User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19

Please add new comments below.

---

Muhammad

Hi ChrisO,

I am afraid I do not agree with this change [1] because they seem to say two different things. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wonder about that, because I'm looking at the cited page of Nigosian's book and it says nothing about the Qu'ran being the "most credible" source. The book actually says that the Qu'ran says very little about Muhammad. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an is of course much more reliable than the traditions. Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam says:"By far the most trustworthy source, but at the same time the most difficult to utilise as a historical source, is the Ḳurʾān [q.v.], most if not all of which is contemporary with the life of Muhammad."--Be happy!! (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your view, but as I said, the cited book doesn't say what the line in question stated. I've updated the reference so that the source matches what the line says. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the edit now sourced to the above mentioned source as I think it is more accurate. Hope you don't mind :) --Be happy!! (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

Yes-to all namespaces, see Wikipedia:RFAR#Request_for_clarification_re_Macedonia_case. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ancient Rome Labelled Map Cestius

A tag has been placed on Template:Ancient Rome Labelled Map Cestius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of deleted image / image vandalism

This image which was deleted after this discussion has been replaced with this (the exact same image). The user (Harry Barrow) who replaced the deleted image took part in the discussion. He is now using the image to vandalise Barack Obama, claiming that Obama is a Kenyan native. He is also placing the image into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Your advice and help in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The user issued me this warning. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus nor any basis to delete the image, so its deletion was unlawful and abuse of deletion tools in order to censor the article. We already discussed this ad nauseam, and the image is included in the two articles following a consensus. If you don't like it, please discuss at the talk page. Harry Barrow (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-deleted it. If you upload it again, you will be blocked per WP:COPY#Copyright violations. You can consider this fair warning. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He uploaded it again, so he's been blocked for a week. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll learn to direct that energy and tenacity into improving the project. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, to be honest; he seems to be a fairly blatant POV-pusher. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

True. But, I do appreciate your help. Thanks again and keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please keep an eye open for any reappearances of the image, and let me know if you spot any! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again: Image:Barack-obama-somali-elder-clothing.jpg. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic article

Hi, I very much appreciate increased third party involvement in this article. Especially from admins. However, I believe that the current version of the article is breaking WP:BLP and should either be reverted to [2] or deleted per WP:SD. Here is why:

• The subtitle "Srebrenica genocide denial" is a weasel word, specifically used to tarnish Trifunovic.
• the text states that Trifunovic is the "author" of the report when the report actually states that it was "prepared" by Darko Trifunovic, it is therefore not clear what role he played in chosing its content.
• the text misrepresents the report in saying that it states that "only about 100 Bosnian soldiers were killed" while in fact what the report is saying is that about "2,000" Bosnian Muslim men were killed, mainly in combat, and that about 100 Muslim Soldiers were summarily executed (se p 33 of the http[://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf report]).
• nowhere does the report bring up the issue of whether what happened was genocide or not. Please remember that according to the ICTY, genocide is not a matter of numbers killed.
• the current text does not provide any rebuttal of the accusation.

Please consider WP:BLP, especially the part stating "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" in light of my arguments above. Regards, Osli73 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for spending time and effort to greatly improve the article. I feel it is now well sourced and presents the controversies in a balanced and fair manner. Cheers Osli73 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cchr flyer.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cchr flyer.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC

[3] I deleted part of a recent addition you made. Not that it couldn't be right, but that the example isn't good. The China/PRC/ROC thing has been under dispute for so long that the example would never/doesn't now have consensus, in and of itself. It might be better served with a Somalia/Somaliland or Burma/Myanmar example. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

29 years.

That was a vandalism-only account, all eleven edits before the block were vandalism (as were the four after it). I would have blocked indefinitely, if not for 29 years (though I'm willing to unblock before then, if Nininvch is willing to contribute constructively). · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Prominent"

The WP:PEACOCK page and the list of words to avoid does not include "prominent" for reasons that should be plainly apparent. Please read the policies and guidelines you try to employ in wikistalking me before employing them. --Leifern (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of terms isn't meant to be all-inclusive, but the basic principles certainly are. Note in particular the "show, don't tell" principle and the advice to avoid peacock terms in the lede. Also, I'm not wikistalking you, but I do try to clean up after problem users. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Start with yourself and stay away from me. --Leifern (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then there wouldn't be any need to clean up after you. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, in the last few hours you've accused me of making arguments I didn't make, of original research when the original research came from you, using peacock words when I didn't, you've wikistalked me, and now you're accusing me of not following WP policies and guidelines? --Leifern (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you did follow WP policies and guidelines you wouldn't have reverted to a version of Pallywood that was patently POV and sourced to blogs, and you wouldn't have attempted to misquote cited sources. Come on, you know better than that - or you should do, at least. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that Leifern has not completely understood the principle of neutrality. Most of his editing seems to be pushing pro-Israeli views. Babiel (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the pro-Israeli views that are the problem, it's the noncompliance with WP policies. Editors from any point of view are very welcome, but policies such as the neutral point of view policy and the ban on original research are non-negotiable requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That was what I meant when I said he has not completely understood the principle of neutrality. Babiel (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been an editor for a long time, so he certainly knows about the principle, but it would seem that he regards it as merely optional. That's mistaken, of course, as it's a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, thank you for your messages. I am not a new user and have before edited pages that were incorrect in their assertions, or incomplete. I wish I new how to message you directly. I corrected the manner in which I used the blogs and personally published sources. This time, I used them in conjunction with more acceptable sources, and used them as citations for times when the term has been used by blogs and the non-traditional media. That is perfectly acceptable as a manner of citation and should not be removed. Since the term is one that is used mostly online, it is only reasonable that people be aware of its use and given prominent sources of such. As for the original research issue, it would be more proper to say citation needed than to remove all changes I have made. (I have a citation and am adding it.) There is news regarding this issue that should be included, and when you remove large amounts of editing, you're also reverting back to a pretty non-neutral (and misleading due to lack of information) article. Danielleb32 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that type of research is specifically prohibited from inclusion in Wikipedia articles, though it might be acceptable outside Wikipedia. Please see WP:NEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT a personal observation. I have a source for citation, which I would place if you wouldn't keep removing ALL edits, reverting the article back to a biased and incomplete piece of dribble. I'm glad that you're an administrator, but I challenge your supposed neutrality given that every time you revert the article, you remove the latest news and you present Pallywood as some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory that is unverified. You can imply that you'll ban me, and that's fine. Just know, that I am aware of your unfair bias that you're imposing and am going to challenge it. I tried to include all sides, including your continued desire to have the quote from the Jpost stating that it's pro-Israeli watchdogs, even though it's a misrepresentation of the article. The article states that that video was used by pro-Israeli watchdogs, not that the term is the exclusive purvey of pro-Israeli watchdogs. I am currently getting a third opinion and will pursue this to mediation because I allowing misinformation to continue in unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleb32 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for citation? It would help if you can provide it here, so that we can discuss whether or not it meets the sourcing requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Request clarification re Obama-in-Somali-garb image

I would appreciate a response clarifying your answer to my question regarding fair usehere. Thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallooo! Anybody home? Please weigh in here: [4] I'm saying things I'd like you to respond to. Andyvphil (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bible Software

Thanks for the speedy of the bundled articles. Before I take the rest of them to AfD (I didn't want to do too many in case someone decided sub-sub-sub stubs were notable) is there anyway you can tell me whether any of the still existing articles at Bible software (my prod was just reverted) that SirLogic added are also re-creations to save an AfD? Thanks!

They don't appear to be. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just didn't want to clutter AfD if it wasn't necessary to do so. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe

[5] Is there something wrong? 16@r (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that as vandalism! Self-reverted. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because They Hate

I'm not familiar with the formulation history of Wikipedia:Notability (books), but this could be a situation the rules do not address adequately. Obviously if comics or sudoku books are often best sellers, these don't deserve their own articles. Perhaps (I really don't know) Because They Hate is similarly one of many garbage books feeding a hungry Islamophobia market (I have no idea). However, this book seems to be embraced by various american conservatives and promoted by the Heritage Foundation as an important statement, albeit one which few if any mainstream sources have bothered to either review or debunk.

When I get more familiar with WP:NB I might bring this up there. This is not the first time I've seen a book that seemed article-worthy, but fell short of the NB thresholds.

I have no fondness for low-quality permastubs. Because They Hate lacks content after over a year, and the apparent lack of reliable sources makes it unlikely this will become a good article. But if an obvious merge target did not exist, I might be arguing for a keep. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RFD Relisting

There is no need to re-list RFD nominations. Standard practice is to leave the nomination open until an admin decides enough discussion has occurred. If no admins are willing to close it, then it just stays open. It is not unknown common for a RFD to remain open for longer than the typical week. Since all active debates are transcluded on the same page, moving a debate doesn't have any benefit and it makes it inconvenient to find the history of the debate. As such, I have reverted your move of Category:Former Wikipedians from the 01 Mrach page to the 10 March page.
By the way, if you do ever close the last debate on a particular page, please don't forget to remove that day from the transcluded list.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Help changing image

File:Greater london outline map bw2.png

I see you are an administrator and have been involved with the Greater London location map. I am trying to upload this image to replace the current Greater London outline map image (this one) I have uploaded newer versions of existing images before but this one is not letting me I think it maybe protected. My newer version is only a slight alteration making the boundaries clearer between Newham and Barking and Dagenham - Ealing and Hounslow - and City of London and the City of Westminster, the missing borders always bugged me a bit so I added them myself. If you help me change it or change it for me I would be grateful. thanks Carlwev (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

University of East London photos

I see you uploaded the photos of UEL's Docklands Campus. Do you have any of the University of East London Stratford Campus too? Grunners (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't, though I live not too far from there. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Wikipedians by radio series

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedians by radio series. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Note that this is merely a procedural nom looking for a relisting for more discussion. - jc37 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe What You Like, copyright status

Do you know if anything more is known about permissions for online use of C. H. Rolph's book Believe What You Like: What happened between the Scientologists and the National Association for Mental Health? According to the page, no estate could be contacted for permission, which makes having a link to it a bit of a problem. AndroidCat (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

Thanks for all of your help today and your work on the article. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you did an excellent job on it. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just me, it's a wiki, after all :-) -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi ChrisO, long time since we talked to each other, but many things have changed since then...now I am not from province Kosovo but the Republic of Kosova. I hope the independence of Kosova puts and end to the biased editings on Kosovo articles made by Serbs. Wish you a wonderful spring :-) --Noah30 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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/September 11 conspiracy theories/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/September 11 conspiracy theories/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

False image copyright details?

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this guy, who weither lied or has been personal photographer of Tito and Tudjman: User:Muleni. See User talk:Muleni, gallery of his images. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Something is clearly not right here - I've already identified one of his images as stolen. I'll see if I can work out where the rest have come from. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RoM/name

I understand why you did this, but this is going nowhere. I would suggest going back to the way it was - simply removing the idiotic comments, or attempting to explain to them how the horse is dead. Either way, this new subpage doesn't do much. Not to mention that an actual question about the name (by diegopmc) was put in this subpage along with all the other crap. I really think that that should be moved to the actual talk page, and everything else on the subpage, and some things on the talk page, deleted. BalkanFever 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we'll keep things as they are. It seems to be working just as I intended it - to keep the name-obsessed nationalist idiots away from the article's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But we are getting good contributions in that page too, which I think have a place on the actual talk page. Like the legitimate question by diegopmc, and the newest section about the Economist (lol). BalkanFever 23:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing?

Honestly, Chris, after the bad feeling that has existed between us in the past, do you really think your action was appropriate for you to take? Even if it were justified to remove (which it in no way was), could you not have come to my talk page and asked me respectfully? Or asked the opinion of someone we both respect? "Unnecessary drama?" You think you're helping to lower the temperature? IronDuke 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting way overheated about this. Step back, calm down, have a coffee and chill out for a bit. It's not worth getting upset about so trivial a matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite calm. If it's trivial, you don't have to delete what I wrote, correct? If you'd like to respond to the substance of what I wrote above, feel free. PS: What you wrote after you deleted my strawpoll was quite sensible. I wish you'd just stick to posts like that. IronDuke 01:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to bait me now. I wish you wouldn't. IronDuke 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary and it causes additional unneeded drama. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting anything: I think it's clear that you are, though. It would also appear that you are trying to bait me, and again, I ask you to stop. If you would like to weigh in on the propriety of an admin taunting someone he's been in disputes with in the past, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. IronDuke 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're getting upset again. Like I said, please take a break and calm down. Nobody's taunting you. Asking people to sign a "petition" isn't useful because sourcing policy isn't subject to a vote. People aren't going to sign it, and even if they did it would be a useless gesture anyway given that policy is non-negotiable. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not upset. I am disturbed at the action you took. I have to feel like on some level you know it's wrong, but perhaps I am incorrect. I would never delete anything you wrote unless I felt it was a personal attack on me, and even then only sparingly. Chris, you may feel you are correct to delete my (entirely inoffensive) comment, but I think few outsiders would agree that two editors who have really clashed in the past should delete anything the other wrote, short of an outright personal attack. Do you remember the last time I interacted with you? I was so anxious to agree with what you said, I actually misinterpreted it. I do not want a fight with you: please, please do not start one. I don't know how else to ask you. IronDuke 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it, please. I'm not acting out of malice or bias against you. I've asked you to desist from posting it and I would request that you accept that I'm acting within my authority as an admin in doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Number 1, for the record: if you want me to stop posting at your talk page, all you have to do is ask and I will. I want to make that clear. I have no desire to anger or upset you. But you refuse to address the issue I keep bringing up, which is that you and I have been at loggerheads in the past on more than one occasion, and that your behavior is therefore pretty inappropriate. You cannot act within your "authority as admin" in a dispute with me, however much you may wish to or however richly I may deserve it. We have been antagonists in the past. I regret that, and wish it were not so, but there is no changing that fact. If you must, you could take it to AN/I (though I guess I hope you wouldn't). However, I believe your own conduct would be scrutinized if you did so as well. Please just leave my posts alone; if they are so out of line, another neutral admin will deal with them, no? Am I asking that much? IronDuke 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris, even if it were the case that the material IronDuke was posting was clearly inappropriate (and it's not), given your many previous content and other disputes with IronDuke, you cannot "act within your authority as an admin" when it comes to IronDuke. If you think that administrative actions needs to be taken, please post your concerns in the appropriate places, where uninvolved administrators can then take action, if necessary or appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out, please, Jay. This has nothing to do with any previous disputes with IronDuke - I would have removed that line whoever posted it. I've explained my position above and I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again. Please stop stirring the pot. The issue is closed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you understand that you cannot block IronDuke for your dubious interpretation of some unstated policy, the issue is indeed closed. If the line so obviously does not belong, then notification on the proper board will no doubt bring an uninvolved admin to deal with the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, I don't need a permission slip from you to use my sysop bit. Now kindly drop this. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption - straw votes

ChrisO, there is nothing disruptive about proposing a straw poll; but there is something disruptive about blocking such a poll and then not discussing it. Further, it is an abuse of admin privileges to threaten to block an editor because you disagree with him/her. You are not the sole interpreter of WP policy and privileges; and in this case you are quite wrong and acting belligerently. --Leifern (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained my rationale and I see no reason to explain it again to you. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

I consider this a personal attack and if you persist you will be reported under WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Removing a misleading reference where a doctor of medicine is misrepresented as a historian and anthropologist does not constitute censorship.Xenovatis (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The notification is a clear attempt at intimidation and an infringment of my rights as an editor. I will be taking it very seriously if your behaviour and attempts at intimidation persist.Xenovatis (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to calm things down I propose that (a) you desist from revert warring and (b) discuss the issue calmly and rationaly in the talk page of the article where I have laid out the rationale and would like you to reply. I will not be editing pending your reply in talk. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

No problem; we all can get carried away at times, and even though you and I and Jay and whomever may have different ideological backgrounds, we have to do our best to check them at the door and approach each article from a policy/guideline perspective. Heaven knows I'm as guilty as anyone, I just try to be a bit better each time :}. As for Judaism, I know from personal experience that there are people with interests in anti-semitism (which this hoax may be purported to be - the old antizionism/antisemitism question, which it, in and of itself is a subject of scholarly debate. /sigh - everything has to be a debate it seems ) which monitor WP:JEW as their sole watchlist, and since there is no "antisemitism" deletions board, I took the liberty of posting there. Since there is a separate Arab board from Plestine per se, I didn't see the need to drop a notice on WikiProject Islam, although that may not be a bad idea either. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, but I wonder if it really counts as "antisemitism", though? It seems to me to be a political hoax, rather than a racial or religious one. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)