Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 8 October 2007

Welcome to my talk page! Please be patient - I'm new here.

Talk Page Policy: Please don't leave abusive, slanderous, bogus or unfair comments - if you do I'll remove them. But if you want to leave a friendly word of encouragement or needed advice, then be my guest. Thanks!

If you want to discuss a Misplaced Pages entry I'm contributing to you're best off leaving comments in the Discussion pages of the entry - I think our work as writers and editors should speak for itself, with the help of the Discussion pages.

Isarig

Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI page

Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience. I am attempting to make yours less bad, even if I disagree with you. Cheers <<-armon->> 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi Jgui. Please read WP:STALK. So far you've only edited 3 articles, in each following Armon there and opposing him. Jayjg 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, Hi. As a new editor here who has been editing for only two months, I am still a "newbie" and I admit I don't always know the rules. It therefore scares me that you think you should be putting a warning about WP:STALK on my page. But let me explain why I think your WP:STALK warning is not justified.

Jayjg, First of all, as far as I can tell from my edit history I have only edited two WP articles and not three: "MEMRI" and "Juan Cole". I have also asked questions on the WP:RS and WP:NOR talk pages to better understand WP policy - but I don't think armon ever contributed there. And I have voted on a policy page that armon voted on - is voting on a policy page considered stalking? Of the *TWO* WP articles I have contributed to, I think you will have to agree that I had to start somewhere. MEMRI was the first page I edited because I read it and found it to be poorly written, flagrantly POV and seriously in need of help. At the time I had no idea who any editor was. Armon chose to repeatedly delete everything I added on the MEMRI page which is how I came to know him. So I clearly hadn't done any "stalking" up to the point of contributing to the "Juan Cole" page. Now I must say I find inexplicable your suggestion that I am stalking Armon, when MANY of the editors who contribute to the MEMRI page also contribute to the "Juan Cole" page. Why did you choose Armon? If editing two pages is grounds for a WP:STALK warning, then why, for example, didn't you warn me about "stalking" csloat: I actually left a note on his user page, whereas I've never left a note on Armon's (although he has left a note on mine about my "bad" edits - see above). Are you seriously suggesting that I should not have contributed a compromise paragraph to the "Juan Cole" page because it is considered "stalking"? Can you cite ANY instance of where I have harassed or personally attacked Armon - which is a necessary component of "stalking" based on my reading of the WP:STALK page you referred me to?

Jayjg, Please answer me here on this page, because I am really concerned and intimidated that an editor would leave a warning about stalking on my page. If you think I have been WP:STALK, then please show me how and I guarantee you I will correct it. If not, then please let me know and please delete your warning. Thank you, Jgui 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to me that you were following Armon to Juan Cole solely to oppose him. If you haven't been stalking, then I apologize. Please don't be intimidated, and please enjoy your time editing at Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated welcome

I just noticed by looking at your contributions that you are new here or at least newly registered. It used to be the case in WP that newbies were offered a welcome (with certain exceptions of course.) I remembered getting a welcome note from User:Angela after my first edit. It was a template but still, it was nice to see it. Seeing the above comments, I see that you haven't gotten exactly a rousing welcome: Let's see, an accusation of stalking from a contributor who definitely should know better and a somewhat garbled remark by another "I am trying to make yours less bad", whatever that means.

Anyway welcome. --CSTAR 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:Oh come on CSTAR, Abu ali's invitation for Jugi to come beat up on Isarig certainly deserves a mention in your list above. That was rather collegial, don't you think? Elizmr 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Cstar. I appreciate it. Unlike armon's note which I found obnoxious (stating that the only way to improve my "bad" edits was to delete them), or Jayjg's which I continue to find intimidating (since he is an admin who's blocked more than 500 users in less than six months), I was pleased to get abu ali's note since he was referring me to a page I didn't know about that was discussing my personal user page as an example of isarig's abusive behavior towards me when I first started posting (I deleted isarig's comments to me from my page, although you can find them in history). I was glad to know about abu ali's link, although I chose not to contribute to that page. At the time I thought it would be best to stay focused on editing to improve WP pages. And I'm still trying and will continue trying. Thank you, Jgui 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Struck above remark as unproductive and possibly uncalled for given CSTAR's concern on my userpage. Elizmr 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

apology from the MEMRI talk page

Jugi--I apologize for the fact that I missed comments you have made in the sheer volume of what is posted there. It was not productive for me to have said you didn't supply the quotes when I asked. I was mistaken becuase the first time I had asked you had not supplied them, and I never saw that later you did supply them. I can totally see that it would be very upsetting to have done something and then be told that you had not. So please accept my apologies. Elizmr 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, please agf on the MEMRI page and blowing up at me and let's deal with the ideas instead of each other. OK? Elizmr 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Here are the unnecessary bits imo:

• "unfortunately your central point is irrelevant"---dismissive and insulting, please say why you disagree without attacking, and realize that I have gone to lengths to make my point and to say that it is "irrelevant" is dismissive. See WP:CIVIL
• ""Elizmr, you are still batting 1000, with three false accusations against me in your last three posts to me"---I have apologized above for some of this, and you might WP:AGF and give me the benefit of the doubt and realize that the central point is that I am objecting to the generalization you are making and asking for less generalizing langaage rather than attacking me for misremembering the magnitude of your generalization. OK?
• "Elizmr, I am afraid you are taking this page FAR too personally"--bizarrely personal uncalled for statement.
• "I am trying to improve this page, and I would appreciate your help in doing so"--bad faith accusation. I care about the quality of this page too. WP:AGF
• "I hope they will not be vandalized again"--objections have been well described on the talk page, they are not vandalism. Elizmr 13:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, as I said above, if you want to apologize for something you've said on the MEMRI talk page, please put it on the MEMRI talk page since I read this page very infrequently. As far as your accusations of me "blowing up" and being "bizarrely personal", thank you for the levity; I found your charges VERY amusing. If anyone is interested in seeing me "blowing up", please refer to THIS, which I've included below in its entirety. Cheers, Jgui 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon and Elizmr, I appreciate your responses, but unfortunately your central point is irrelevant. Yes, Carmon, conceded making a translation mistake in one of the cited articles, but the sentence is not about the number of translation mistakes that Carmon has ADMITTED to. The sentence is: "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed": i.e. it is about the translation mistakes that MEMRI has been ACCUSED OF. I have cited three instances from indisputably RS where MEMRI has been accused of mis-translation. (Elizmr - the Livingstone data you are asking for is irrelevant - all that matters is that the Mayor of London claimed that MEMRI mistranslated, which he did). Three citations is more than enough to include this sentence and paragraph.

Armon, you could certainly use that line of defense (that all translation services sometimes mistranslate) in the "Response to Criticism" section - please feel free to add it to your other "Response" text that I have restored.

Elizmr, please let me get this straight. MEMRI says the US media "MISTRANSLATED" the bin laden speech, and a cited RS reports on the "translation problems". And yet you just wrote "I am not ever going to be able to agree with you the binLaden thing is a 'mistranslation' and I do not think it can be presented in the article as such." Are you stating that your personal opinion of when a mistranslation has occurred is the only one that matters - and that your personal opinion trumps all evidence to the contrary? And that you are prepared to delete this from a WP article no matter what?

Elizmr, you are still batting 1000, with three false accusations against me in your last three posts to me. Now you have stated that I am trying to argue that MEMRI's translations are "OFTEN" disputed. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I SAID "SOMETIMES". Please do not put words into my mouth; it is not productive and it is unfair. You wrote that three instances is not sufficient to state "often" disputed and I would agree with you on that. But clearly three instances is more than enough to state "sometimes disputed".

Elizmr, I am afraid you are taking this page FAR too personally. MEMRI has attracted its share of detractors and supporters. It is not "sullying the reputation" to include an accurate well-cited presentation of the facts of what the detractors and supporters have said in a balanced NPOV fashion. That is all I am trying to do. I am trying to improve this page, and I would appreciate your help in doing so.

I have reverted my changes based on this discussion and hope that they will not be vandalized again. Thank you, Jgui 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A.N.S.W.E.R.

Please see my (possibly unsatisfactory) response to your request at A.N.S.W.E.R.#Ramsey Clark?. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quaiqu is Elizmr

Hi I once had an exchange with an editor Elizmr, going over my contributions list I thought it was odd that my posts on her talk page where no longer there. Apparently she closed that account but finding a link to her archives I found that the person requesting the deletion was using the name User:Quaiqu. see:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=114402748

When I went to that new page I see that you have a request for Arbitration going on with her over the MEMRI page. I noticed in the archives that she had an extensive history in that page under the name Elizmr. Here is a link to the text of the archived page which shows the Elizmr was engaged in heavy disputes on the MEMRI page since March of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&oldid=105134936

I don't know why the name change occurred but if it was solely to drop her contensious past I think that's a violation of the culture of wikipedia.--Wowaconia 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, Hi. I hope your statement to me is implying that I am involved in the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, and not that I am involved in the edit war. I think if you check the recent history of that page, you will find that I made a number of changes, adding new cited material, and reorganizing the page with my first edit at 7:24 July 20. I accompanied my changes with a comment describing them in the Talk page. These changes were deleted and added back four time in the next seven hours. I was not one of the editors who added my changes back these four times; but I was pleased to see that these other editors approved of my edits.

Please note that none of these editors who deleted my changes made any comments in the Talk page (whereas some of the editors who added them back did) - in fact one of the deleting editors did not even give any edit history comment with his deletion. My understanding is that this is against WP policy. The policy as stated in WP:revert that I follow when editing is that:

• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith.

So, in this case not only did the deleting editors not leave my changes in the document and comment on how to improve them or improve them themselves; they did not even bother to describe in Talk what about my changes they considered "vandalism" or "not good faith" (the only reasons given in the WP:revert page for deleting text). Instead they simply deleted them in their entirety. Please note that I put a fair amount of work into those changes, adding cited text and increasing the size of the article by about 35%, and I think improving the page in the process.

I think I was fully justified, therefore, in pointing out to these editors in the Talk page that they had been deleting my changes without comment, and asking them to comply with WP rules. I did so and added back my changes for discussion or modification, one time. Please note that I have not made any changes to the page since then.

One of the deleting editors (Tewfik) deleted my changes three times in ten hours, so I left a warning on his User page that he was in danger of exceeding 3RR - he deleted my warning (as he also deleted your 3RR warning). This editor did finally leave a note in the Talk page, but he simply repeated claims that I had already answered; it was hardly a discussion and neither he nor any of the other deleting editors have made any specific suggestions for improving my changes.

Chris, I think it is clear that I have not been involved in edit-warring. Could I ask your help in getting the other editors to abide by WP rules regarding the removal of properly-cited, relevant text? Could you remind them that it is not appropriate to remove such text - it is appropriate to improve it? I think the changes I have to make are at least worthy of discussion, which will not happen the way things stand now. If I have the time I will work on a modified version of my changes; in the meantime I would appreciate any advice.

Thank you, Jgui 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can only reiterate what I said in my earlier message (and it's something I've said to everyone involved in the article, whichever side they're on). Misplaced Pages works by consensus - if other editors are not being cooperative in developing an article, the best thing to do is to move on to dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. I'd suggest taking it to the Mediation Cabal. -- ChrisO 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your uncivility

Please do not lable my actions "vandalism" when they are not. Editors have been blocked for such uncivility in the past. Isarig 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine Conflict

Thankyou for your NPOV edits on this article. I hope you continue to keep up the good work. Suicup 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Also, seeing it hasnt been done already: Welcome!

Hello, Jgui~enwiki, and welcome 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:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Suicup 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR on MEMRI

You've passed 3RR on memeri and I've addressed the issues on talk. It would be a good idea to self-revert. <<-armon->> 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, thank you for your notice. However, I belive that you have mis-read the 3RR page. As you know, I did not make four edits in 24 hours; I made three edits in 24 hours. It is true that I made four edits in about 25 hours, but it is also true that you made four edits in about 25 hours at 7:49, 21:41, 7:06 and 9:06. So if you think I have broken some rule, then I think you will agree that you have broken the same rule. Furthermore both of us were not simply reverting to previous versions of the page at this point, but were trying to address comments and changes suggested by the other. Even more important is the fact that we seem to be making some progress on finding a compromise for our differences; I appreciate your now contributing to the MEMRI talk page since I think we can reach accord even sooner there. Nevertheless I will self-revert to your version as a sign of good faith. I do not think it matters which version we start from as long as we are both willing to discuss and make changes rationally and courteously. Thank you, Jgui 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)