Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:22, 29 September 2005

Welcome

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.

• Welcome
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Help pages
• Village pump
• Help desk
• Wiquette
• Misplaced Pages:Merge

Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Divided attention

Many edits (such as vandalism reversion) take only seconds. Use of many tabs on a tabbed browser also distorts the picture. But thanks for your concern. Jayjg 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. As for the Occupied territories issue, I recommend you revert yourself - it's a bad idea to link to POV forks that will be merged, and your description is POV. Jayjg 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre for you to take all sorts of unilateral actions, then complain about others not working things out in discussion or reaching consensus. Instead of reverting, how about you try Talk:? It actually worked for you on the Zionism page, when you were patient enough, and the final result was vastly better than your original proposal. Jayjg 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's like this, Marsden: If you work calmly and pleasantly with other editors on the page, then you'll generally achieve reasonable compromises. If you continue on the path you seem to be heading down, which involves aggressive and belligerent talk comments, combined with reverting to your POV, you will rapidly find positions hardening against you, and further progress impossible. That's the way human nature is. You have a choice here, a "fork in the road", so to speak. Which path will you take? Jayjg 05:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think trying to ally yourself with one-note editors who have been blocked from editing for persistent trolling is the way to go? Instead I suggest you work with those with whom you disagree, on the Talk: pages. Jayjg 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the story of what happened to your new buddy Amin123; he made such a nuisance of himself on a particular article, reverting time and again to his own version and refusing any discussion or compromise, that eventually 1/2 dozen other editors got sick and tired of him and simply reverted him regardless of what he edited. I've seen it happen to other editors as well. I think you're smarter than that though; you've proved you're able to get consensus throught discussion, but this blind reverting will only get you hardened attitudes. I implore you to re-consider the path you are following. Jayjg 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it from your needlessly personal comments that you are uninterested in reconciliation, or in working collegially? You prefer the revert war approach? Jayjg 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So you weren't able to work out any compromise on Zionism, then? And here I thought things had gone quite well for the most part, aside from one disputed link. Of course, your insistence on revert warring has lost you ground even on that. In any event, I see from your continuing needlessly antagonistic personal comments that you really have no intention of trying to work with me. A shame. Jayjg 04:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Klipspringer Kruger.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, bluemask (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm sorry about the revert, Marsden; you're right, it's not a good way to be introduced, so hello. ;-) The reason I reverted is that I'm very confused about this profileration of pages. There's Occupied territories, Occupied Territories (Israeli), and then Occupation of the Palestinian territories that the second one might be merged with. Could you explain why you created the second one? Also, I think this discussion started on Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, so perhaps we could continue it there? SlimVirgin 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

Marsden, your editing is now becoming disruptive. You've created a new article (what I call a POV fork), because you didn't like the contents of the two existing articles it could have gone into. You've engaged in an aggressive revert war to keep it there, calling on editors with less than brilliant reputations, and no knowledge of the subject, to help you revert. You're now moving pages and causing edit conflicts and confusion for editors trying to edit them. No matter how right you may be about the substantive points, your behavior is undermining your position. Please stick to the arguments. You argue well. I'm quite enjoying debating it with you. (You made reference to there being no private language: do you have a background in philosophy?) I honestly feel we misuse the word "occupation" when it comes to Israel and that, as much as the Israelis appear to be militarily the stronger party of the two "sides," when it comes to propaganda, they're not. I think this is one example of where their POV is perhaps unfairly blotted out of Misplaced Pages, or mentioned in such a secondary fashion that it may as well be blotted out. I really think we should do some research into how widespread Gold's position is, and that may take a few days. SlimVirgin 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marsden. Thanks for the thanks. Sadly, Jay is a member of the establishment here. Draw your own conclusions. You can see from the above that editors in very good standing, such as SlimVirgin, who I personally have a lot of time for, are practically blind to their own bias on this issue. (She thinks we "misuse" the word occupation, which is a bit odd, because we are supposed to be simply reporting what others say. It's their "misuse" of words that counts, not ours.) Unfortunately, they have been empowered. The combination of genuinely feeling that they are not acting in a biased way and having the power to back up their views makes it impossible to make headway on that particular area of Misplaced Pages. There's a bit of a pattern with new editors, I'm afraid. The new editor, perhaps with sympathies towards the Palestinian cause, is quite surprised by how slanted our articles on the occupation and similar issues are. They try to edit them towards at least a middle ground and face fierce resistance from the pro-Israeli editors. The latter form a spectrum, just as any set of editors will, with some that are mildly supportive of Israel, through some quite fierce Israeli nationalists to some that are borderline anti-Muslim at best. "Our side" has a similar spectrum, I suppose, although you must expect Jay to treat you as though you are an extremist if you take even a moderately anti-Zionist line. Personally, I only rarely bother editing these pages because they are so closely patrolled by editors who outnumber and outgun any grouping that wants to see anything resembling balance. Grace Note 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

I give you high credit for honesty. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I like that. Well, I am selfish for honest reasons. I try to support those who try to do the right thing.

Can I ask why you want this enforced against Jayjg? It seems out of spite since he is the most vocal on talk but he seems to be reverting you no more than at least two other users on the same articles. What do you hope will be the outcome of this request? Do you feel he is violating the spirit and should be punished in hope of better responses in the future?

Do you feel that even though many other users are reverting your changes that you will still be able to make a valid argument against Jayjg? Won't the others reverting your change support his view that you have not substantiated your claim?

Why follow a revert war on these two articles for days and days? If it is you against many wouldn't it be best to drop the "brute-force" reverts and instead sway people or develop a compromise on talk? - Tεxτurε 15:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I do notice one supporter on one article but you are revert warring with at least four other users. Perhaps you should request page protection until the issue is resolved? - Tεxτurε 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Response on my talk page - Tεxτurε 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Stochastic integral

Hi. I noticed that you blanked your article, Stochastic integral. Please don't blank an article you create if you decide it should not remain. Instead contact an administrator to delete it if you were the only contributor. If it was expanded by another user you would need to post it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion.

Since you are the only contributor for Stochastic integral would you like me to delete it? - Tεxτurε 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I need to revert the blanking until then. (Deleted is ok and your article is ok but blank is not.) Let me know what you decide. - Tεxτurε 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the article at your request. I'm sorry things aren't resolving well. - Tεxτurε 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom decision

Aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", the Arbitration Committee ruling also only applied to me for the period of my editing restrictions, which was 0 days. The Committee has clarified this, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. I regret that you have personalized this conflict to me, and that you feel that your role is to recruit allies in an attempt to war with others or punish me in some way, rather than focussing on resolving conflict on the Talk: page. I feel you have rejected my many honest overtures and requests that you try a more collegial path to dispute resolution. Jayjg 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I receieved your request to block Jayjg. However, first, as Jayjg stated above, you have misinterpreted the ArbCom ruling, there were not restrictions imposed against him. Furthermore, please try to work this dispute out with Jayjg, rather than try to get him punished. As Texture said, you also were involved in the edit warring, and do not recieve my sympathy. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you can see, that ruling does not apply to Jay because the arbitrators, some of them his personal friends and adherents of his POV, voted it down. He was not considered culpable in that edit war, and I'm afraid he won't be in this one, no matter what he does. You'll note that because you have reverted a lot, you are marked as a "bad user". Because Jay is a "good user", he's allowed to revert without being considered an edit-warrior. I don't see the point of pursuing a dispute resolution against a member of the establishment. You have absolutely no hope of a just outcome and the time spent in providing evidence would be entirely wasted. The attitude of Texture will be reflected by the other empowered users here. You are "working against community consensus" because you take a minority view at the page. All the editors you oppose need to do is email a few friends, make sure you are outnumbered, and you are working "against consensus". That only a handful of editors involved escapes the likes of Texture. Their view of "consensus" is not that we should reach an accord but that everyone should agree with the gang or be silent, sometimes even silenced if you will not acquiesce. If you were to draw the conclusion that a POV that is not strongly pro-Israel is considered a priori "anti-consensus", you probably wouldn't be far from the truth. Your motivations will be questioned, I'm afraid; his never will. Jay is absolutely out of reach of justice and you have to live with that. -- Grace Note

I'm glad you've decided to stay. Take care. Grace Note 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering bailing

Yes, I have. Sometimes I just steer clear of the pages I know are tainted, and work for a while on other stuff that interests me. I try to pretend that Misplaced Pages just doesn't have a bunch of hasbara propaganda masquerading as pages about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It's not a focal interest of mine, to be honest, because I come from the POV that all oppressive regimes are wrong, and that Israel is not specifically bad but just one more bad place in a bad world. I know that the increasing popularity of WP brings the risk that people will start more and more recommending it as a source of information. That scares me because it is so flawed in so many places. It's not written by experts in the main and there's no real review process. You'd like to believe that the wiki would work towards improvement, but I've often seen the opposite happen. Anyone who's been here long enough can point to a dozen things that are plain wrong. Actually, be here long enough and you'll know of something you know from personal experience is wrong.

You cannot win against Jay, however right you are. You ought to know that by now. This is a guy who keeps a page of "NPOV edits" so that when he is brought before the arbcom again, he can "prove" he is neutral because look, he's done all these neutral edits. This is the level of consideration a case against him will receive. He can't be a POV pusher because on the 17 July he reverted some right-wing nonsense. It's like telling your girlfriend you can't have fucked her sister because look, you have some flowers for her. When you read the case against HistoryBuffEr, you will have noted one of the arbitrators saying "Jay knows the right thing to do". Presumably, reverting every edit other editors make, refusing to compromise and sneering at other contributors are all the "right thing", so long as you are one of the guys.

You have to let them have the Israel pages. It's worthwhile from time to time to have another go just to remind them that they didn't convince you and that there is opposition but you can't hope to make real change happen and you'll break your heart over it if you try. You know that though.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk any more, and to let me know your new ID if you are banished. If you don't bail, that's the likely outcome for you, and it would be a pity not to know who the owner of an interesting and thoughtful voice is. Grace Note 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't leave without getting in touch. Maybe if we talk privately, I can talk you out of it? Grace Note 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

3rr

I only count 2 reverts by you... Unless you were that anon IP.. but explain why the other editor is wrong first before I revert or anything. Sasquatcht|c 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalking and personal attacks

Marsden, you've admitted you're stalking an editor, and you're engaging in personal attacks (saying that editors are working for Dore Gold, are Stalinists, making an ass of themselves etc). If your aim is to make life unpleasant for some people, you're being singularly successful, but you'll find it'll backfire on you, because good editors won't support that behavior, whether or not they agree with your POV. I've tried to be civil to you, and I've tried to engage you in debate, and in fact don't see what else I could have done to avoid the attacks, except to capitulate and agree with you. Please try to find a less disruptive way of interacting with people who hold another POV. None of us can claim to have a monopoly on truth, you included. SlimVirgin 05:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

But some of us are much better equipped for ensuring that Misplaced Pages reflects our notion of the "truth".

My question for today, Marsden, is what is the difference between violent methods of interrogation and torture? Do only badboy Muslims do the latter? Grace Note 11:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look

at the the page; http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Economy_of_Israel Your thoughts about this would be apreciated. Thanks. Regards, Huldra 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

over the top

don't you think your "Jews are evil" user page is a little over the top? User:131.89.192.110

You made quite clear your prejudice. User:131.89.192.110

Good. I'd hate for it to be unclear that I think ethnic cleansing is wrong. How about you? Marsden 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What you made clear is that it's easier for you to demonize "them" by projecting monstrous motives on "them". Why obviously "they" want to murder everyone, therefore you are clearly a moral giant and quite justified in your prejudice.

Barnstar

You deserve one. I'd be glad to reword it. Larsoner 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

sourced quotes

FYI, this diff should address the POV tag team of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Policy says to use sourced quotes, i.e. to quote a source verbatim, rather than allow an editor to paraphrase in their own POV way. Obviously, the URL on this diff uses the phrase "Occupied Territories", and it is straight from the mouth of the URL, therefore the article should use that phrase. FuelWagon 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reason? Don't count on it. Just be sure not to violate any policies while they're editing the article. They'll push POV like the most partisan warrior, but if you break 3RR (for example), they'll nail you for it. It's harder to prove POV pushing, and easy to prove 3RR violations. Just to let you know how these folks operate. keep your nose clean if you want an accurate article. FuelWagon 23:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neutral" titles

When they claim that it's "neutral" to retitle articles to fit their POV, I suggest you invite them to consider Sea of Japan or Liancourt Rocks. The practice in Misplaced Pages is to use the commonly used names for things, and not the names preferred by small minorities for their own narrow, political reasons. The "neutral" names, in Misplaced Pages's terms, are those most readily sourced and most widely used, because it is believed that wide use implies wide acceptance, and I think this is fairly reasonable. Wider acceptance implies more "neutrality" for the obvious reasons. Grace Note 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Its HULDRA (not Hulda!)

And please email me at huldra999@hotmail.com. But don´t expect an answer at once; I´m logging out of all Misplaced Pages-related stuff for 2 days: I have another life which desperately demand my attention. Regards.Huldra 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (PS: Huldra is from Scandinavia mythology.) PPS: and check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine. Read it! All!

Israel = POV?!?!?

Don't you think it's a little over the top to call "Israel" a POV term? You're being a tad radical with that proposal... Are you sure it's best way to put a point across?

--Sebastian Kessel 15:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What I've read from your response is this. "I am frustrated against jayjg and co, therefore I will make their lives miserable by making edits that I know they will try and revert". All the politic diatribe made no sense to me, and if that's your REAL reason behind the edits, then you have a problem... Misplaced Pages is not a place for politics, and knowingly generate edit wars is not only unadvisable but, IMHO, stupid.

--Sebastian Kessel 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Marsden, could you explain exactly what you did with the article and the talk page. The page history has gotten lost in the process, either because of what you did, or because of something I did when I tried to correct it. I'd like to retrace what happened so I can undo it, so please let me know. SlimVirgin 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. Jayjg has fixed it. Please do not move this page again, and never do cut-and-paste moves. You're being highly disruptive, and if it continues, you're likely to find yourself blocked. Please either contribute constructively, or leave Misplaced Pages alone. SlimVirgin 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Well, I first took your proposal at face value, and I regard any attempt to lump Jews together as a Zionist entity as being antisemitic (or when Jews do it; retarded). If you would have used "the Israeli/Palestinian Entity" instead of "the Zionist Entity" when making your point I wouldn't have been as upset (although I still wouldn't have agreed).

That said; yes it is racism at work when these articles have been edited to exclude any references to Palestinian' lands, culture or claims (despite reference from United Nations, CIA, Amnesty International, etc). It is beyond any reasonable doubt that editors like Jayjg and SlimVirgin are using Misplaced Pages as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda, that there is a group of maybe 7-10 (?) editors who have been successful in their effort to present a very narrow minority view as if it was the majority view, and who have managed to take advantage of the loopholes in the Misplaced Pages rulebook. I can't for a second even begin to understand why they're allowed to be administrators.

However, in my opinion, it's not a good idea to counter racist propaganda with racist propaganda - it alienates Jews like me and it gives the hardliners a moral high ground they do not deserve. --saxet 14:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, please stop assuming you can get inside editors' minds. Neither Jayjg nor I are "using Misplaced Pages as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda." Or any other type of propaganda. It's you and Marsden who are the new, more or less single-issue, accounts. SlimVirgin 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely." — Jorge Luis Borges. I like that quote, Borges is (have always been) my favourite author. SlimVirgin, if you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the point of the Borges quote, and in what way am I not assuming good faith? SlimVirgin 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't it obvious Slim? By assuming that Dervish/Marsden is acting in bad faith by representing you as an ethnic cleanser whose only motive is to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda...it's really YOU who is acting in bad faith. Get it? --MPerel 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)