User talk:Armon/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Armon/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About taking "responsibility" for IP edits

Hi, I happened to see your question on Karmafist's user talk. There is no "technical" solution to move your edits to your username, however you can simply state on your user page that you used to edit as this or that IP adress. You can link to the contribution list of that IP adress by typing [[Special:Contributions/<IP adress here>|<IP adress or descriptive text here]], see the "Stuff I have created" section of my user page for an example of one way of doing it. --Sherool (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah. Someone else may have another answer at WP:HD, but that's unlikely. Karm a fist 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some closure, I've seen this question asked at the help desk, and the answer given was this: If you'd come earlier in the project, it was as easy as asking a developer to play around with the database and reassign the edits to you. However, with a close to a million users and articles, the developers don't really have the time for such tasks anymore. Right now, the best solution is the one provided above, as I'm sure you've figured out by now.--jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you! I had just wondered if I'd missed an "automated" way of having my ip edits become associated with my account. I definitely take jfg284's point -and I wouldn't want to waste the developer's time anyway. Possibly in the future this sort of function will be added to the Wiki software because I'm sure that there are many people like me who "dip a toe in" only to find they love it and want to sign up. Armon 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zaoui

Are you coming back to finish your work on this article sometime soon? If you've become tired of the process, or real life has interfered, I'll try to integrate what you've added so far into the article, along the lines of what I've said in Talk:Ahmed_Zaoui#SIS_Summary, and then I'll ask someone else on the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board to take a look at the article and consider removing the tags.-gadfium 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I've added you to the approved user's page. I don't know anything about this software, so if you have problems, try one of the talk pages for AWB rather than asking me.-gadfium 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI

Hi Armon. I wrote some notes on a few of the MEMRI sections re: POV. I want to work a little on the Cole part too, but ran out of time today. elizmr 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: message on my Talk page.

Informing good, campaigning bad? The culture, as I understand it, is that letting people know about an issue is good, but trying to influence them one way or another is bad. Ronabop 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Christian Peacemaker Teams article

Armon, thanks for your edits to the Christian Peacemaker Teams article. I think they were helpful in making the article a bit more NPOV and clarifying it and broadening the context. My one concern is with your addition of the world "liberal" in this sentence:

"but today has an ecumenical base among some liberal Christian denominations"

The CPT 2004 Annual review lists these supporting denominations and organisations:

Supporting Denominations & Organizations Denominations:

   * Church of the Brethren (COB)
   * Friends United Meeting (FUM)
   * Mennonite Church Canada (MC-Canada)
   * Mennonite Church USA (MC-USA)

Organizations:

   * Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (BPFNA)
   * Every Church a Peace Church (ECAPC)
   * On Earth Peace (OEP)
   * Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (PPF)

I don't think that any of these churches qualify, as a whole, as liberal according to the definition laid out in the Liberal Christianity article you linked to. The possible exception is the Quakers, but they are already mentioned in an earlier sentence which mentions the roots in the historic peace churches, of which the Quakers are one. My proposed wording for the sentence would be this:

"but today has an ecumenical base including peace groups within mainstream Christian denominations such as the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America and Presbyterian Peace Fellowship."

This clarifies that it is not the whole of those denominations that support CPT and makes it more specific without using broad labels. What do you think of this proposal? mennonot 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mennonot Yeah, I take your point re: "liberal". I should have pointed to Social Gospel or Progressive Christianity to be more specific. But even that could be problematic because of the differing trads of the churches involved. My problem was with the original sentence "but today has a broad ecumenical base among many Christian denominations" as suggesting more support than they have (think of numerical superiority of say, southern Baptists). I suggest we avoid the problem altogether and just list the supporting churches and orgs explicitly. I nominate you to do it (if you agree of course) because i have to sleep now... cheers Armon 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank Armon. I've made a number of changes to the paragraph to try to make it more specific. I've also added back in mention of education work but changed the wording. Let me know if you have any concerns. mennonot 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Clark edits

Your reversions to the Helen Clark are not in the best interests of Wikipedia. You insisted on claiming that Helen Clark was in the car with the Doones, but I see you have finally discovered she wasn't. You insist on adding verbosity to the first sentence which downgrades the quality of the article. You insist on POV supposition -- "unclear if it caused her any lasting political damage" -- but when that is quite clearly debunked with fact you revert to your POV version. Your last edit summary was totally misleading and I must confess I am having some difficulty in assuming good faith. The summary said "rm Clark in the car" but what you actually did was revert past Gadfium's edit to your preferred version, and only then did you remove reference to Clark. That still remains a reversion, and you have now made three reverts. I am again going to revert the article, and suggest you read 3RR before you are tempted to revert again. Moriori 01:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in seeing your good faith; I simply disagree with your edits. I respect that you admit you were wrong about Clark being in the car and I thought your edit summary of "rm Clark in the car" was adequate although ideally it should have said "rv + rm Clark in the car". I suggest that you try to produce a version of the paragraph that is a compromise, and post it to the talk page, not the article, for debate. As Moriori warned you, reverting the article to slight variations of your preferred version is not acceptable.-gadfium 01:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

If you leave any more insults on my talk page you will be blocked from editing. Moriori 02:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism

I'm 100% behind your recent edits to the article and to talk, and I thank you for your involvement.Timothy Usher 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on over to Islamic fundamentalism if you have the chance. This pathetic article needs your help.Timothy Usher 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel

Pecher has blanket reverted my additions to Infidel complaining that they were "illiterate and unsourced edits"[1]. However, while they were well sourced via the external links (Maybe should be renamed External references) he may have a point in relation to my gramma' and diction, so, was wondering if you could improve on it please?! (there is a propsed alternate version here you may want to help on?)--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

You added to a mention of Juan Cole that he "frequently attacks "Likudniks" in the Bush administration, and promotes the dual loyalties thesis,[2]": [3]. This unfortunately is a type of poisoning the well. Cole is a complex fellow and we should be sure not to cherry pick a particular description that denigrates him just before we present his comment on the ongoing controversy. I would recommend putting some effort into Juan Cole's article so that his views are better reflected there. Best. --64.230.127.182 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Loyalties

Hi Armon, I have to comment on this addition you have put twice into the "Israel Lobby" paper with regards to cole: "Cole frequently attacks 'Likudniks' in the Bush administration, and has accused them of dual loyalties. [4]" The way you keep adding it to the article makes me think that to you this phrase is very damning. In essence it isn't probably as damning as you think. Charging all Jews outside of Israel with dual loyalty is obviously racist, imflammator and unfair, but that does not prevent specific individuals of having dual loyalties and making a restricted charge of dual loyalty is not anti-Semitic in and of itself if it can be shown to have basis in fact and not motivated by racial prejudices. It may be because it involves Jews that it is so emotionally charged for you. Try this example: it is clearly racist to say that all Blacks are crack users but just because this gross generalization is inaccurate, inflamatory and racist doesn't mean that any specific claim that an individual, who is black, is using crack must be incorrect or motivated by racism -- Whitney Houston for one really does appear to be a crack user and it is not racist to say so. Just because the racist generalization is obviously false does not necessarily mean that applying a specific categorization to a specific individual(s) is false.

I am not saying that Cole is clearly right nor am I saying you can't disagree with Cole but rather that just repeating Cole's restricted claim without showing why it is false is fairly meaningless in terms of trying to make a case that Cole is disreputable, anti-Semitic, or otherwise -- at least if you approach things logically rather than emotionally. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thablighi jamaat

I agree that this article is very much unsourced. I have earlier searched to find any online site for this group but could find. I have tried to remove some POV against and pro to thablighi jamaat by whatever I know. If you need any help let me know --Soft coder^Talk 06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole edits?

Hi; what was your question about the Cole edits?-csloat 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armon, per csloat's request I looked through Cole's writings and found a couple of quotes, see at the end of Talk:Juan Cole#Selective Karsh quotes. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Locke

I've removed the links to the hostile blog, and also to another blog containing pictures of his walk down Broadway. We have a policy of not linking to blogs unless there are unusual circumstances. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid. The first blog does contain much information about Locke, but I have no way of knowing how accurate it is, and it is posted by someone who clearly comes from a different political viewpoint and is not trying to be neutral. Should you wish to add it again I will not edit war. I was not the anon who removed it earlier.-gadfium 00:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on May 29 2006 (UTC) to Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking

Did you really just quit smoking??? That's great. You deserve some sort of barnstar for that, but I'm not sure it exists. Elizmr 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! The gum won't hurt your lungs, so it is an improvement and much easier to give up gum than smoking down the line. Elizmr 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did you decision have anything to do with this? [6] Hope you're hanging in there. Drink plenty of water--it keeps the mouth busy when you are not chewing gum! And the American Lung Association has some good helpful supportive materials on their Web site if you are so inclined. Elizmr 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the expanding family. By the way, "thank you for smoking" is a very funny movie, but might be too specific to USA stuff to play well in NZ. Elizmr 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Civil War

In the interest of good faith, I will assume your edit was ill-informed rather than deliberate censoring of uncomfortable facts, and guide you through the links myself:

The survivors claim that "the army had arrived, but had stayed outside of the area":

AI http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE280361997?open&of=ENG-DZA:

"One survivor said: The army and the security forces were right there; they heard and saw everything and did nothing, and they let the terrorists leave.... They waited for the terrorists to finish their dirty task and then they let them leave. What does this mean to you?

Neighbours telephoned the security forces who refused to intervene saying the matter was under the mandate of the gendarmerie. They called the gendarmerie but received no reply, and the attackers left undisturbed.

The HRW site says http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/algeria.html:

The suspicions, however, were reinforced by interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch outside of Algeria and by others on the ground with survivors, witnesses from neighboring communities, rescue workers, journalists, and former security personnel. The attackers, numbering sometimes 200 or more, were found to have moved in and killed and departed freely through militarized areas, without any effort on the spot by the security forces to protect civilians or make arrests. At Rais, where the death toll on the night of August 29, 1997 reportedly reached 335, the killings began when men in military uniforms brazenly arrived in two open-backed trucks, firing on men playing dominoes at the entrance to the community, according to accounts that survivors gave to a rescue worker who arrived shortly after the attackers withdrew.

In Bentalha, as elsewhere, the attackers acted with apparent confidence that the security forces on the scene would not attack them. One of the survivors, who had fled to a rooftop with other residents, told Human Rights Watch he saw two military armored-personnel carriers arrive: “They came up to about one hundred meters away from where we were being attacked. Then they turned on their floodlights—I don’t know why, since they didn’t rescue us. The people started to shout that the military had come to their rescue, but the [leaders] responded by saying, ‘work calmly, the military will not come, don’t worry.’”

"...even preventing the villagers from fleeing their attackers".

The AI site says:

More than 200 men, women and children were massacred, right next to five different army and security forces outposts: Survivors say that as the massacre took place, armed forces units with armoured vehicles were stationed outside the village and stopped some of those trying to flee from getting out of the village.

ITN http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/july-dec97/algeria_10-21.html:

SAIRA SHAH: When they reached the main road, the only lighted place, the villagers claim the army was already there but it didn’t help them. Instead, soldiers shot at anyone who approached, and they never tried to enter the village. The people were trapped in the dark back streets, along with the killers.

But of course, the Algerian army would never stop known FIS voters (both Rais and Bentalha had overwhelmingly voted for FIS) from fleeing people who were trying to massacre them, or deny them assistance, would they? Why, that's crazy talk. - Mustafaa 02:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of a policy you seem to have forgotten - WP:Assume good faith - see my reply to your comment here:

"I've already made my point on the talk page that we shouldn't be giving undue weight to the conspiracy theories and that they are disputed."

The idea that they constitute "conspiracy theories", as I have already pointed out, is your POV, and as such is irrelevant to this article. The fact that some specialists, along with the governments' defenders, dismiss them as incorrect (though even those specialists do not dismiss them out of hand) is duly noted in my version (though not in yours), as is the fact that other specialists regard them as quite probable. (Hugh Roberts, for one, is the best-informed English-language researcher working on Algeria.)

"Please look at the edit history yourself and you'll see that the claim that I'm "intent on removing all reference to the army arriving at massacre scenes and refusing to help/turning people back" is farcical and an utter misrepresentation of my objections and cited edits."

Wrong. You were willing to admit (because even the army don't attempt to deny it) that villagers were "massacred in the vicinity of military barracks." You were not willing to adopt any wording that acknowledged the well-attested fact that the army arrived at massacre scenes (not merely was nearby), that it refused to help, and (incredible, but well-documented) that it actually turned people back.

You have also, I should point out, attempted to delete all reference to the crucial fact that this "conspiracy theory" was most widely popularised by a survivor of the Bentalha massacre, Nesroullah Yous. - Mustafaa 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Father's Day

I noticed you were a father, so here is something other than a necktie. Happy Father's Day 2006.

―Linux|erist 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi, I saw your repeated suggestions in the edit history of Algerian Civil War to "take it to RfC". However, on that article's talk page I do not see any recent discussion on the issue that is disputed, and I also note that you did not reply to Mustafaa's comment here on your own talk page. Given the lack of discussion, a Request for Comments is clearly premature here so I suggest taking it to talk first. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 12:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read something about the Algerian Civil War before making wholesale edits to it. I'd suggest Luis Martinez, The Algerian Civil War 1990-1998. Please; you're only embarrassing yourself. 131.203.101.134 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. See Talk:Algerian Civil War Armon 03:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zaoui

I left a message for you and User:Mostlyharmless on the talk page for Ahmed Zaoui. Please feel free to respond there, or here, or on my talk page. Thanks! --- Deville (Talk) 23:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi, I'm Canadian-Bacon a mediator from the Mediation Cabal. I was requested to come and help solve the disputes resolving around Keith Locke. It's not my job to say who is right or wrong or to pick a side in any way, but to help resolve the dispute and to help make sure the article conforms to WP:NPOV. I've opened up a page for all parties to talk this out at Talk:Keith_Locke/Mediation and I'd welcome you to come take part. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just war

Thanks for letting me no about the proposed delete. I gather that it is okay for me to delete the templates because the delete will only go ahead if no one is against. I am in favor of a merge tho and hopefully that will produce the end result you want. I have been intending to return to more activ editting of that page (eg adding refs etc) but hav strained my shoulder so my use of the computer is limited. Again thanks for letting me know.Dejvid 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For fixing all the cites on Tarik Ramadan. I put them in in a pretty lazy way. Hope you're well. Elizmr 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my exp, it usually takes people a few tries. Hang in there. Elizmr 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ignatieff

Please stop reinserting the Stop Iggy link; it's biased and extremely POV, and has no place in the article. 67.55.7.195 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please stop reinserting the above link. I'm going to remind you of the 3RR at this point, too. 67.55.7.195 07:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to ask that you stop. The above link is inappropriate. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

No such consensus exists. If you feel that I am mistaken, please cite the appropriate archive. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for removing the link is this: It is highly POV'd against Michael Ignatieff and provides no new information. While official sites are to be included as per WP:EL, no such policy exists for so-called "Opponent Sites". In fact, they are generally not included, as can be seen on the Bush, Harper, or Blair articles. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't shown me where consensus was reached, BTW. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. 3 comments before I've replied. A little impatient? And in the future, please include 4 tildes, not 3. I've added a time and date as per your contributions log. As for the request to self-revert, I think I'll pass. It's a 3-revert rule, if you recall. In any case, I fail to see the logic of your arguments on why the page should stay - you're saying that the Stop Iggy link deserves to be included even if it's not reliable. I don't see how this makes any sense. If there are valid criticisms on the page, please include them in the article on Ignatieff. There are already several criticisms of Ignatieff on the page (Iraq, Lesser Evils, etc...) and they are all sourced (unlike on the Stop Iggy page). Even in the Criticisms of Tony Blair article you cite, there are no blatantly POV references - every link is to a newspaper article. Not one is a link to a "Stop Tony" site or similar. So the Stop Iggy link is not only biased, it's also without precedent. That's why I don't feel it belongs. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is a blatant personal attack. csloat 02:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This comment is totally out of line. csloat 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[7] made on November 23 2006 to Juan Cole

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Lost cause...<< armon >> 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. Yes I read your appeal, but... it didn't appeal. Sorry. For the future, the solution is simply to revert rather less: WP:1RR is a good thing to strive for William M. Connolley 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem. I just wanted to make it clear that I honestly thought the edit was OK -but effectively the the same is the same, so the block was warranted. << armon >> 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Will314159

I blocked him for 45 days. My justification for the block can be found in the appropriate section of the Admin incident noticeboard. Please note that I am now going on Wiki-break due to an intense amount of school work I have to complete in the coming month or so, so I would recommend bringing further conduct problems from this user or any associated socks to another admin, as I doubt I will be checking frequently. Best regards, RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling edits vandalism

Edits that are made in good-faith to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of whether you consider them valid as a point of view, are not vandalism. Do not call such edits vandalism; do not imply that other editors are vandals. —Centrx→talk • 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. The problem is with his deletion of properly sourced content. We seem to disagree about how much "in good faith" his edits against consensus were. In any case, I'll remove the tag. << armon >> 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not against consensus, and they were in good faith. There was nothing "vandalistic" about them. csloat 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[8] made on November 29 2006 to Juan Cole

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole 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/Juan Cole, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Cole's private faith?

Not sure I think the Religious Tolerance cite is very good. That site cites a discussion group, but nothing more — not even a date. (RT is not as rigorously edited as makes me comfortable with it as a reliable source.)

There's also very little, if anything, other than that. As prolific a blogger as Cole is, and as vitriolic as he was with Baha'i administration, you'd think he'd be eager to score points.

Also, his later work on Babi/Baha'i topics take a rather skeptical tone regarding these figures. I think Cole admires Baha'u'llah as a poet and thinker, but not as a divine messenger or prophet. MARussellPESE 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]