User talk:Tundrabuggy

How-to make and delete a page

• Try to remember how you created User:Tundrabuggy/ Yom Tov Samia! I go to my user page, add /summick to the URL in the browser's address box and hit Enter! Why delete? You might want to go back. I have this permanent sandbox which I simply blank after each session. But if you must delete, just tag it {{db-author}}. — RHaworth (Talk

Finderskey et. al

I put up a SSP report, an RFCU, and commented on the AN/I report put up by Nickhh. It's up to admins now. NoCal100 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to What if?

WP:NPOV provides guidance when reliable sources contradict each other. I hope this helps. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RJC. I did go look over NPOV again and remembered Assert Facts which helps somewhat. In really contentious areas, both sides actually see differently. What one person sees as justice another sees as stealing. We actually see what we want to see. Journalists are not free of this either. the worst possible evidence is the eye-witness. So we get journalists on one side of a conflict reporting "facts" differently from journalists on another. That's where I get really flummoxed. And if there are no objective witnesses, what then? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Tundrabuggy, I currently have a problem with a user here, who seems eager to do anything when trying to halt the creation of this article User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris (which I have only begun to edit, and its still in its early stages), even going as far as to propose a topic ban on me on old accusations that are now false, if you could respond on my page, I appreciate it. Thanks. Read my response on User:Ev's talk page.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Your note

Of course you are correct, as was obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University

What you call a "Blog" just happens to be Oxford University archives of London Book reviews. In my humble opinion I do believe that Oxford University just might be considered as a reliable source...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Montezumapass.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Montezumapass.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Headwaters

The Jordan, Lebanese and Syrian plans were the headwaters diversion plan, it was all three....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What did happen with the intro

You violated WP:3RR. I think it was on good faith, so I am just letting you know, not accusing or anything. We all do it once in a while. In fact, I am not looking at those things closely right now, because that's just free drama. The other thing is, the intro at the moment you edited was subjected to intense discussion based on a proposal from me. Some of the concerns you raised were discussed, but not all. Regardless if I agree or disagree with your views, you owe to your fellow editors to try and reach consensus with them, specially if we all recognize that we need to reach neutrality and be in the watch for biased slants. Be aware that bias can be entered into unwittingly: what you assume to be the truth is not what others assume it to be. Eliminating the point of view of the others is the basis of bias, which is different form NPOV.

RomanC, really stepped out of line above, and I am sorry he did, but he has clearly been good with discussing things. Don't think we all share his opinions on your editing. Perhaps you need to try and see this not as an "us v them" zero-zum situation, and one where we can work together. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Find my fourth revert/post in 24 hours. Let's see the evidence. I made numerous changes to the intro but I don't think even one of them was a staight revert. I added references and changed the wording to deal with concerns raised. I discussed every change I made numerous times. I then followed the wiki precept to be bold. RomanC was also wrong in making the claiming that I had blanked the intro. That never happened by me, sorry. I am taking a break from this article, since it is clear that it is all gang-up and get your WP:POV in. Neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources to tell the story, and balance by putting in the perspective of both sides in a conflict. There is precious little attempt at balance or neutrality here. I don't need a lesson in WP:NPOV. Your bias is as evident as any. This will be a POV and bad article until people start remembering that this is supposed to be a neutral project, and start looking to themselves rather than others, as culprits. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As to 3RR, as I said, I am not accusing you, but indeed look at your editing. In fact, pretty much everyone, including myself, has done tiny 3RR stuff, most of them. But the real fact is that the bulk of the edit warring has been by people who do not discuss the article: one of the reasons I approached you was because you did a rather sad posting on the talk page, thought about it, and I wanted to comment on it here, but saw RomaC's warning. There is no reason why our eidting environment should exclude valuable editors like yourself.

I am sorry you feel this way, but what bias I have? I have attempted, at all times, to ensure that no bias enters my convo, focusing on the intro. An example of what you feel where biased actions on my part would be helpful to allow me not to exhibit bias in the future, as that is not my goal. Perhaps we can work together, since we are both looking for the same thing? As to RomaC, I defended you, and I agree: in fact he is now accusing me of stuff. As to ganging? Who ganged up on you? I think we all could use a chill pill, but for the most part, people have argued from their mind, I see no meatpuppetry and stuff. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe I have done 3RR but I am in no mood to go check. Don't forget that breaking that rule means 4X. Any changes that I made in the intro had been discussed ad nauseum, if not by me, by others on the talk page, regarding there being 2 sides of the conflict, essentially. I wrote my reasons in the edit summaries as well. I am sure that you do not see your bias, and I have no problem with people having a bias -- we all have one, it's a perspective. Your sympathy for the Palestinian side is obvious, as clearly mine for the Israeli side is obvious as well. But hopefully one can still be fair and balanced and write a neutral article despite our respective biases. I did not mean to suggest that I felt that people were personally ganging up on me, I don't. But they are indeed ganging up on the Israeli perspective, both in this article, and on its talk page. I am taking a break on the page until some kind of stability is reached. It is frankly too much work & disappointment to have a well-written, balanced, and referenced sentence trashed and turned into a POV, illogical, inaccurate, unreferenced piece of trash before I even have a chance to refresh the page. :( Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sympathetic at all towards Hamas, and have sympathy for the plight of Jewish Nation (a sympathy that can be described as post-Zionist, in the academic, not partisan, sense). Some of my greatest heroes are the people of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who died against all odds standing up for all of humanity, not just for the Jewish people. I am, however, indeed also sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, and unsympathetic of how their very real suffering is abstracted into a cartoonish view of good vs evil - and of late have had their very existense questioned in a sad mirror of Holocaust denialism. I am not dispassionate, but I do have empathy for Israel - and it pains when it is assumed that because I also have empathy for the Palestinians is automatically means I do not.

That said, we should not expect neutral editors, we should expect neutral articles.

It is interesting, because some of the very concerns you raised above are what you hear from Palestinian editors. Now, if I assume good faith, it means both sides feel the same way. However, how can that be possible? Surely one side is cynically lying?

I think it can very well be: it seems the dominant narratives of either side are so partisan and one-sided, that in an environment like Wikipedia's, where one-sidedness is against the house rules, any deviation from the dominant narratives will seem shocking and non-neutral. If you side tells you the sky is cyan, and another side tells their side it is dark blue, you will be shocked to find out it is neither, but Sky blue.

For a pro-Palestinian person it might seem non-neutral that Israel actually called upon the people of Gaza to move from targetted sites hours before the first air strikes. For a pro-Israel person it might seem non-neutral that inspite of these efforts there are a large number of innocent civilians dying and getting maimed. For me, both are verifiable facts, that are neutral in as of their own, and deserve to be in Wikipedia. So while I think your feelings are genuine, I think they are baseless upon the evidence: the same way I cannot expect you to defend the Palestinian perspective, you cannot expect those with a Palestinian perspective to defend the Israeli perspective. Yet you can certainly expect that your vigorous defense of the Israeli perspective, and their vigorous defense of the Palestinian perspective, arbitrated by more moderated elements of either side and non-involved editors, will result in a neutral article worthy of wikipedia. What you cannot expect is your perspective to be the only one, because that would go against everything this project is about: collecting the world's knowledge in a neutral fashion. Does this make sense to you?--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict response

Hi. I noticed your edit [1]. Please make your views known at Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

rant

Hey am glad we can find common ground! BTW, I didn't see your respond on the other thread... --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Respond on talk

You have made this[2] without addressing the concerns regarding this edit raised on talk at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict. I think this is unfair. I'm waiting for you there.VR _talk 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You responded on the wrong place, I've moved your comments to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict, responded to you, and am waiting for your response.VR _talk 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded ad nauseum. Going for a little walk now. You guys discuss it among yourselves. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing, you have been asked repeatedly to stop. RomaC (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tundra.

I never intended to make any remarks regarding you, only on your editing. Even while doing that, I should have been more respectful. I apologize for any hurt feelings, (as often happens on touchy issues).VR _talk 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts in holding back a "Wikipedia Massacre"

Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Every time any of us make an edit to the article in accordance with the rules, we am swarmed from all sides by editors using their majority to manipulate the situation. Kinda reminds me of a country............--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)