinded 2 years later on good faith) -- he acts with impunity, getting the worst out of others:
"Newspeak counts for nothing"..."Your proposal is to be automatically rejected"26 September 2014 (Tritomex)
"You just about exhausted the hasbara printout sheet"11 September 2014 (WarKosign)
"patently deceptive"27 September 2014 (Wlglunight93)
"1,000,000 instances of shock in Gaza"28 September 2014 (To no one in particular)
"Initial reports are often raw, i.e., they aren't 'spun'" ... "It's called rewriting history, just as editors here are often attempted to do."25 September 2014 (Myself)
"unilateral Israelocentric POV"..."drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)"30 August 2014 (Polemic commentary)

Clicking another complaint about him, I noticed one highly polemic statement outside September 2014 which is hard to ignore:

"the massacre of Palestinians coincided with Israel's festival of light."..."some joyous ironist with a yen for allusions and crossword puzzles, who nudged the chiefs planning a methodical slaughter."November 2012 (after good faith alleviated the indefinite ban).

Truthfully, "planning a methodical slaughter" is as egregious as it gets (Nazi allusions don't help either). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I asked. Like a conscientious fool, I read through all of that, looking in vain for a relevant diff. Why do you waste people's time like this? Never mind, don't bother to reply, I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

To sum up the above, MarciulionisHOF's comment above at 02:57, 29 September 2014 states "I was caricaturized as a crying Jew". When asked to provide a diff supporting that statement, MarciulionisHOF posted thirteen links, none of which support the claim. Please try reading the linked text and actually thinking about was is written. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:

"Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban." - Johnuniq, 08:45, 20 June 2011

Incivility, lack of collaboration samples are above. First couple links in particular. Please try reading the linked text and actually thinking about was is written. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a debating forum where people get points for deflecting arguments and entertaining the audience. By contrast, most established editors can quickly see when someone has again dodged the issue—you wrote "I was caricaturized as a crying Jew", but you have provided nothing to support that assertion. At Wikipedia, the most extreme form of incivility is to make a serious and unfounded claim regarding another editor (above and at ANI), then duck and weave when asked for evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep in mind your lack of impression by the above diffs. That and the Hebrew Wikipedia allusion.[7] It would only be fair to not get yourself involved in these types of things -- i.e. advocacy in favor/against people based on their political affiliation -- if you have battleground issues with Israel related editors. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow editors around, even those who have a bee in the bonnet about me, and only noticed this now. The major point you keep harping on, using it to imagine I fingered you as a 'crying Jew', is a diff from what I wrote when you opened up a section entitled 'Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians'. You wrotee:

'I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.'

From apparently reading interviews with 50 Palestinians you deduced that 7al million Palestinians 'support fighting Israel'.

You then changed this from 'support fighting Israel' (translate into 'in a war with Israel, Palestinians support their own side', nothing odd in that) to 'support ..attacking Israeli civilians.'

That is an extraordinary cognitive leap to make, to spin support for one's nation in a war as animated by a desire to, not defend onself against the other nation's military, but primarily to kill its civilians. Apart from the fact that we have WP:NPOV here: you do not open a section for comment with a provocative statement that consists in an innuendo the 'other side', an entire people, is terroristic and should be described as such.

To deduce from my comment that 'you' imply Palestinians unanimously support killing Israeli citizens the idea that I am mocking you as a 'crying Jew' is sheer fantasy. In this 'logic' any editor who challenges a stereotypical smearing of, say, Palestinians, must ipso facto be engaged in an undercover attempt to smear Jews. It may work as a comic device in the ironic dialogue of Howard Jacobson 's The Finkler Question, it doesn't work on wikipedia.

It was this absolutly elemental ignorance of simple logic which led me to reply with the words you now insinuate are a personal attack on your Jewish identity.I.e.,

The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV

If that needs construal, your adoption of the title:Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians (egregious WP:OR aside) makes a sentiment of defensive national solidarity out to be a 'personal enmity against Israeli citizens', which to my eyes looks like you are suggesting Palestinians are motivated by anti-semitic feelings in their struggle for statehood, or the defence of what little they have. That is shown by the switch of language from 'supporting their own side' in a war, to 'supporting attacks on civilians'. The IDF is a civilian army, but its soldiers on duty in fighting Palestinians are not 'civilians'.

I won't deal with the rest, except to note that your extraordinary familiarity with my whole record (the Hanukkah diff goes back to 2009 (used by the way by User:No More Mr Nice Guy in the past, just as you use Orwell's image on your mainpage, and he cites Orwell on his mainpage in an attack on me), and the comment is based on several articles in the press about the strange symbolic ingenuity used to get together religiously resonant names for major war operations) suggests editors are spending far too much time raking through the records several years ago to get 'stuff' on me, rather than doing what we are supposed to do: read relevant sources for articles being edited now, and propose that material for the relevant articles. You can prove anything if, as here, you ignore context.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Instead of assuming my intentions are to smear as antisemitic, you focus on explaining why you feel the text smears them as antisemitic. Your assumption both material-wise, and of intentions are incorrect. News-appearing Palestinians express support for 'the resistance', which considers all Israelis as soldiers (but most attacks are aimed at civilians). This does not come from a collective antisemitic view, but from a 'resistance' point of view. Exemplified in the sources I linked to and I made note that more sources are required to make a substantive case for inclusion. On the same note, the Israeli public's wishes to wipe Hamas from the map (my opening statement for the section in question) are not hateful on a racist level, just a tactical perspective. Even the ones in the mind that the whole of Gaza should be wiped out are not all coming from a racially motivated perspective. To summarize, the personal allegation, as though my post was intended to portray the Palestinians as antisemitic (a) comes from an incorrect understanding of what the 'resistance' is, and (b) discusses user's intentions rather than content. This is not justified. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Marciulionis, baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack. You have made several of those against Nishidani, here and on WP:ANI, and have been unable to give evidence for them when challenged. The diffs you have offered above and elsewhere are quite un-substantive. For your own sake, I suggest you refrain altogether from commenting on Nishidani in the future, since you can't seem to do it without assuming bad faith. In any case, the next time you call him an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation, without providing evidence (real evidence, not a lot of irrelevance), I will block you from editing. Btw, I notice that you hint in the post above that Johnuniq, too, might have "battleground issues with Israel related editors". That is also unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I will do my best to avoid both those users. I request your attention in another matter at your userpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, Nishidani, and Fram: I can understand how easily misunderstandings can occur and it is important to clarify this matter. I've added a note on my userpage to explain the recent issues (pinging you all for consideration). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the diff, it is my first attempt. Hopefully, this will contribute to better collaboration and good faith in the future. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 Marciulionis, baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of [[NPA|personal attack]]. You have made several of those against [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]], here and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=627679929#Repeated_demands_to_self-revert on WP:ANI], and have been unable to give evidence for them when challenged. The diffs you have offered above and elsewhere are quite un-substantive. For your own sake, I suggest you refrain altogether from commenting on Nishidani in the future, since you can't seem to do it without [[WP:AGF|assuming bad faith]]. In any case, the next time you call him an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation, without providing evidence (real evidence, not a lot of irrelevance), I will [[WP:BLOCK|block you from editing]]. Btw, I notice that you hint in the post above that [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]], too, might have "battleground issues with Israel related editors". That is also unacceptable. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
 :I will do my best to avoid both those users. I request your attention in another matter at your userpage. [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF#top|talk]]) 15:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
+::{{ping|Bishonen|Nishidani|Fram}} I can understand how easily misunderstandings can occur and it is important to clarify this matter. I've added a note on my userpage to explain the recent issues (pinging you all for consideration). [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF#top|talk]]) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
+::Here is the link to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMarciulionisHOF&diff=627838522&oldid=627833095 diff], it is my first attempt. Hopefully, this will contribute to better collaboration and good faith in the future. [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF#top|talk]]) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)