| Revision as of 13:01, 31 March 2010 editUnomi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,989 edits →AE Request: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:05, 31 March 2010 edit undoWikifan12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,039 edits →AE RequestNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| ::Revert what? The article has gone through plenty of edits by multiple users. What specific edit do you want to be reverted? Some other users have used JVL as a source in ]. I don't '''own''' the article Unomi. From what I understand JVL is a reliable source in the context it was used, such as here: . Typically it is merely a broadcast of other outlets, whether they be the foreign ministry or expert-sites. I never disputed the conflict of the suicide bombing plot issues - which is why FOTG removed the content entirely. But are you asking me to remove all JVL sources? ] (]) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | ::Revert what? The article has gone through plenty of edits by multiple users. What specific edit do you want to be reverted? Some other users have used JVL as a source in ]. I don't '''own''' the article Unomi. From what I understand JVL is a reliable source in the context it was used, such as here: . Typically it is merely a broadcast of other outlets, whether they be the foreign ministry or expert-sites. I never disputed the conflict of the suicide bombing plot issues - which is why FOTG removed the content entirely. But are you asking me to remove all JVL sources? ] (]) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I would like you to revert edits which are based on sources which exhibit the same problems as mentioned on RS/N. See based on only in 1 case is the underlying source for the numbers linked directly and that source does not seem to support the edit made or the numbers in the JVL source. If you wanted to defend the use of JVL you should have done so at the RS/N. The page suffers from the same problem, it simply links to the landing page of www.mfa.gov.il . If you couple the lack of editorial transparency, poor indication of sources and at least 1 demonstrated instance of questionable numbers you are left with a source which cannot be trusted directly. This should be fairly clear to a long term editor. I am not willing to go back and check your every edit, I am sure you know better than I where it is used. That I immediately asked you to avoid using it was precisely so that it wouldn't result in time consuming reinstatement of sources you may have replaced, but is one that I don't quite understand, the number seems to be inconsistent with the numbers in the sources. ] (]) 13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | :::I would like you to revert edits which are based on sources which exhibit the same problems as mentioned on RS/N. See based on only in 1 case is the underlying source for the numbers linked directly and that source does not seem to support the edit made or the numbers in the JVL source. If you wanted to defend the use of JVL you should have done so at the RS/N. The page suffers from the same problem, it simply links to the landing page of www.mfa.gov.il . If you couple the lack of editorial transparency, poor indication of sources and at least 1 demonstrated instance of questionable numbers you are left with a source which cannot be trusted directly. This should be fairly clear to a long term editor. I am not willing to go back and check your every edit, I am sure you know better than I where it is used. That I immediately asked you to avoid using it was precisely so that it wouldn't result in time consuming reinstatement of sources you may have replaced, but is one that I don't quite understand, the number seems to be inconsistent with the numbers in the sources. ] (]) 13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Are you asking me to revert edits based on the ]? The JVL is a reliable and scholarly source, do you dispute this? Please specify WHICH edit you disagree with, and why. What edit do you request I revert? Many other users cited JVL, I don't see why you are getting upset at me for using the source. ] (]) 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:05, 31 March 2010
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Yo - back at u
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not quite, but getting there
Very soon you will become just another dædαlus. I would like to ask you do not edit my user pages ever again. And please do not forget to add this message to your "neutral" list of my offenses.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- You shouldn't blame others for you not following policy. Unomi (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- If under "others" you mean dædαlus, shabazz, factsontheground, vexorg and you, I've nothing more to add. Goodbye. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting weirder by the minute.. You acted in clear violation of policy when you removed the mfd box. I reinstated the box, as procedure warrants. You removed it again with an ES which seemed to imply that you thought the page deleted. If you really want it deleted just go to the mfd discussion and ask to have it deleted. But don't blame others, me, for you not following policy. The mfd box clearly states do not remove this box, do not blank the page. User page policy does not allow those kinds of pages. Unomi (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- If under "others" you mean dædαlus, shabazz, factsontheground, vexorg and you, I've nothing more to add. Goodbye. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Islam and Jainism
I had made the changes which removed the part which you felt was POV. Are you agreeable to my changes?--Anish (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Anish, I think it is a lot better, thanks. I hope that the sources I listed will be of use. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks....I will definately use these sources. Taking your lead, I will search for more sources and improve the article.Thanks again. --Anish (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you clarify whether your preferred solution was to delete this entire section or just part of it? Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would have preferred if the whole section was rewritten based on better sources, Sam Harris is not a good source for that article, imo. Unomi (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Indigenous America star
The evidences
to your question here are presented in my contributions. When was the last time I edited I/P conflict articles , do not count the one I wrote myself, when was the last time I edited a talk page of I/P conflict article, when was the last time I ... but actually who cares. The article about Kennedy I wrote, and me were attacked with unfair and misleading comments, fishing SPI was initiated, I was called a sock at the article discussion page and at the deletion request! "Wikipedians in the Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project" you say? Interesting. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is not about content, it is about behavior. At the last ANI thread I showed that in the 2 days after the one prior to that, from 17-18 march you engaged in multiple attempts at baiting and well poisoning. Since then there are plenty of examples of you continuing this kind of behavior. I am somewhat surprised that you haven't been banned yet, but I surmise it is just a matter of time, unless you rethink your battleground mentality approach to how you interact with other editors. Unomi (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I knew it was no use. To respond your surprise why I am not banned yet, I'd say: if more editors were as "neutral" as you are, I would have probably been, but as for right now common sense still prevails, do not know for how long. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unomi (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I knew it was no use. To respond your surprise why I am not banned yet, I'd say: if more editors were as "neutral" as you are, I would have probably been, but as for right now common sense still prevails, do not know for how long. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
AE Request
Can you please tell me what is the problem? What sources do you have an issue with at Israel casualties of war? The JVL link was removed awhile ago and replaced with PDF as requested. You were never specific in what you had an issue with other than the two sources. You kept asking me to revert but revert what? What have I done wrong Unomi? ArbCom is not for content disputes. It is the "last stop" for dispute resolutions. I didn't even know we were in a formal dispute. I really hope your request was sincere and not an attempt to remove an editor you simply don't agree with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I repeatedly asked you to revert, I made you aware of issues raised, I made you aware that there was a thread on RS/N. It is difficult to accept that you did not know what I asked you to revert as you continued to defend the use of JVL throughout and the very thread which started this whole thing mentions the specific problematic edits. The problematic source is still in the article as of my writing. Perhaps if you had been more engaging in talk this could have been avoided, but by ignoring the arguments, reversing the burden of proof and repeating the unsupported claim of 'it is an RS' you have forced my hand. The remedy I seek is extremely fair, all I ask is that you remove the source from where you may have introduced it. Unomi (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Revert what? The article has gone through plenty of edits by multiple users. What specific edit do you want to be reverted? Some other users have used JVL as a source in Israel casualties of war. I don't own the article Unomi. From what I understand JVL is a reliable source in the context it was used, such as here: incidents. Typically it is merely a broadcast of other outlets, whether they be the foreign ministry or expert-sites. I never disputed the conflict of the suicide bombing plot issues - which is why FOTG removed the content entirely. But are you asking me to remove all JVL sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would like you to revert edits which are based on sources which exhibit the same problems as mentioned on RS/N. See this edit based on this source only in 1 case is the underlying source for the numbers linked directly here and that source does not seem to support the edit made or the numbers in the JVL source. If you wanted to defend the use of JVL you should have done so at the RS/N. The incidents page suffers from the same problem, it simply links to the landing page of www.mfa.gov.il . If you couple the lack of editorial transparency, poor indication of sources and at least 1 demonstrated instance of questionable numbers you are left with a source which cannot be trusted directly. This should be fairly clear to a long term editor. I am not willing to go back and check your every edit, I am sure you know better than I where it is used. That I immediately asked you to avoid using it was precisely so that it wouldn't result in time consuming reinstatement of sources you may have replaced, but here is one that I don't quite understand, the number seems to be inconsistent with the numbers in the sources. Unomi (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are you asking me to revert edits based on the Jewish Virtual Library? The JVL is a reliable and scholarly source, do you dispute this? Please specify WHICH edit you disagree with, and why. What edit do you request I revert? Many other users cited JVL, I don't see why you are getting upset at me for using the source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would like you to revert edits which are based on sources which exhibit the same problems as mentioned on RS/N. See this edit based on this source only in 1 case is the underlying source for the numbers linked directly here and that source does not seem to support the edit made or the numbers in the JVL source. If you wanted to defend the use of JVL you should have done so at the RS/N. The incidents page suffers from the same problem, it simply links to the landing page of www.mfa.gov.il . If you couple the lack of editorial transparency, poor indication of sources and at least 1 demonstrated instance of questionable numbers you are left with a source which cannot be trusted directly. This should be fairly clear to a long term editor. I am not willing to go back and check your every edit, I am sure you know better than I where it is used. That I immediately asked you to avoid using it was precisely so that it wouldn't result in time consuming reinstatement of sources you may have replaced, but here is one that I don't quite understand, the number seems to be inconsistent with the numbers in the sources. Unomi (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Revert what? The article has gone through plenty of edits by multiple users. What specific edit do you want to be reverted? Some other users have used JVL as a source in Israel casualties of war. I don't own the article Unomi. From what I understand JVL is a reliable source in the context it was used, such as here: incidents. Typically it is merely a broadcast of other outlets, whether they be the foreign ministry or expert-sites. I never disputed the conflict of the suicide bombing plot issues - which is why FOTG removed the content entirely. But are you asking me to remove all JVL sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)