User talk:RTLamp

Your editing history?

Obviously you are an experienced editor. Given the questionable and prejudicial nature of some of your edits, I have to wonder if you have edited here previously and been banned? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it terribly unfortunate that you introduce yourself to a complete stranger with a strident and venomous accusation of bad faith. Is that your typical mode of social operation? I certainly hope not.

No, I am not a previously banned user or even an experienced editor; I'm simply someone who's had enough experience with markup languages -- HTML, XML, several different wiki formats etc. -- and has installed enough MediaWiki installations on various machines (including, half a year ago, on the MacBook laptop I'm writing this from) to be able to pick up the formatting in a flash. Not yet perfectly -- I have some tune-up to do on the references on the Atzmon page -- but not bad for a newbie.

Thanks for asking. Have a nice day! RT-LAMP (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-WP:RS-sources

Please do not ever introduce material from non-WP:RS-sources, like the opinion of David Duke, into a WP:BLP-article like the Gilad Atzmon-article. Or into any article, other than the subject himself. If you do that again, I will report you and ask to have you topic-banned. Have a nice day. Huldra (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have badly misunderstood the situation. Discussion moved to Talk:Gilad Atzmon RT-LAMP (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe you should suggest that to him" is a personal attack? !?!? Maybe I'm not the one who needs advice on keeping cool. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that Carol knows Atzmon or is associated with him is a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at WP:NPA shows what looks to me like a rather significant gulf between what it calls a personal attack and what you do. Nevertheless, I have apologized to Carol for unintentionally suggesting she's associated with such a creepy creature as Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA concerns

Hi. I appreciate your edits to Gilad Atzmon and your comments on Talk:Gilad Atzmon. I would like to see less conflict on the article and more harmonious editing, so everything you can do in that regard would be helpful. One thing that worries me is that it looks like your account was created simply to edit the Atzmon article. Whether true or not, it might help if you join a WikiProject and get some experience working on other types of articles, such as articles about Israel, Jewish biographies, Jewish culture, etc. Let me know if I can point you in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viriditas. I hope this 'thank you' makes your task at least slightly less thankless: thank you for spending time on the Atzmon issue. Let me explain my position on the GA article so that you don't have to reverse engineer it from my edits.

I do not think anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same thing. However, there are cases -- rare, but they exist -- where someone is simultaneously Jewish, anti-Zionist, and antisemitic. Maybe the obvious example is the late Bobby Fischer in later life, when he was off his rocker and fulminating about Zionist conspiracies. Another example is a Holocaust denier who writes under the name Israel Shamir. There aren't many in this category, but there are some. And there is a substantial and WP:RS-backed opinion that Gilad Atzmon is one of them, that at some point in the last decade he crossed the line from anti-Zionism into antisemitism. This opinion comes from both leading UK Zionists and from leading UK anti-Zionists, from leftists and from rightists, from Jews and from non-Jews. And it is also my position, and not a position I take lightly or without considerable study of the specifics of Atzmon's writings and of the history of antisemitic discourse.

It's not WP's place to come down on one or the other side of the fence on whether Atzmon's an antisemite. However, the controversy is real and substantial, backed by WP:RS and it needs to be given enough space to be aired, not in its every last detail, but with enough room to accurately reflect the breadth of its substance. I believe that the article, as it stands now, does that. I do not try to deny those I disagree with enough room to make their case. I do not object to giving Atzmon's replies to the accusations. I do however object to any effort to sanitize the controversy away as if it doesn't exist or can best be treated in only a dozen words or is merely ignorable disinfo from Atzmon's political enemies. Such a result would be a victory of WP:Wikilawyering over WP:NPOV.

I spell this out up front because I feel my position has been mischaracterized considerably by other editors. I do not want the article to become an attack page, I do not want it to become a list of every criticism of Atzmon ever aired, I do not want it to become a smear job; I just want it to treat the antisemitism controversy in a fair, NPOV way. I understand that by focusing on one topic I take a credibility hit, one I hope that I make up for by the strength of my argument.

Let me repeat: It's not WP's place to come down on one or the other side of the fence on whether Atzmon's an antisemite. Neither is it WP's place to ignore or efface a real and substantial controversy simply because one editor has very, very strong opinions about it. It might be a helpful exercise to find out whether the other editors you're communicating with agree, so that we can proceed from common ground. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a biographical POV, I would like to know more about his experience as a paramedic during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as that seems to have contributed to his current state of mind. Good sources that analyze (and criticize) his published works would also work. A good, neutral article could take a section like "Allegations of antisemitism" and merge it inline into the appropriate sections so that it doesn't stand alone or apart from the things it criticizes or observes. Also, based on Atzmon's own published works, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that Atzmon is antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and at the end of the day, anti-Jewish. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! I am not certain the autobiographical approach would make the most sense as a logical approach to the antisemitism issue; Atzmon is a polemicist, but the essays that raise the most ruckus are the least autobiographical and most "theoretical." It is not his novels that are getting the reaction, but his widely distributed polemical essays, which find a home not only on anti-Zionist sites but antisemitic ones as well (Stormfront, David Irving, David Duke, etc.) The "allegations" section is meant as a demonstration of the various threads of classically antisemitic discourse Atzmon has absorbed and regurgitated, sometimes in "anti-Zionist" form and sometimes not, into these polemics: deicide, Holocaust denial, the world-control myth. None of these topics are anything but tangentially tied to Beirut or other biographical moments of Atzmon's life, but they do have a solid pedigree in the darkest moments of Jewish history. In fact, about a week ago I explicitly broke the section out by antisemitic thread, but was reverted. (Not complaining.)

So the case could be made that the "Allegations" section actually belongs as a subsection of "Writings" since that it is the writings that prompted the allegations. The problem here is that the "Writings" section is more about his largely ignored novels, not his widely distributed polemics. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a biographical approach is not only needed, it's essential to the structure and composition of an encyclopedia article about a musician and author like Atzmon. I encourage you to pursue an analysis and critique of Atzmon's writing within the paradigm of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Per this approach, it is not necessary to separate allegations about his views in his published work from a critique of his work. The more embedded the criticism, the less likely we will have POV disputes. It might help to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedic style. If I can point you to any policies and guidelines which will make this easier for you, let me know. One thing that might help is to review both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial voice vs. attribution

You seem confused between what Wikipedia can say in the "editorial voice" and what it can attribute to others. Wikipedia cannot describe a statement by Atzmon as an accusation of Jewish deicide. ("Atzmon, in an accusation of Jewish deicide, said...") We can attribute that description to somebody who has made it. ("Smith described Atzmon's statement as an accusation of Jewish deicide.") — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see if you look a little more closely, in the version you just reverted I had absolutely removed the words "Jewish deicide," yet you reverted it anyway, claiming that it did. Please look more closely. RT-LAMP (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Further attacks will result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many times am I supposed to pretend not notice that an editor is defending the rank antisemitism of a rank antisemite? RT-LAMP (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and I'll block you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! When it comes to antisemitism, Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Gilad Atzmon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note:You made 4 reverts, some of a questionable nature that have been reverted by two other editors. Please review policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're bringing your edit wars to the user talk pages too? Spamming every noticeboard from here to Timbuktu wasn't enough?

Here's my question.

"Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews) has got to be a prime goal of the peace movement"

Do Jews "mostly" own and/or control the media, Carol? RT-LAMP (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:Soapbox and WP:Harassment posting should be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three travel destinations: POT Kettle River Black, WV No immediate report whether any of them are mostly owned and/or controlled by mostly Jews, though. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:RTLamp#No_personal_attacks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mostly owned and/or controlled by mostly Jews, like the media, Carol? RT-LAMP (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent>OK so I misinterpreted 3RR to mean edits instead of reverts. Considering all the times I've seen people war other people after only 3 edits a day, I was surprised to see that it turns out you are right. Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, However, most edits revert something, which is probably why people usually stop after 3 a day, just in case. So you are only up to 3 for today; correct me if I'm wrong. A simple explanation instead of personal attacks would be more appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to go elsewhere to find out whether "Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews) has got to be a prime goal of the peace movement." RT-LAMP (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc

Please stop. Just stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. You need to find a more constructive approach than posts such as this one. There's a disturbing pattern here, and it needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Point me to anything in that comment you reverted that was false. I can back up every fact. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in this game and I find that comment unacceptable as well. This IS your final warning, the next time you slur another editor that way, whether the facts might be strung together a certain way or not, you will be blocked. If this had been brought to my attention prior to Malik warning you I would have just blocked you then and there, but I do not believe in blocking right after a warning, so you get another chance to behave. Don't waste it. Comment on the content, not the contributor. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:RTLamp

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXOHLbXwbpfYC1f?Q_DL=e3DsAymc9y4ljrD_eXOHLbXwbpfYC1f_MLRP_8Dge5dchoVgqCH3&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]