Misplaced Pages

User talk:Doright: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:58, 1 June 2006 editThenewestdoctorwho (talk | contribs)2,704 edits Peace← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:44, 1 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(120 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Welcome!''' <center>'''Welcome!'''</center>


<center>''' or scroll down to append your message at the bottom.'''</center>
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! 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 ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!&nbsp;
Please do not use article Talk pages for discussing personal issues, no matter how important. For that purpose, we have User Talk pages (like I am doing here) & email. ] ] 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


== Welcome ==


==Email==
As a new user to Misplaced Pages, you are feeling your way but here are a couple of things that might help you: (1) By filling in information about yourself and your credentials on your User page, it gives other editors a sense of the credibility of your edits. (2) The Misplaced Pages strives for Neutral Point of View in articles. That is NOT achieved by one side puttiing in a radical position and someone with another point of view moderating it and edits going back and forth. It is expected that every editor will put in NPOV in the first place. This is necessary to keep Misplaced Pages's credibility as a reference source and not a propaganda soapbox. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to help you. Merry Christmas... --] ] 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Doright, I responded to your recent email but it was returned as disabled. Hope all is well. --] 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:Stan, thank you for your kind words and interest in encouraging my participation. Indeed, it's not hard to imagine that one person's radical position is another moderate. It's a big world out here with lots of points of view. I'm of the school of thought that anyone can claim anything about themselves on the internet. Personally, I find it rather easy to evaluate ones "credentials" based upon the veracity of their arguments. I enjoy when well intended people of differing positions engage in rational discourse leading to a common understanding. I don't enjoy when people are merely pushing an agenda. It's so so boring. We have not yet developed a common understanding on the current project. However, I do invite your participation. Best Regards and Merry Christmas. ] 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Mperel, I haven't been on WP for a long time and the associated email address was deactivated. In any case, it's nice to know that I'm remembered with some affection. However, I did not email you. I have now reactivated my email address and look forward to hearing from you either here or there. All is very well. :) ] (]) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Um I think he may be pointing to wikipedia policy that this is an encyclopedia supposedly formed on NPOV writing, rather than POV debate. Reguardless of your enjoyment of POV debate wikipedia (from what i have come to understand) is NPOV only, no POV at all (which would include all aspects of article development) --] 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


== Physician, heal thyself == == Re: Correction ==


Oops! Sorry about that. ] (]) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Doright, you need to examine your own passions to push your own POV and view others with the same objective light. Just an observation of your inceptor work. ] 20:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And PS this last post: please be more considerate of others. I take exception to the attacks you make against Mr. CTSWyneken, who has been around this website alot longer than you. ] 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:drboisclair, typical of your style, you continue to post your slanderous charges, but do so in such a way that lacks the specificity that would allow a person to defend themselves. Thus your attack is purely vicious and punitive. I understand that profound ignorance of a subject (e.g., you agree with StanZegel's comments about antisemitism, '''there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites).--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)''' and I quote you here, '''As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)''') nor an ] and ] POV (e.g., you complain, "Jewish opponents lampooned and libeled Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary") preclude one from pushing their agenda. However, when an editor engages in mischievous plagiarism, ] this kind of intellectual dishonesty must be dealt with by fair-minded colleagues. CTSWyneken lacking the moral courage to apologize at least had the good sense to not respond to the charge since he was caught red-handed. You, on the other hand, as his mate, do so not by addressing the issue of his plagiarism but by attacking me. And PS, please be more considerate of others. I take exception to your attacks. ] 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


==Palestinian People==
Excuse me, sir, it is YOU that are levelling attacks, although, admittedly in your own space here. You here are judging Stan, CTS, and me. To some extent we are limited by the Misplaced Pages rule of "no original research." This is an encyclopedia and we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write. I post that to your charge of plagiarism. My caption for this comment still stands ''a fortiori''. The only thing I would find fault with is your rudeness. It is unbecoming of a scholar if that is what you are, and I don't say you aren't. You are making quite a reputation for yourself here. ] 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is. At least for the moment I’m afraid I lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people on many sides (including "my" side) and I don’t think I have the fortitude to bear it. Vandalism patrol, reverting "penis" and "poo", is the extent of what I can handle for the time being : ) --] 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


:Doright, it would be nice if you would actually participate in the discussion on the talk page (Specifically, this section , rather than making repeated undiscussed changes to the introduction as you did for example here: , . I'm not sure if you noticed the multiple sections stressing the need for changes to the introduction to be discussed first. One change was permitted to stand, using the ] rationale, for which that talk page section was opened. Editors who revert the change however, are expected to make a case as to why on the talk page. Failure to do so, makes the revert disruptive, rather than constructive. So please, if you do revert the edit again, revert to the last introduction to enjoy some consensus, and outline your objection in the section I've linked above, so that we can discuss how to move towards a consensus version. Okay? Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::drboisclair, excuse me, sir, since you attacked me in my "own space here," I responded here. Your repeated prevarications and dissembling are a nuisance. I can see from your reply, that again profound ignorance does not stop you from pressing your POV, even when the facts are handed to you on a platter. The non sequitur that you post, "we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write," is pathetic (but typical) '''since there were no summarizations.''' What was actually there prior to the improper tampering by your mate was an unambiguous html link ''']''' to the actual true source fully documented footnoted and referenced and completely transparent. Your continued and misguided harassment is not serving the goal of the encyclopedia. I respectfully again ask you to stop.
] 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


:This is an extraordinary remark. You appear to call for collegiality, starting from the set of alterations you have made, without talking to anyone. You made, from out of the blue, 11 edits in a 'couple of days', amongst which a comprehensive change to the intro. which are usually the hardest things to negotiate, and the text was the result of long work. (2)You have been inactive for a long time and have suddenly jumped at this page, saying, while requesting outside assistance from an excellent editor ], that because others have requested you to slow down, because edits you have not discussed are challenged, this 'miserable' page is suffering from ], which, practically means that a newcomer with no record in the area, making a dozern changes, is disconcerted that several experienced editors disagree with his unilateral edits (3) Your edits were often technically faulty, as Eleland indicated (4) Effectively the edit you were pushing replaced a complex rich summary statement of much recent scholarship on the formation of Palestinian identity with a bare quote from one source: the effect was to impoverish the terxt (5) the talk you engaged in to justify this significant alteration of the lead was minimal (6) I follow this and many other pages closely (7) YOur revert was unilateral and disruptive (7) With significant alterations in negotiated leads one should, in respect for those who have a long tradition of having worked on a page, vet their opinion before hazarding your own preferred material (8) The EB is one source, and not the only reliable source because you alone happen to prefer it. (9) To accuse practiced editors of a page of edit warring when they have made just one or two changes, independently, on a page you seem ready to rtewrite singlehandedly, is calling the kettle black. You appear to me at least to be conducting a one-man show edit war with several people. Show a willingness to justify before others your own take on this line, and achieve consensus, and perhaps you will find your actual edits less troubled by challenges. I have not edit-warred.] (]) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the dialogue. I have no intention of levelling charges nor of engaging in ''ad hominem'' attacks. If any of my sentiments can be construed as such, I vacate them. Respectfully, ] 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::Again, please address the article content issue that I initiated on the article talk page as you can see I had previously done . I suggest that it is more helpful to the WP project than a flame war that I have no interest in. Ironically, your comments here are both self-contradictory and provide additional evidence that some editors may be going too far in "defending" the article. You complain that I do not engage in discussion on the talk page, while in fact I have, for example right , then you refuse to do so yourself even when I specifically created a talk page section to address your concern. You complain about my requesting a second opinion from an editor by asking them to "take a look at the article," even though we both agree she is an excellent editor. One would think that my seeking input from an excellent editor would be encouraged. And, your characterization of her as an "outside" editor, in this context, only furthers one's concerns that there are "ownership" issues at play here. Interestingly, the excellent editor seems to agree with my assessment of the editorial environment on that page. She says, "Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is." Apparently, this is not as "extraordinary" of a remark as you think. Rather, it is the assessment of an excellent editor, so much so, that the excellent editor is discouraged from even participating because of the "lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people." This seems to provide further evidence that the editorial environment that you seem to covet discourages contributions from even excellent editors. I trust that the irony of your generalized and unsupported claims with respect to the content of my edits are not unnoticed. For example, the ] quote that you reverted came from the Encyclopedia Britannica and is from '''the same source and paragraph that your preferred POV version is purported to cite.''' Again, the place to address concerns about the content of edits to the article is at the article discussion page. Please do so. Future rants to this talk page will be ignored when deemed of no material benefit to the Encylopedia. Regards, ] (]) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


== Luther and the Jews == == "Blocked" ==


If you're interested to know about the context of my brief block, you could read a lengthy sectionn of AN/I . The editor who blocked me (and quite a few others) took a fair amount of heat for this and had to step back from it. If you're concerned that I might end up being blocked again and want to help by making me aware of policies etc., may I suggest that my talk page is the appropriate place for that sort of assistance. thanks ] (]) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been commenting (if somewhat sporadically) on the Talk: page. The article title was changed because "Martin Luther and anti-Semitism" took the position that he was anti-Semitic, whereas this one doesn't make that assertion. It was seen by those who moved it as more neutral. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the offer but I'm not that interested in why you were blocked. As your user account was opened only last month, I thought you might not be familiar with some of our policies that could result in you being removed from the debate. Since I was pointing out other policies related to the editing dispute at ], I also mentioned the 3RR policy. I'm sorry if that offended you. Happy editing, ] (]) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


== Israel -> Zionism and the British Mandate ==
==Approaches, etc.==


hi!
Hi there - thanks for the message on my talk page. I wouldn't presume to put words in your mouth, so I'll keep it a bit more superficial and general (but I'll be glad to point out some language choices at other junctures or later along the way). Basically, don't allow the emotion you feel, and the frustration, to be captured by those who oppose you. If your changes are repeatedly reverted, and you have tried RfC and other means of resolution, you may be in the minority and may need to 'choose another angle of approach' to address whatever issues are sticking in your craw. Don't allow yourself to verbalize feelings of being 'ganged up on' (to use a phrase), because in the WIkipedia space, those sorts of comments are often met by an instant 'ignore' by many readers. It's clear you know the material well, and can argue well - be Spock. Stay in the argument, and get past 'it all', and you'll do just fine. :)
i just want to apologize for reverting your edit whitout stating my reason for doing so. i mistakingly thought you had simply removed my sentence, while in reality you had relocated and reformulated it. therfore, i (wrongly) didn't bother to write anything in the comments field. i'm sorry for this rather rude behaviour of mine. ] (]) 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for this courtesy. Regards, ] (]) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


== Re: Lewis ==
: Thanks for the encouragment. I can use it. I’m becoming discouraged because it seems that a tiny self defined group can completely control and have total ownership over the content of articles without regard to rational discourse. I believe they are actually in the minority, but are on these articles almost 24/7. So, even when other senior editors like ] or ] and others come by for a short period to express their disagreement with them, or make edits in some cases identical to mine, the dedicated minority ends up prevailing. It's starting to seem like a waste of time to me if there is no light at the end of the tunnel.] 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up. Glad you are okay with my edit. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Please observe Misplaced Pages Policies ==


== My request for bureaucratship ==
Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought. Such actions are violations of ]. Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors. Please stop placing inflammatory statements in edit summaries. Please stop the use of intemperate language in your postings. Please remember that you are expected to make an article balanced, not lop-sided with any POV. Please note that if you continue to infringe upon the rules of good conduct that disciplinary actions (including being banned) may be initiated against you. That would be unfortunate, and I ask you to conduct yourself in such a way that discipline will not become necessary, and that your edits can become a useful part of Misplaced Pages. --] ] 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:StanZegel writes to drboisclair: <blockquote>"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these '''high school kids''' with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile '''they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted''' and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)</blockquote>"-] 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
:StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken: <blockquote> "An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and '''dropping his waste matter''' into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be '''summarily deleted''' on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a '''sock puppet''' for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--] ] 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"</blockquote>-] 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


<div style="float:center;border-style:double;border-color:#01796F;background-color:white;border-width:2px;text-align:left;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;padding:8px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em;" class="plainlinks">]
== Please consider ==
<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">Dear Doright, thank you for taking part in ]. As you may know, it was ] by bureaucrats. <br>I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit ], should you have any concerns about any of my actions here. <br>I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ ] 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
</div>
:I’m sorry you have experienced the disappointment of an unsuccessful candidacy. However, surely you are not unclear about the advice suggested by my comments. Specific diff’s were provided. As I mentioned in your RfB, my advice is you not exhibit the behaviors that the community has identified as a source of concern. Then, after 6 months, give your candidacy another try, if you are still interested in the position. Regards, ] (]) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::No, your opposition was quite clear on points I should improve upon - blame the copy-paste :) Thanks, ~ ] 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


== reply at ] ==
Hi Doright, please consider removing your addition of Martin Luther's 1543 pamphlet to the ]. Instead, please see if it adequately covered in the ]. It took us some effort to keep them separate (otherwise Jewish history may be seen as defined by antisemitism). Cheers. ←] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


hi!
== Category:Antisemitism (people) ==


please see
Taking a quick glance at ] and the ], neither of the articles mention anything about them being anti-semites. You can't arbitrarily add categories that defame the article without having any source/reference. ] 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel#Jewish_and_Arab_immigration


regards, ] (]) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:Dear fellow wikipedian, a careful reading of the category explicitly states that the person included may or ‘’’may not’’’ be an antisemite. Please read it. In the case of Omar II, “Caliph Omar II introduces discriminatory regulations against the dhimmi, among them for Jews to wear a special yellow garb.” I also suggest you take a look here ]and here ] . You will also find “Philip III of France causes mass migration of Jews by forbidding them to live in the small rural localities.”] 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the notification. Best regards, ] (]) 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


== Deletion of citations in ] ==
::That's Philip III, nothing in the Philip II article even mentions Jews. And please add that information to the Omar II article. ]|] 22:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Please be more specific before performing big reverts. Note that you have removed at least nine citations from reliable sources added by multiple editors, claiming they are "original research". If you wish to claim "original research" when removing citations, considerably more specificity is necessary to justify your actions. Otherwise, it's just edit-warring. Exactly which citations do you object to, and why? --] (]) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Philip II of France, ie, "Philip Augustus of France after four months in power, imprisons all the Jews in his lands and demands a ransom for their release. In 1181 he annuls all loans made by Jews to Christians and takes a percentage for himself. A year later, he confiscates all Jewish property and expels the Jews from Paris. He readmits them in 1198, only after another ransom was paid and a taxation scheme was set up to procure funds for himself." ]] 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
==Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter==
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Terrorism/Newsletter/April08}}
] <sup>(]) </sup> 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


==]==
::That is utter nonsense if you create a category that finds a loophole around ]. How about I change the terrorist category to allow for people who "may or may not" be terrorists, and then start tagging every article, from ] to ]. No one could fault be because frankly, I gave myself an out with the "may or may not" comment.
Hi. I reverted your last edit to that article, I'm afraid. You removed Palestine from the list of prime ministers by country, arguing that Palestine is not a country. While this is obviously technically true, I don't think it is an uncontroversial edit. As such, I think you should discuss on the talk page first whether or not Palestine should be removed from the list. If, then, consensus is reached that it should be removed, you are of course very free to remove it again. I hope this is okay with you, and you should by no mean think that your contributions are not appreciated. -<span id="Lilac Soul" class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">] <sup>(] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> )</span></sup> <sup><font color="red">• '''I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!'''</font></sup> 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::And also, showing me links on non-WP sites doesn't help me nor the reader of the article. When they are reading the article, they are reading the text that is on the page, not searching google for various claims of anti-semitism. Furthermore, your WP to the history of anti-semitism does not even link to ]. ] 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


:Reply is ] (]) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Nonsense? That you view the category as a "loophole" and not merely a list of people who scholars have associated with antisemtism belies your POV. Every article page can not recapitulate the contents of all other article pages. Thank you for pointing out ]. You will note that if you click on Omar II here ] you are redirected to ]. As I am still unfamiliar with much of wikipedia perhaps you would be kind enough to show me how to provide the link you think is missing. If there is a problem with this redirect, perhaps you can fix it. However, I don't have any reason to think that a problem exists. Regards,] 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:Lilac Soul, tagging an edit as ] is a privilege reserved for registered users so that it is less likely to be abused as you did ]. Reverting an editor's correction to an article in not properly tagged as minor. I hope this is okay with you. ] (]) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


== Gaza "Massacre" ==
Please stop. I have reverted your edit to ]. Don't put that category on articles which do not have any text supporting it. ]|] 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Doright, I have been fighting this exact battle for days (weeks?) now. Glad to have a fellow here. Head hurts from all that wall-banging. I think the final resolution was that enough people decided that since Nableezy speaks Arabic, ''he ought to know''. Either that or some folks just gave up, as I had until you reopened it. In fact, ] put it on the ] noticeboard here: . I'll see if I can find the archive as well, if you have a spare month of life, lol. ] (]) 07:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


== Your notes ==
I think you miss the point. As wikipedians, this category is not for name-calling. It is to identify significant people that have played a role in the history of antisemitism, whehter they are or are not antisemites themselves is not relevant. Collegially, ] 22:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Doright, thanks for your notes, but I'm not an admin anymore. I was temporarily desysopped after a little local difficulty. :-) ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
:I think you miss the point. Until the article ''on the individual'' explains that they are anti-Semites, you cannot include the tag on their article. Just referencing ] doesn't work. ]|] 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
:lol Slim, I hear it doesn't pay very well anyhow. Could you help by bringing my note to the attention of the adults at WP, if any are still here? There are ongoing and systematic bald face violations of policy. Now vandalism has been added to the mix by deleting talk discussion and evidence of a pov dispute from the article. ] (]) 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
::I'd just as soon not get involved in that article, sorry. You could try posting an RfC, but the best thing might be to wait until fewer people are interested. Where there's an ongoing news situation in a controversial area, it's always chaos. ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


== January 2009 ==
::That is a straw man argument, since, as you well know, being an anti-Semite is not a precondition for being in this category. Can you quote me the text of the wikipedia policy that states the rationale for an article being included in a category must be stated on that article's page? Every article page can not recapitulate the contents of all other related article pages.] 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages{{#if:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict|, as you did to ]}}. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ''Doright the arbitrary addition of controversial content to the first sentence of an article about a controversial event is bound to be controversial. Please discuss these sort of edits first on ]. Thank you.'' ] (]) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


===]'s Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia ===
: You might enjoy ]. Cheers. ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
], "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." ] In this case that would be you.


*], Exactly where in the ] policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
::Thanks Humus, but I find it very boring and a big waste of time to argue with antisemites about who is and is not an antisemite, so enjoy yourself. You might also enjoy this ]] 07:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*], That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
*], That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
*], That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth.
*], I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on the subject of the edit as well as the references to be provided related to it.
*], You should know that ] does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."
] (]) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


:The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's ''first sentence'' based on a ] theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... ] (]) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
== Your Offer of an Apology ==
::Your continued failure to comply with ], your failure to correct your behavior as documented above, your continued false claims, your assertion that it is I that has been aggressive because I was reverted rather than merely responding to your "harming the encyclopedia" by making false claims of ] as documented above, along with your assertion that Iranian involvement with Hamas is a fringe theory or that the some view the Gaza War as part of a war on terror are just a few more drops in the bucket of "particularly strong evidence," with regard to your conduct. ] (]) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


== gaza lead archive ==
: Doright, I'm more than willing to let the past go, if I have some assurance that you would stop attacking me and others, as you have done again on the Category: Antisemitic People even in trying to apologize, and would take care to properly cite material. I'm even willing to help you figure out how to do so, if you'd just ask. For example, the poem could be cited on a talk page as "attributed to Martin Niemõller" and, if you wanted to put it in an article, I could hunt down a printed version for you.


Hey, I noticed your comment on the former lead discussion page. I felt the dispute was solved when editors agreed on replacing "much of the Arab world" with "parts of...". If you feel further discussion is needed, please proceed on the ordinary talk page, and copy (or maybe better link) relevant stuff there. It is better to have all discussions in one place, the creation of talk-subpages was an exeption owned solely to huge size/high traffic. Thank you ] (]) 08:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
: You know too little about me to jump to the conclusions about my motives you've made in the past. My motive here is no more and no less that we reflect what scholarly literature says about a subject. This requires that citations be accurate. So, when you say that "Robert Michael wrote" it should be the words of Robert Michael, not an abstactor in a database. If you quote a cited in... this is fine. Often I can bring the source material to me to confirm such quotes. Just ask Humus how his quotes have fared when I've done this.


== Gaza lead section ==
:If you would be less quick to attack, you would see that I have not contested everything you've added. I'm not even against finding a way to define and/or rename the remaining category in a way that Martin Luther could be listed. Your definition under the Antisemitism (People) category went a long way toward that. My objection, you may recall, was to having two categories that carried the same freight.


: It is possible to work together. I've done this with several editors that have quite a different background from mine. I'm not asking that you agree with everything or anything I say, nor that you buy my arguments. I am asking that you cease making judgments about my motives, cease attacking me rather than arguing the points at hand, stop running all over the wiki to find points of view I and others have taken and use them to assault us. It is only because you have behaved as you have that I have a hard time accepting the things you add and revert them quickly when I cannot verify them.


I did add a bit more to the section on Talk with regard to your edit of the lead. I believe that the War on Terror should be termed the International War on Terror. Also I found several more sources besides Ledeen that made the same point. I still have a really hard time accepting that those references say that there is such a thing as the Gaza Massacre. Allowing it is to allow an error. Any high school student with a good command of English grammar will tell you that a name is a proper noun and a proper noun is capitalized. It may be a detail but it I choke on it. Happen to have spent a few years teaching this. ] (]) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
: Are you willing to give it a go? --] 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


==Saddened== == stike text ==


Strike-through is typed <nowiki><s>like this</s></nowiki> and ends up <s>like this</s>. ] (]) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
SlRubenstein, I'm saddened that you appear to have been persuaded, perhaps unwittingly, to play an unfortunate role ] in the ongoing crusade against me by a small but well-defined group of editors. Perhaps the insight rendered by another editor ] made after yours regarding ]’s and ]’s current attack was not as obvious at the time you made your comment responding to CTSWyneken’s solicitation. I wonder now that the discussion has ripened if you would take a look at it ] and respond appropriately. Best Regards, ] 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*''(The above Doright text is copied from ] since Slrubenstein's below reply would otherwise be out of context).''
=== conflicts ===
Doright, I do not want to get involved in any edit war or conflict. My intention was only to remind you of policies. This is well-intentioned and practical advice for you: disregard what other people think and especially what you thijnk other people know, and focus on complying with our policies. Then, you will practically never had to explain yourself. ] | ] 09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


==talkback==
:Slrubenstein, There is simply no justification for participating in mean spirited harassment. Regardless of your intention, you did more than provide a reminder of policies; you supported the harassment by explicitly denying its existence. As a strong adherent to the principle of assuming good faith, I can conceive that you may have been duped by the "good offices" of one of the perpetrators. However, I did expect a different reply, after you had the opportunity to observe what an unsolicited editor called, '''“one of the most ridiculous, petty, and vindictive things that I've ever seen here on Misplaced Pages,” which “was motivated by some other personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern”''' ]and another unsolicited editor noting the ad hominem nature of the discussion pointed out, "the requirements for citations in talk pages are not the same as in the articles."] I expected something more akin to an apology from someone of your caliber than a rationalization and what appears to be self-serving advice. As you should now at least suspect, I’ve been the target of ongoing harassment and respectfully request that you review the official policy on ] to insure that you do not again inadvertently find yourself contributing to it. You may also find the articles ] and ] salutary. I will continue to ] on your part and advise that you do the same. I regret that we have met in this unfortunate fashion and look forward to future collaborations on helping Misplaced Pages make the Internet not suck. Best regards, ] 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
{{talkback|Theseeker4}}


== 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ==
Doright, I hate to say this, but I would hate to see an ArbReq or RfC against you even more. Please reread ] and ]. ←] <sup>]</sup> 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Those kinds of articles are ones I avoid like the plague; recent events on anything even remotely Israel-related, but particularly anything controversial, generally attract the worst kinds of SPAs and POV-ers. In a few months, when this has all died down, it might be more editable. In the meantime, I've changed the archiving time to something more sane. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Humus, thank you, I guess :) However, I can't decode what "Doright, I hate to say this, but I would hate to see an ArbReq or RfC against you even more" means. Feel free to email me if you like. Regards,] 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


== ] nomination of ] ==
:: Please take a look at my talk page. ←] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> <span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font> ] &#124; ] <font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font></span> 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
== Flat Earth Society ==

Demanding a citation for the fact that those who say Jesus never existed are a tiny minority, is really taking things to a ridiculously ugly extreme. It's like demanding a citation that the Flat Earth Society (for whom they are the scholastic equivalent) are a tiny minority. ] (]) 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Codex Sinaiticus, I didn't know asking for a citation for a putative survey of scholarly opinion was thought to be ugly. Yet, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. Perhaps if you comment on the relevant talk page, I'd be better able to figure it out. In any case, you seem to be over generalizing, but I'll keep an open mind and I am open to new info. Perhaps you can provide some evidence since you seem to know a lot about this. You refer to a "tiny minority." Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me estimates of both the numerator and denominator of this "tiny" ratio (i.e., approximately how many are in the numerator and how many in the denominator)? Given that Historians are a "tiny minority" of all people, I expect your denominator to be tiny indeed. Regards,] 23:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

== Vote on the cat ] ==

Your vote is requested. ] 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

==Speaking of evidence==
I left you a yesterday at Humus sapien's RFA. I'm just curious what diff links you can provide that demonstrate your concern regarding his "pattern of compromising quality"? --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 23:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

{| style="background-color: #e7efef; border: solid 1px darkcyan;"
| ]
| style="background-color: #e0e0f0; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px darkcyan;" | Dear Doright: even though you opposed me, I wanted you to know that I appreciate your vote in ]. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me by the community. Regards. ←] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
|}
:Humus, congratulations on the overwhelming show of support. Happy admining! Nice graphic and map. Are you familar with its history and context?] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. Do you know more than the description says? Feel free to update it, or let me know so I'll do it. ←] <sup>]</sup> 10:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
:::As you know, this is a woodcut depicting Jerusalem at the center made in '''1581 in Magdeburg, Germany'''. You may find the following clips of interest: (1) After the banishment (1493) '''no Jew was allowed the right to settle in Magdeburg (when the woodcut was made)''', whose magistrate, in a letter to the king dated Sept. 14, 1711, speaks of that right as "a high royal favor." It was not until 1720 that a Jew, Gumpert by name, obtained permission to reside in the Altstadt of Magdeburg, and up to 1806 only one protected Jew at a time enjoyed this privilege. If Jews attempted to remain in the Neustadt, the council of the city was soon forced to expel them, as is seen from the case of Lewin Bauer (see M. Spanier, l.c. pp. 392 et seq.). (2) 1524 Martin Luther is called to Magdeburg, where he preaches and causes the city's defection from Catholicism. The Reformation had found speedy adherents in the city, '''where Luther had been a schoolboy.''' (3) In the following years Magdeburg gains a reputation as a stronghold of Protestantism and becomes the '''first major city to publish the writings of Martin Luther'''. (4) Antisemitic legends of Magdeburg: In the year 1515, or according to others 1514, on September 13, the Wednesday following Saint Aegidius' Day, at the Jewish cemetery near Moritz Castle, Johann Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew from Halle, after having been tortured with red-hot pincers, was bound to a column with a chain fastened around his body in such a manner that he could walk around the column. Burning coals were place around him, then raked ever closer to him, until he was roasted and then burned to death. He had confessed (among other things) that: He had poisoned wells; He conspired to poison Archbishop Albrecht of '''Magdeburg''' and Elector Joachim of Brandenburg, together with all of their court officials; Likewise, to give poison to all the subjects of the Archbishoprics of '''Magdeburg''' and Halberstadt and to persecute them with arson.] 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

] ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==RE: Ptmccain==
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I have been on a bit of a Wikibreak. Looks like the issue has been resolved now, but thanks for raising it. Cheers ] 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

==Excerpts==
Your very welcome : ) Wikiquote is a better place for it and there's a nice template in Misplaced Pages for linking articles to the quotation collections in Wikiquote, as you can see by how I linked it in ]. I'm not surprised it took so long to translate it into English, it's quite a dark despicable work, one that many would probably rather forget. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== Apology ==

This is no excuse for the personal attack, but my biliousness was the result of my strong religious convictions. The statement was inappropriate, Doright, and I apologize for it as well as any other ad hominem remarks I have made against you. You were correct to characterize them as "sour grapes" à la Aesop. That said, I would hope that in the future you might reconsider singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars. This battle is over. I defer to my Wikipeers who have seen fit to retain this category and to place Martin Luther into it. For Luther it is the consequences of writing such trash as "Von den Juden" and "Vom Schem Hamphoras" among other things. Doright, your cause has prevailed here, so as far as I am concerned the battle is over. Let's make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Humbly and Respectfully, --Drboisclair 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of "Category:Antisemitic people" under Chuzpah.--] 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:I accept your apology without reservation as I have in the past. For my part, I'm sorry. And, I regret any ill feelings my participation has engendered. Scholarship and collegial discussion should be a joy, a shared pleasure. While I have no idea which of your religious convictions you refer to, I am pretty sure it's none of my business. I'm just glad you no longer feel you're in a religious battle against "Jews consumed with hatred" perpetrating a vendetta against Martin Luther. I hope you might consider this not a battle lost, but the end of viewing participation as a war. It should always be about rational discourse, not imposing our wills. This is all I ever asked for and will always insist upon. Barely a day goes by where I'm not attacked by someone interested in disassociating Luther from antisemitism. You ask me to reconsider providing links to your/their previous discussions. You characterize this as "singling people out for accusation by copying and linking things in a bill of particulars." I assume ] is the most recent example of what you are referring to. It was extracted from . I'm sorry. I hope you can see the difference between merely providing a link to, or text of, what you actually wrote versus the libel of, for example, repeatedly and falsely accussing me of being a "sock puppet for a banned editor." I think it important to not personalize the vote to keep this category, or Luther in it, as "my cause." The "cause" is the cause of scholarship and the Wiki process of creating an encyclopedia. As far as I’m concerned the only thing that should be personal is the personal respect we demonstrate for one another.

:I delight in your offer to make a new beginning, and repair broken Wikirelationships. Towards that end, let's try to address one of the issues that concern you. You have argued that, among other reasons, Luther should not be identified with antisemitism because the term is modern, whereas Luther died a half of milenium ago. Regarding Martin Luther, you said, "I believe that ] is Antisemitic," but because his antisemitism was based upon a different theoretical justification (i.e., religious) than that of the Nazi's, he should not be called an antisemite nor he or his writings associated with antisemitism. However, you have been provided with abundant evidence, for example, , and literally dozens of times elsewhere that your demand to limit the usage of the term to "racial" antisemitism does not comport with the generally accepted definition, usage or meaning. What say you?
] 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::Please look at my response to your comments on the talk page of the Category:Antisemitic people. I do not mean to be rude or call you any names. I used the word "lone ranger" to characterize the way some newbies begin editing. At least, I used to act in that way. If you believe that you did not act in that way, I am not going to insist on it. There is no reason for you to get your dander up here. I think that you have made your point about the definition in Webster's dictionary. I don't need any persuasion on that score. I wonder, though, as I have posted on the category talk page whether or not retaining the category:Antisemitic people does make a moral judgment about them. I would agree with you that Misplaced Pages does not as a rule make such moral judgments, at least, where the consensus of published authors of history and philosophy '''have not''' made such a moral judgment.
::I '''have''' stated before that I believed ''On the Jews and Their Lies'' to be antisemitic
::Please do not misinterpret what I am posting. I am dialoguing with you.--] 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== On the Jews and Their Lies ==

The discussion got closed before I could reply, so here's my answer to your question:
:(1) "On the Jews and Their Lies," and the other (2) "On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)." When the user reads the second title rather than the first, what POV is being over represented? What POV is being underrepresented

The answer is that with the first, it's no POV, since it's just reporting the title of an essay. We have ] for example, because that's what it was actually called. The POV of the second, by virtue of the fact that we gave it a name to distance Misplaced Pages from the title, is that anti-semitism is bad. That may be one of the most true POVs there is, but it's still a POV. I'll go with NPOV over POV even if it means some odd situations like this one. --] 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Hi W.marsh, yep, I thought the closing was permature. Thanks for your thoughtful reply which gives me the opportunity to articulate my perspective. It's important to keep the perspective of the encyclopedia reader in mind rather than the encyclopedia editor. Is a POV being presented to the encyclopedia reader? The second title does not state that "we gave it a name to distance Misplaced Pages from the title," nor do I think that it even remotely suggests it to the encyclopedia user. It's not POV, since ''it's just reporting'' the title and author of an essay. I think there are important and perhaps competing issues on all sides. By the way, I'm not sure that I have ''a dog in this race,'' although I might after I come to a conclusion. Thanks for the chat. Regards, ] 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Peace ==

I have decided on advice from others that I will not reply to your latest comment. Just so you know, it does not matter what grade I am in, but if you looked on my user pages you would have seen I am in 11th. If you do not think that I am not smart enough to be editing, I would like you to consider the fact that I have a 3.92 GPA, and am the president of the National Honors Society at my school. On the topic of experience at wikipedia, since 2005/11/02 02:43:19 when you joined, you only have
677 edits, while I joined 2006/04/26 01:45:43, and already have 878 edits. So please do not attack me anymore, and I will not have to talk with you again. If we cannot co-exist peacefully talking to each other, than maybe we can live without talking. Thank you for you time. ''']<sup><font color="Blue"> ]]'''</font></sup> 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:44, 1 May 2022

Welcome!
Start a new topic or scroll down to append your message at the bottom.


Email

Hi Doright, I responded to your recent email but it was returned as disabled. Hope all is well. --MPerel 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mperel, I haven't been on WP for a long time and the associated email address was deactivated. In any case, it's nice to know that I'm remembered with some affection. However, I did not email you. I have now reactivated my email address and look forward to hearing from you either here or there. All is very well. :) Doright (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Correction

Oops! Sorry about that. Aelffin (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian People

Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is. At least for the moment I’m afraid I lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people on many sides (including "my" side) and I don’t think I have the fortitude to bear it. Vandalism patrol, reverting "penis" and "poo", is the extent of what I can handle for the time being : ) --MPerel 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Doright, it would be nice if you would actually participate in the discussion on the talk page (Specifically, this section here, rather than making repeated undiscussed changes to the introduction as you did for example here: , . I'm not sure if you noticed the multiple sections stressing the need for changes to the introduction to be discussed first. One change was permitted to stand, using the WP:BRD rationale, for which that talk page section was opened. Editors who revert the change however, are expected to make a case as to why on the talk page. Failure to do so, makes the revert disruptive, rather than constructive. So please, if you do revert the edit again, revert to the last introduction to enjoy some consensus, and outline your objection in the section I've linked above, so that we can discuss how to move towards a consensus version. Okay? Thanks. Tiamut 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an extraordinary remark. You appear to call for collegiality, starting from the set of alterations you have made, without talking to anyone. You made, from out of the blue, 11 edits in a 'couple of days', amongst which a comprehensive change to the intro. which are usually the hardest things to negotiate, and the text was the result of long work. (2)You have been inactive for a long time and have suddenly jumped at this page, saying, while requesting outside assistance from an excellent editor User:MPerel, that because others have requested you to slow down, because edits you have not discussed are challenged, this 'miserable' page is suffering from WP:OWN, which, practically means that a newcomer with no record in the area, making a dozern changes, is disconcerted that several experienced editors disagree with his unilateral edits (3) Your edits were often technically faulty, as Eleland indicated (4) Effectively the edit you were pushing replaced a complex rich summary statement of much recent scholarship on the formation of Palestinian identity with a bare quote from one source: the effect was to impoverish the terxt (5) the talk you engaged in to justify this significant alteration of the lead was minimal (6) I follow this and many other pages closely (7) YOur revert was unilateral and disruptive (7) With significant alterations in negotiated leads one should, in respect for those who have a long tradition of having worked on a page, vet their opinion before hazarding your own preferred material (8) The EB is one source, and not the only reliable source because you alone happen to prefer it. (9) To accuse practiced editors of a page of edit warring when they have made just one or two changes, independently, on a page you seem ready to rtewrite singlehandedly, is calling the kettle black. You appear to me at least to be conducting a one-man show edit war with several people. Show a willingness to justify before others your own take on this line, and achieve consensus, and perhaps you will find your actual edits less troubled by challenges. I have not edit-warred.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask please address the article content issue that I initiated on the article talk page as you can see I had previously done here. I suggest that it is more helpful to the WP project than a flame war that I have no interest in. Ironically, your comments here are both self-contradictory and provide additional evidence that some editors may be going too far in "defending" the article. You complain that I do not engage in discussion on the talk page, while in fact I have, for example right here, then you refuse to do so yourself even when I specifically created a talk page section to address your concern. You complain about my requesting a second opinion from an editor by asking them to "take a look at the article," even though we both agree she is an excellent editor. One would think that my seeking input from an excellent editor would be encouraged. And, your characterization of her as an "outside" editor, in this context, only furthers one's concerns that there are "ownership" issues at play here. Interestingly, the excellent editor seems to agree with my assessment of the editorial environment on that page. She says, "Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is." Apparently, this is not as "extraordinary" of a remark as you think. Rather, it is the assessment of an excellent editor, so much so, that the excellent editor is discouraged from even participating because of the "lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people." This seems to provide further evidence that the editorial environment that you seem to covet discourages contributions from even excellent editors. I trust that the irony of your generalized and unsupported claims with respect to the content of my edits are not unnoticed. For example, the WP:RS quote that you reverted came from the Encyclopedia Britannica and is from the same source and paragraph that your preferred POV version is purported to cite. Again, the place to address concerns about the content of edits to the article is at the article discussion page. Please do so. Future rants to this talk page will be ignored when deemed of no material benefit to the Encylopedia. Regards, Doright (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Blocked"

If you're interested to know about the context of my brief block, you could read a lengthy sectionn of AN/I here. The editor who blocked me (and quite a few others) took a fair amount of heat for this and had to step back from it. If you're concerned that I might end up being blocked again and want to help by making me aware of policies etc., may I suggest that my talk page is the appropriate place for that sort of assistance. thanks Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I'm not that interested in why you were blocked. As your user account was opened only last month, I thought you might not be familiar with some of our policies that could result in you being removed from the debate. Since I was pointing out other policies related to the editing dispute at Israel, I also mentioned the 3RR policy. I'm sorry if that offended you. Happy editing, Doright (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Israel -> Zionism and the British Mandate_Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate-2008-03-02T22:47:00.000Z">

hi! i just want to apologize for reverting your edit whitout stating my reason for doing so. i mistakingly thought you had simply removed my sentence, while in reality you had relocated and reformulated it. therfore, i (wrongly) didn't bother to write anything in the comments field. i'm sorry for this rather rude behaviour of mine. Frederico1234 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)_Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate"> _Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate">

Thank you for this courtesy. Regards, Doright (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lewis

Thanks for the heads-up. Glad you are okay with my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Doright, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry you have experienced the disappointment of an unsuccessful candidacy. However, surely you are not unclear about the advice suggested by my comments. Specific diff’s were provided. As I mentioned in your RfB, my advice is you not exhibit the behaviors that the community has identified as a source of concern. Then, after 6 months, give your candidacy another try, if you are still interested in the position. Regards, Doright (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, your opposition was quite clear on points I should improve upon - blame the copy-paste :) Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

reply at Talk:Israel

hi!

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel#Jewish_and_Arab_immigration

regards, Frederico1234 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Best regards, Doright (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of citations in Jewish lobby

Please be more specific before performing big reverts. Note that you have removed at least nine citations from reliable sources added by multiple editors, claiming they are "original research". If you wish to claim "original research" when removing citations, considerably more specificity is necessary to justify your actions. Otherwise, it's just edit-warring. Exactly which citations do you object to, and why? --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Prime minister

Hi. I reverted your last edit to that article, I'm afraid. You removed Palestine from the list of prime ministers by country, arguing that Palestine is not a country. While this is obviously technically true, I don't think it is an uncontroversial edit. As such, I think you should discuss on the talk page first whether or not Palestine should be removed from the list. If, then, consensus is reached that it should be removed, you are of course very free to remove it again. I hope this is okay with you, and you should by no mean think that your contributions are not appreciated. -Lilac Soul 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply is here Doright (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Lilac Soul, tagging an edit as is a privilege reserved for registered users so that it is less likely to be abused as you did . Reverting an editor's correction to an article in not properly tagged as minor. I hope this is okay with you. Doright (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaza "Massacre"

Doright, I have been fighting this exact battle for days (weeks?) now. Glad to have a fellow here. Head hurts from all that wall-banging. I think the final resolution was that enough people decided that since Nableezy speaks Arabic, he ought to know. Either that or some folks just gave up, as I had until you reopened it. In fact, user:Cerejota put it on the OR noticeboard here: . I'll see if I can find the archive as well, if you have a spare month of life, lol. Tundrabuggy (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your notes

Doright, thanks for your notes, but I'm not an admin anymore. I was temporarily desysopped after a little local difficulty. :-) SlimVirgin 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Slim, I hear it doesn't pay very well anyhow. Could you help by bringing my note to the attention of the adults at WP, if any are still here? There are ongoing and systematic bald face violations of policy. Now vandalism has been added to the mix by deleting talk discussion and evidence of a pov dispute from the article. Doright (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just as soon not get involved in that article, sorry. You could try posting an RfC, but the best thing might be to wait until fewer people are interested. Where there's an ongoing news situation in a controversial area, it's always chaos. SlimVirgin 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doright the arbitrary addition of controversial content to the first sentence of an article about a controversial event is bound to be controversial. Please discuss these sort of edits first on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Thank you. RomaC (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC's Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia

RomaC, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." ] In this case that would be you.

  • RomaC, Exactly where in the vandalism policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
  • RomaC, That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
  • RomaC, That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
  • RomaC, That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth. READ This AND This AND More AND Even More AND Yet Another Talk Section Started Here AND Here
  • RomaC, I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on the subject of the edit as well as the references to be provided related to it.
  • RomaC, You should know that WP:Good Faith does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."

Doright (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's first sentence based on a WP:Fringe theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... RomaC (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Your continued failure to comply with WP:Civility, your failure to correct your behavior as documented above, your continued false claims, your assertion that it is I that has been aggressive because I was reverted rather than merely responding to your "harming the encyclopedia" by making false claims of WP:Vandalism as documented above, along with your assertion that Iranian involvement with Hamas is a fringe theory or that the some view the Gaza War as part of a war on terror are just a few more drops in the bucket of "particularly strong evidence," with regard to your conduct. Doright (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

gaza lead archive

Hey, I noticed your comment on the former lead discussion page. I felt the dispute was solved when editors agreed on replacing "much of the Arab world" with "parts of...". If you feel further discussion is needed, please proceed on the ordinary talk page, and copy (or maybe better link) relevant stuff there. It is better to have all discussions in one place, the creation of talk-subpages was an exeption owned solely to huge size/high traffic. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza lead section

I did add a bit more to the section on Talk with regard to your edit of the lead. I believe that the War on Terror should be termed the International War on Terror. Also I found several more sources besides Ledeen that made the same point. I still have a really hard time accepting that those references say that there is such a thing as the Gaza Massacre. Allowing it is to allow an error. Any high school student with a good command of English grammar will tell you that a name is a proper noun and a proper noun is capitalized. It may be a detail but it I choke on it. Happen to have spent a few years teaching this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

stike text

Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Doright. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Those kinds of articles are ones I avoid like the plague; recent events on anything even remotely Israel-related, but particularly anything controversial, generally attract the worst kinds of SPAs and POV-ers. In a few months, when this has all died down, it might be more editable. In the meantime, I've changed the archiving time to something more sane. Jayjg 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert Michael

I have nominated Robert Michael, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Michael. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)