User talk:Tundrabuggy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

sorry

I see no other way. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Tundrabuggy_reported_by_Cerejota_.28Result:_.29. I hope you understand its not personal. However, you should reconsider your edit warring.--Cerejota (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I've looked over the article history on the article with a specific eye to your edits, and you are a bit out of line. Please discuss matters on the article talk page instead of continually reverting the article, and if a rough consensus has formed, do not go against it. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead baby pictures

The conversation begins here:[1] Also the question was raised at ANI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Have_I_been_a_jerk.3F --editor Tb made the following comment [2] The appeal of the "include graphic photos" crowd is mostly to WP:CENSOR, but our "side" points out the part of the policy which says "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

In fact, as argument progressed on the talk page, all attempts to remove the material until consensus was reached were reverted. Further, a gallery of dead (supposed Gazan) children was added, with pictures of a morgue of dead children, a dead child, and a burned baby who was supposed to have been burned and then run over by an Israeli truck! Pictures and video from Al Jazeera were added with titles that were pure OR by the uploaders.

I am not finding the diffs, but to spare you having to read the whole area, here are a few of the comments made by those of us who disagreed with those who wished to keep the photos. I believe that most of the comments are straightforward and show that there is no consensus to keep this photo or similar photos, "rough" or otherwise.

User:AgadaUrbanit :"Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"

User:tariqabjotu Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Nezek Well said. and on that note I would like to bring up what tariqabjotu said above. If this image really is "at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties", and can be verified as an extreme and isolated case, it would mean it doesn't fairly represent the Palestinian casualties, and should be removed. I especially want to hear tariq's say and what sources he is basing this on. --Nezek (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

user:MickMacNee I can't read the article because of the presence of the image, I feel too sick with it being there to be able to concentrate on the wording. So, to me, removing the image from the article would not amount to censorship, because its presence already acts as a barrier to me reading the no doubt neutrally worded, sourced and informative text on the conflict. Of course it is sensationalist, and not in any way necessary for understanding the article. But I doubt anybody cares about such cold hard logic. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:RabendWe are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). Rabend (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cider86I would not be surprised if most people reading this article were to find the dead baby image highly offensive. Given the litany of news sources available I think it would be likely that a less offensive alternative could be found. Cider86 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist No, because we have no way of knowing that the baby has anything to do with this conflict, or even that it is a baby at all, and we have good reason to question any claims made about the image, namely: this is a highly emotive image in a conflict where both sides and their allies are using images to garner sympathy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:SandsteinNo. Although we are not censored, we aren't a tabloid or a shock website either. The image's shock value and sensationalist nature distracts from the actual article in a manner that far outweighs its documentary benefit. We don't want an arms race in war articles, in which each side tries to get as gruesome an image as possible into our articles. Sandstein 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PrylonWhat about the baby's parents? Do we have to exploit their grief? Prylon (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC) User:Brewcrewer No. If you really want to, you can get a dead-baby pic in every war. That doesn't mean we have to. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Drewskee No. I am not a contributor to wikipedia just like the other 99% of it's readership and I think that is why my post counts. There is no need for this picture. PERIOD. This is a war, people die in wars, civilians die in wars, its a sad truth but the average Joe who comes to this page to learn about what is going on in the world does not need to see a deep-fried-baby. This picture just screams AGENDA. If it was an Israeli baby, you would have a million people jumping on this page right now screaming "zionist agenda!" In such a hostile, volitile situation such as this Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral and objective as possible. If you notice, there are no other wars that have images like this. There is not a genocide, where a specific group of people are being targeted for a mass elimination. Then and only then is it okay to post an image like this, though I still feel the shock value is too much; there aren't even images like this on Darfur's page. No one targeted this baby, it was just a sad reality of war. Please take it off and save it for rotten.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskee (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The SquicksI was debating this in my head for a while, but reading [the adminstrator's comments sort of changed my mind. What we are doing in this page is sensationalistic. It is grotesque. It is for shock value and pure shock value only. It is not for illustrating the information of the article. We are including this picture because we want to generate a gut effect in the viewer's mind. And that reaction is an anti-Israeli one. We are, in a real sense, moralizing here. We are posting something desgined to trigger a specific response in the reader's mind, the same way (in a more mundane example) putting this picture in the article for Nintendo triggers a subconsious viewer response. And that is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Skäpperöd No per Sandstein. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Tomtom9041 Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy Finally on the issue of balance, any article which puts up a half dozen pictures of the carnage of only one side in a conflict will be (rightly) accused being unencylopedia, or worse -- of spreading propaganda for that side. Better no pictures at all than only one-sided pictures of carnage. And yes, the picture is "offensive, profane and obscene" by many standards and their insertion would actually render the article less informative, rather than more. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)(signed later)

I see where Cerejota has made an RfC on this issue. I would have done it myself but not having done it before not comfortable doing it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Just reverted User:Brunte's reinsertion of the photos. This user just joined in the conversation 2 days ago. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I inserted two of the pictures, not the dead babypicture. You behave arrogant by reverting a compromis. Brunte (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The three pictures was removed during an nonconcensus debate about one of them. I put back the two other. Now you reverted it and fall in to a povpushing effort. Dirty done. Brunte (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AN3 thread

Hey,

I saw my name on the edit-war list you created at WP:AN3. May I ask you to strike my name out, as I did neither restore nor delete anything, in fact I merely transformed a table with images into a wiki image gallery, as is clearly shown in the diff you provided - just wikiformat, nothing more. I can also assure you that I am neither a SPA nor a partisan :), but a Pomeranian usually editing Pomerania-related articles - check my contributions summary. I went to the Gaza article only out of interest in this current event, and my edits were mostly style related. If you check out the talk page, you will find that I actually voted against integrating the images in question. So may I urge you again to strike out my name in that list, I really don't want to be grouped with SPA's and partisan flamers, and I don't want to troll that thread with "What am I doing here" notices. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not opposed to that list as such, but I did not remove or insert the gallery, I just wikified the format (and moved the whole thing two paragraphs down, please check the diff you provided). Neither am I against your AN3 thread as such, just against being an insurgent there - I did not participate in the image war, though I am actually on your side with this. Clear enough? :)Skäpperöd (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Skäpperöd (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see these guidelines on what to do if you want to withdraw a remark from talk. You need to make a strike out, preferably (use <strike></strike> around the relevant text). If you want someone else to withdraw a remark then you need to request that they do so. But, removing comments or editing them isn't really the best approach for a whole variety of reasons. Coldmachine^Talk 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The report is now *closed*. Indeed, it was closed some time ago. Stop removing the list [3] or fiddling with it at all. If you have anything to say, say it on the talk page where we can all quietly ignore it. To S: stop worrying. Your name on the list means nothing William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting the dead baby picture up for discussion. It seems like you have already made some considerable headway. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the Gallery of pictures that has been being reverted as well, the dead girl, the bodies at the morgue etc? Does it strike you that there should be a balance in photos as well as in text? Or do you find it acceptable that there would be more photos of Palestinian suffering as they have had so many more casualties? It seems to me that since this war did not start in a vacuum, (ie several years of indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli civilian communities) that we should be able to balance the article with some pictures of Hamas damage and devastation. I think emotive, sensationalist photos should be out, myself. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate galleries. Period. So, any images that get placed in the article, in my opinion, should be placed in the article. There should be no problem here because this is a long article. I think one of those images would be fine (I think the picture of the girl is the most relevant), along with the other wide shots of devastation in Gaza. The question of balance in photos as well as text has nothing to do with the subsequent question; yes, I think there should be more pictures of Palestinian suffering because this event was all about what was happening in Gaza (not that there was a whole lot happening against Israel). The article does not suggest this happened in a vacuum either; there's the background section and there's there was even a picture there (and that picture should be re-added). There's also another picture of a rocket being fired from Gaza. There's a difference between sensationalist photos and photos that accurately depict the subject and content of the article (within obvious reason). The baby image, as I have already stated, fits in the former. The other images currently in the article, in my opinion, fit in the latter category. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - unresolved disputes

Hi to you too and thanks for the note. I would like to start a list of unresolved disputes on that mess of an article. Are there any you can add to the below list.

1. It is a violation of NPOV to represent the view that it is part of the I-P Conflict and exclude other prominent POV's. For example, it is viewed by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power.

2. If one insists on saying The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world, then balance requires that it be mentioned that The conflict has been described as and as part of the War on Terror in the non-Arab world.

3. Someone keeps setting the archive bot to remove talk sections after only 9 hours of inactivity. It should be set to a minimum of several days because ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes are being automatically removed from the talk page. This is contrary to WP standard practice and guidelines.

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power , began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), with the stated intent of targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in the Arab Worldand as part of the War on Terror in the non-Arab world . Doright (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Thank you for support! I really appreciate it. Thank you for bringing some balance and neutrality. My nickname stands for "urban legend" in Hebrew, this is somehow describes WP content in my view :) Hope you visit Jerusalem really soon. You are most welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

dense inert metal weapons

Hi, you deleted the mention in the Gaza conflict article that stated that DIME weapons were not illegal. I wrote that statement only because the placement of the DIME weapon allegations within the "International Law" section implied that they were illegal, which they are not. Therefore, I have restored the comment (that they are not illegal). It sounds odd to write that line, but it seems like the best choice since people keep moving the DIME allegations back into the "International Law" section even though it does not belong there at all.althena (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Tundrabuggy, due to recent edit warring, you are banned until March 1, 2009, from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You were never notified about the "discussion" that led up to this clearly wrongful ban, so I guess I'll notify you now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ain't that just sweet! Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talkpage) Well, it's not my call -- Just as I would hope that other uninvolved administrators would trust that I'm acting in the best interest of the project, on the disputes that I'm managing, I have to trust that other admins know what they're doing in their corner of the encyclopedia. Based on what I glanced at, on the article and its talkpage, things are scrolling pretty fast, with many different editors. Personally, I probably would not have made the decision that PhilKnight did, but neither do I think that his decision was outside of the bounds of reasonable sanctions, either. If it were me, I probably would have cautioned you about the "50-50" rule again, since it appears that you've been fairly single-minded on the Gaza conflict article for awhile now. I do understand that the real-life situation with the Gaza conflict is highly charged and very emotional, but you also have to assume good faith that just because you're not on the article, does not mean it's going to go to hell in a handbasket. Especially with many other editors working on it, the article will usually continue to grow and improve. My honest advice is to not worry too much about the short-term, but to take the long view. Remember that we're here for an encyclopedia, not for a news source, so it's not important to get the article adjusted minute by minute. And even if you could get the article fixed to your version of "clean", it would only last a few nanoseconds anyway. Once some time has passed though, and the article isn't the focus of such intense attention, it'll be easier to go back and take another look to see about sorting out the encyclopedic parts. I feel the same way about a completely different topic area, that of television series. While a show is running, it's going to have a lot of people interested in it, which makes it very difficult to perform cleanup on some articles since the fans may resist every little change that's made. However, if we wait until the show's off the air, then the fans move on, and it's easier for the other (non-fan) editors to go in at that point and perform any necessary cleanup. So don't sweat it -- work on other articles than just one, and preferably work in other topic areas as well, and you'll be able to come back to the Gaza article in a few weeks. If you do want the ban lifted early, try listening very hard to what admins there (especially PhilKnight) are telling you. Perhaps if you were to put some good work in on other articles, and then ask him if there's anything else you could do to increase trust, he might be willing to modify the ban. I do think that you're a valuable editor and have done a lot of good work on the project, but perhaps it's time to show people by example, that you can do good work on non-controversial articles, too.  :) Hope that helps, --Elonka 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

TB, you're not banned from using the article talk page you realise? While of course this leads to some (understandable) frustration on your part, if you're not able to make cogent arguments on the talk then the article edits would never stick. - brenneman 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, there is currently an ongoing RfC about the arbitration enforcement process. I've been giving a lot of thought to it, myself, and may make some additional suggestions there. I encourage you to participate as well: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. --Elonka 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing the Gaza article

Hi Tundrabuggy. I see you're back at the article so that's good. But I am concerned about you and I just wanted to pass along some friendly advice. I understand your passion for the subject and I can understand that you're upset about the way you've been treated. But I really think that you're not doing yourself any favours with some of the hostility.

I suspect that you don't like some of the editors and I know that some of them don't like you. But we're stuck together because of Wikipedia's open editing policy. So I think sometimes that means turning the other cheek and maintaining your composure, even when you know another editor is behaving badly.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way. I really do intend this as friendly advice. I think you have a serious perspective and some valid points. I'd like to see you convince people on the talk page like I know you can. Sometimes it seems like you're helping the people who disagree with you more than you're helping yourself. You can't give anyone a reason to ignore you.

By the way, I'm Canadian and I've always meant to ask if you've actually been in a tundra buggy? I've never had the chance but it looks like an amazing experience. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mu'awiyah Hassanain, director of Ambulance and Emergency Services in Gaza

Hi there. Lately I come across a lot of reports of the Gaza medic in the subject. His quotes are all around the Gaza Israel conflict article. In my view he should honored with his own Wiki article, in similar manner to Mads Gilbert. Are you up to it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, send a link AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:02, 4 February 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)

I also believe that you are right in your edits to the Gaza conflict article, Thanks.--79.177.132.177 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Buggy: I sent you Google Talk. Unlike last time, try to respond within the next two weeks ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent comment

In your recent comment on the WP:AE page, you have made vague accusations of antisemitism. I suggest you have another look at WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. If you continue to make similar remarks, then I'll extend your current ban so that it covers the entire topic. Obviously, if you have concerns about a specific user, then you should file a request for comment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment on my talk page and I noticed what you said on Brewcrewer's also. I'm not upset with Brewcrewer and I understand everyone is a little jumpy around here. I didn't mean to say that "pro-Israel" editors got blocked more than others but that was the issue Cptnono had brought up. I'm not an I/P editor really but I was a little involved with the Mohammed al-Durrah article last summer. Maybe you remember me from that. So I am less familiar with the history here. I don't know things well enough here to say if there is some sort of bias. I've always had faith in WP process enough to hope that there isn't. But I did just relate the hockey truism on Brewcrewer's talk about not giving a bad referee an excuse to call a penalty. I don't know if you're into hockey but I'm hoping someone who's been up north and is maybe from Wisconsin might be. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Purple Barnstar for Diplomacy

		The Purple Barnstar
		I award you this coveted barnstar for dealing with abusive and uncivilized users in a noble manner. Even when faced with consequence, you remained diplomatic. Congratulations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

p.s: Accidentally put the wrong date before so it got archived. Sorry.

For some reason, the table markup was broken, I fixed it after a couple of tries.--Cerejota (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tundrabuggy. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What do I do?

It seems every time I enter a controversial discussion POV-pushers group up for an assault. I've recently been slammed with an unjustified administration noticeboard post, accused of racism by two people for no reason other than trying to put in a one sentence fact (i.e, [this person] is Jewish), and everything else. Is there some sort of process I can appeal to? Nobody else seems to be suffering any consequences as a result of unsanctioned accusations, taunting, personal attacks...all of which I usually ignore and/or argue but never ever report because that never solves anything. Now I think I might consider scouting for violators simply to protect myself and the article(s). I'm just tired. I value your opinion...so what do you suggest I do if you don't mind me asking LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, gotchya. But can anyone see my email? Can admins/elites see it? Wikifan is as anonymous as it it's going to get lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so but I will find out from an admin I trust. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

No-one can see e-mail, not administrators, or "elites". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

Could you check out the article I just made? It relates to Israel/UN situation. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I responded to your comments at the talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the encouragement. Hopefully, we can work together to ensure a fair and balanced article.Kinetochore (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My accusation of you of being possible sockpuppets with Betacrusis

I will be going to the check user for this one. If the check user doesn't think the case has merit or if you and Betacrusis are not sockpuppets you obviously have nothing to worry about and you will have my apologies for having you go through this process.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The case has been started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacrusis.

Good news. You have been found not to be a sockpuppet of Betacrusis. Please accept my apologies for putting you through this process. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting phraseology. "News" usually connotes information that was unknown to the recipient. TB knew whether he was or wasn't a sockpuppet; he doesn't need a checkuser to tell him that. To that end, there's no need to apologize for "putting him through the process". He didn't care and indeed welcomed the CU in order to clear his name. It's the false accusation that should be apologized for. Also, if you would have looked at the few edits of Beta you would have realized that unless Beta is doing an absolutely brilliant acting job, he was clearly a newbie. You also would have noticed from his spelling and his editing times that he's not even American and is editing from some ex-British commonwealth. If Beta and TB were the same person they would be editing without sleeping!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Brewcrewer. It's too bad you didn't bring that to my attention during our previous conversations. I don't think your characterization is quite right though. The only "accusation" I made was that I had a suspicion there could be sockpuppetry afoot. There was not. Since it was found that there was sufficient cause to have that suspicion, I don't feel inclined at all to apologize for having it. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can only speak for myself, but I would never accuse another editor of breaking the rules and playing dirty before I make a thorough check of both edits, both editing times, and both writing styles. It's still disappointing that you're rationalizing your actions with word games and have yet to offer a real apology. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best to you too. I do rationalize my actions. As we all do. I don't apologize for following policy. I will apologize for being wrong in my suspicions. I don't apologize for having them. I will apologize for a system that is bureaucratic and unfriendly at times. Of course, maybe I should be asking you for an apology. You accused me of making a "false accusation" implying that I knew that they weren't sockpuppets. Obviously not the case. I'm not a psychic. Yet you repeatedly say that I should be apologizing for being too stupid to know that they weren't the same person. Not going to happen.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

lol, you hardly had to be "psychic" to have figured out that we weren't sock puppets. You could even have asked us on our talk pages, and gotten a feel for the newbie, before you took a BITE. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for a guy who's been editing for a month, he quotes policy fairly professionally. [4] He also knew how to create a new section with two properly formatted references on his first edit! [5] By his seventh edit he was making suggestions about changing policy at the Village Pump. [6] Plus I feel like I was pretty civil to the guy and tried to explain my rational. As far as asking potential sockpuppets if they're sockpuppets, well...--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go again! not assuming good faith. You said that he was "quoting policy" but in fact your edits don't show that. All you have shown is that he is citing references properly and using wiki links. That is one of the first things people here should learn here at wiki, and unlike some of us he may not have been comfortable editing until he was confident that he was doing it properly. Or he could be a quicker learner than some other editors. Many people have edited wiki without ever taking on a wiki name. Maybe he edited with IP numbers before he signed up. You don't know, yet assume the worst! Anyway, he got a helluva welcome from you. I do urge you to stop being so suspicious of fellow editors because they have a different perspective from you. Concentrate on editing instead of other editors. Best wishes, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can all start accusing each other of not assuming good faith. Or maybe you're right and we can move on. Brewcrewer is planning on using this check user to embarrass me in the future it seems [7] but I'll try not to let that affect my judgment. Hope that we really can move forward and again, I am sorry that I put you through this. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to do the right thing, atleast you now realize you're not that great at sniffing out sockpuppets. Maybe next time you'll do a proper analysis before you insult another editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just give potential sockpuppets a little more credit to be sneaky than you. If you want to discuss this further please do so on my talk page. I'm not going to fill up Tundrabuggy's talk page when he's not even taking part in this discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please feel free to use my talk page. I just got here a little late, as I did for the last banning you and cerejota initiated. I am perhaps unsurprisingly in agreement with Brewcrewer here (perhaps you want to check us out for sockpuppetry?) It was oddly NOT "Good news!" to me that I was not a sockpuppet, lol! I've been aware of it for some time now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you're sensitive to TBuggy's talkpage feelings. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Defense

True, although I think the defense is there more for response to sockpuppetry accusations, as opposed to whether or not the CU should be run. I understand that you feel attacked under the situation, and I'm sorry if I added to that. If you feel improperly "ganged-up" upon, there is always RfC and RfAr, but those are not to be entered lightly :( -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

I agree with your rationale for keep. --Cerejota (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)\

And you agreed with me. Thereby affecting the fabric of the time and space continuum generating a flux differentian vortex that will lead to the total demolecularization of all that is known in 5, 4, 3, 2...--Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do doubt it, frankly. Still here and doing fine. ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard

You told me that there's a double standard against pro-Israeli editors but we missed an opportunity to find out. Wikifan was very forgiving after Cryptonio's vile "you are scum" attack. I'd have certainly complained if it was said to me. I think that's the worst attack I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Maybe pro-Israel editors are just too good-natured. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada has been very civil on the talk page. But it does look like he was edit-warring a little so maybe he should be aware of ARBPIA. It should probably go out automatically when someone edits an IP article.

I don't really like the whole us vs. them thing going on although I am not blind enough to imagine it away. If you think the "other side" is being to draconian you could obviously do the same to them. But I really think the best thing is just to advise people on "your side" to be on their best behaviour. I know it is unfair if you have to follow the rules strictly when someone else does not but it really shouldn't be a burden to follow the rules strictly and I think that's what ARBPIA demands of us.

As for Nableezy, I don't think he has an OWN problem. I think he's just stubborn like the rest of us. But I actually started to talking to him when we disagreed about the "Gaza Massacre" inclusion. I think he was fair, reasonable and willing to compromise. I think he's also been more willing than anyone on the article to admit his own mistakes and correct them.

I think the real problem is the atmosphere on the talk page. Nobody has been willing to compromise on anything unless they absolutely have to. So everyone just keeps butting heads and things become combustible. Then it just takes one stray comment to set them off. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe they should ban us all and start over with a new group of editors. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't told me that you are an English teacher. I felt bad enough about my grammar already.
I meant to say that he compromised with me. I think that we were asking different things of him. I think you dug in your heels on the proper name issue. I felt that the assertion GM was the usual name was unprovable. He compromsied with me on a version that said Hamas had used the term GM and it was widely termed "Gaza War" in Arabic media. If I wrote the article alone, I'd have erased any "Gaza massacre" inclusion. I know he'd have included the older text that argued for a general usage. But it was a fair compromise.
Looking back on it all, I think the biggest difference in my work with Nableezy is that I started off by saying I appreciated the his concerns. We disagreed but that didn't make us enemies.
Sometimes the best thing is to tell a user he's wrong. I just told NYCJosh he was wrong about certain weapons (and sources) and I don't think that I would compromise on that. But I think the problem is that most editors will tell their opponents that they are wrong when they could offer a compromise instead. I think it is a natural impulse to simply argue. In the real world I write what I want and don't have to consider views that I disagree with. It is hard but we all have accept that the articles are never going to look exactly the way we'd like.
If you've been to the Canadian Arctic, you may have seen that the archeological sites. I understand that the Dorset and Thule people invested considerable resources in the construction of stone longhouses, something basically unheard of among hunter-gatherer societies. It is usually explained that the marginal opportunities the location provided required the people to come together to cooperate and avoid conflict whenever possible. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah actually the Thule probably destroyed the Dorset or at least drove them off. I think they even stole their longhouses. I just meant to say that the I-Pscape is a fairly marginal provider itself and we can't really afford to have the fights we do.
To be honest I'm beginning to think that they should enforce ARBPIA more strictly and really only let users participate if they act on their best behaviour.
I have opinions just like everyone else of course. But I don't really feel I have a stake in the thing like everyone else. But I try to understand those who do and I can see how hard it would be to see "the other side" get away with edit-warring or incivility and feel they are disadvantaged if they don't do the same. It is a sort of prisoner's dilemma right now sadly. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Offer an opinion at Israeli/Gaza conflict? I know you have a particularly POV but we're at a roadblock. this is the latest section titled falastine inaccuracy or something. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

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/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/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/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people for a people without a land

I see that you warned Annoymous on the 3RR. I believe that he just violated it again.Historicist (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I see Historicist is back to his old habit of accusing me of violating the 3rr when I didn't. The dispute we have now is completely seperate from what I was cited for on the 3rr noticeboard by tundrabuggy. That issue was settled and what I'm arguing with Historicist about right now is the proper wording for a specific quote by Chaim Weizmann. That's completely different from what I was reverting before and so far I've only done it 3 times.

If I get blocked for the reasons tundrabuggy cited me for than I'm prepared to accept that, but it is false to say I violated the 3rr again. annoynmous 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)