Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:35, 10 September 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: WP:AGF and defenestrations

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm already on it: . I'm still formulating the post, but it will appear soon.

Cheers and thanks again! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:05

Ta-da! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:27

Operation Defensive Shield

Hi Nickhh! Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, as you did here to Operation Defensive Shield. I trust that you are well familiar with the dispute resolution process, especiall the sentence Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. In other words, if an issue is raised on talk and you oppose it, make your claims on the talk page and not in the article itself. I hope you understand and this notice creates better cooperation between the two sides. Good day, Ynhockey 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're referring to the edit itself or the edit summary - the edit was fair enough, as material had been removed without consensus and I merely restored it, as any editor has the right to do. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I was just putting back some detail which made the box more balanced. And I did of course explain why on the talk page before making the edits (you seem to be suggesting I did not?). I do accept though that I could have phrased the second edit summary better - I was just trying to rather clumsily and pithily explain the point about balance, since in my view it read like some kind of IDF/MFA victory press release as phrased. Having said all that, as I've now also said on the talk page, I think Nudve's subsequent version is more or less the right way to go. --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New section

Nick -- I meant it as a joke about protection my ego (so my comment could be seen). I tried to then make a blank edit with an explanatory edit summary, but it didn't take for some reason. Hope you didn't take offense. HG | Talk 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, not at all. I understood exactly and was trying to be funny in response, but deleted the emoticon wink I had originally put in because, well, I don't do that sort of thing --Nickhh (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

As Elonka already warned you, articles in the relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, are under a ruling of discretionary sanctions.

Your recent edit warring over Nahum Shahaf is unacceptable, and you have persisted despite numerous warnings and expressed BLP concerns. Given that you no longer attempt to resolve the dispute through the talk page, you are hereby banned from editing the Nahum Shahaf article entirely for a period of 60 days (not including the associated talk page).

Please note that further disruption, including persisting with incivil edit summaries or more edit warring, will lead to stronger sanctions up to and including complete topic ban and blocks of increasing duration. — Coren  18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"I have persisted despite numerous warnings"? What are you on about? Since Elonka posted a warning in relation to civility in edit summaries on my talk page, I made two edits to the article, here and here, while at the same time being engaged (as I had been for a long time) on the talk page about the broad issues involved. Both were reverts to restore sourced, albeit critical, information which other editors then removed. I have not attempted to restore it since. You do realise, do you not, that it takes two (or more in this case) to edit war, and that I in fact backed away from continuing that edit war, while other editors did not? You don't seem to have contacted or barred any of the others involved.

Having said all that I'm not going to contest the ban as I had already decided to return to my original position in respect of this page, which was not to edit it anyway, as per here. It's a waste of time when the usual bunch of nationalist North American and Israeli editors will just weigh in to make sure that any related article reflects their favoured narrative of Israeli-Palestinian issues, while ignoring or excluding the conclusions of any reliable sources that question that view. It's too exasperating, as my edit summaries (very) occasionally give away. And I have better things to do. --Nickhh (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition and the United States

Today you wrote: "I am not going to discuss anything else with you on this page. Do not take this as tacit consensus that the arguments you've made above (and will no doubt continue to make here) hold any water. In fact assume that I would probably rebut every single point you have made on the talk page, with specific arguments and examples, if I had the time. Also do not take this to mean that you have the right to continue to muck about with the main content. Where this will leave the article, who knows. Hopefully other editors may take on some of the challenge. --Nickhh (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not agree to post our dispute, and ask have one (or both) of us banned from the article? We could amicably agree to this, and then the article could be improved more than with more pointless debate? If you are correct they will ban me and everything will be fine. What could be more fair? (Even if will be a total waste of time).

You could just drop yourself, and save everyone a lot of energy (including yourself). It would be better if you can work on the article, but if not, then bye bye.

I would prefer that you decide to engage in normal editorial discussions and attempt to refrain from insults. We are not primary school children, and can be expected to find some way to work productively together. So Nickhh, what do you say to just working on this article to bring it into compliance with WP policy? Why waste other peoples time because we can't work together? Raggz (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing Gilad Shalit Case

I've closed the case as there was no will to continue. Thank you for your participation. Sunray (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress

Hi Nick!

A while ago I started an article on Palestinian prisoners and have been working on it only sporadically due to a high work-load in real life. I recently commented on it on User:Sunray's talk page and a few hours later, our mutual acquaintance Jack had already slapped some POV-tags on it and tried to massage some wording.

I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with this on a full-time basis and move the article forward at the same time, which is why I'm asking you if you could have a look at it and maybe help expand it?

Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 10.09.2008 07:41

OK, I see for example he's asking for more "context", which in the past would have been code for shovelling in about 20 paragraphs of why the arrests are necessary and justified, according to the IDF & Israeli government position. Having said that you may have noticed that he's kind of recast himself recently as a site moderator and helpful Wiki veteran (I'm guessing partly with a view to making a bid for adminship in the near future), so you may well find it easier to make progress than in the past. I'll see if I can do an odd bit here and there, but I'm hoping to scale back my time here due to a) real world things to do, and b) the fact that as ever I seem to spend more time on talk pages debating with difficult individuals rather than being able to make occasional improvements to anything here which actually stick. --Nickhh (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)