Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 21 July 2009

Duck Test

Archives

No archives yet.

Tony Blair

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tony Blair. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You have reverted 5 times in the space of 24 hours - reported. Vexorg (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 2 weeks due to the reasons explained in your block log. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a bit severe, two weeks for what exactly? two weeks is aloong time. Please reconsider. I would say there was little or no danger to the wiki.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Comment from blocking administrator: As explained, you have been blocked several times already for similar reasons; we are expected to extend the duration of blocks if recurring. Also, if you do not even understand why you have been blocked (“two weeks for what exactly”) your block will not be reduced; I may recommend reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Two weeks, for attempting to care for the wikipedia, have a look at my edits, there was nothing disruptive at all. the most would be a 3rr 24 hour block, to issue a 2 weeks disruptive editing block is over the top. There are no comparable blocks in my edit history at all.

Decline reason:

You have been egregiously edit warring at Tony Blair, and your edit summary at could be construed as anti-semitic: "Removed jewish coatrack". The duration of the block is in line with your previous blocks as noted below.  Sandstein  07:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, let's see. You've been editing since December of 2008. Since March, you've been blocked for

1. Disruptive editing: Poorly sourced POV edits despite warnings; 24 hours
2. Disruptive editing: pov pushing, marketing edits, etc.; 72 hours, with a "good faith"reduction to 48 hours
3. Battlefielding: 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot; 72 hours
4. Disruptive editing; 1 week
5. Personal attacks or harassment; 24 hours, served 5

   and most recently

6. Disruptive editing: Excessive Edit warring on Tony Blair; 2 weeks

Just how much slack do you expect to get at this point? Much more of this and people will be requesting a ban; perhaps you should reconsider your approach here. --jpgordon 05:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing Anti Semic about the term Jewish Coatrack. Jpgordon should take that back. It is excessive and not at all true. You should not bandy the derogatory phrase around unnecessarily. What the expression meant was that imo someone was trying to hang with excessive weight the conspiracy that tony blair was a jewish supporter on to the biography. Hence the term Jewish coatrack. There is nothing anti semic about the phrase at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

For what it's worth, I don't believe for one minute that you are anti-semetic. I think Sandstein's concern is that the edit summary could have been perceived by some editors in that way.

I do think that you've worked extremely hard recently (on Gordon Brown, for example) and that you're showing signs of "Wiki-stress" - at Tony Blair you seemed to get on fine with the editors you were reverting - apart from the edit war! I think under less stressful circumstances you'd have been more mindful of WP:DEADLINE, and been happier to discuss. (I'd add that the other two editors should, in my view, have been discussing with, rather than reverting, you).

I hope you're not too jaded by this block, as I look forward to working with you on returning "Tony Blair" to FA status.

Cheers, TFOWR 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, that really means a lot to me. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Just to clarify, that as one of the other two editors, there was some discussion with Off2riorob.Off2riorob was POV reverting info that was clearly and reputably sourced and therefore it was fine to revert his reverts. In regard to the 'Jewish Coatrack' comments they were obviously not anti-Semitic but they did expose the clear POV of Off2riorob's edit warring. There is NO conspiracy about Tony Blair's support for Israel and there is nothign wrong with a mention of Blair's membership of a pro-Israel lobby group in a sub-section about Blair's links with Israel. Vexorg (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the edit being reverted changed over time and wasn't reputably sourced until towards the end. Incidentally, I tend to lean towards inclusion - but with the Guardian reference, which didn't appear until comparatively late in the process. Cheers, TFOWR 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It started off as a Zionist pressure group.... I would like to know why I was directed from the original Haffez cite to a black page with a warning that it was an attack page, I left there very quickly. That upset me, some links can be dangerous. My POV about the blair page, is that all different factions...have gone there and added their thing, that which is important to them..and the article was awful...there is a link at the top of the talk or somewhere to an independant review that comments that the page had been taken over by the anti war brigade. My POV is that there is too much weight given over to all these things as regards Blair's biography. So one side go there to add things that make out that blair was an israeli supporter and thier anti war people go there and add how he caused untold deaths and it was all blairs fault. To me the most important thing in blair's bio is Blair himself. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Aye, that was when I first saw it. I think that's a little unfair to Labour Friends of Israel - as far as I understand it they're little more than a bridge between Labour in the UK and Labour in Israel (and Israeli Labour aren't what I'd think of as "Zionist"). I think the eventual text was OK, but the "Zionist" bit was WP:POV, and the Guardian reference was sorely needed. I feel bad that I didn't get involved with this at the time, but I was busy elsewhere. Cheers, TFOWR 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time i'll call you first. See ya later. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

The ties with the Israeli Labour party is only part of te agenda of the LFI. Anyway what's all the trembling about the label Zionist for? Zionism is a support for Israel and that's what the LFI are about. In much the same way AIPAC is. AIPAC used have the word Zionist in it's name nuntil it was changed. The phrase Zionist wasn't POV and doesn't bother me, but I didn't have a problem with renaming it to Pro-israeli. What I objected to was Off2riorob reversions went much further than removing the Zionist 'label', but with removing the reference altogether to his membership of the LFI altogether. If you say "To me the most important thing in Blair's bio is Blair himself." then do you remove reference to him being Prime Minister as well, or him being a member of the Labour party? Blair is an Israel supporter. This is fact, not POV, and should be included in the article. Vexorg (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Well, the edit being reverted changed over time and wasn't reputably sourced until towards the end." - This is not true. The edit had two reputable sources included from the start. check the history. 'attack page' ?? - I have no idea why you got some warning from the Haaretz link. Haaretz ( www.haaretz.com ) is a major Israeli media newspaper/media outlet, in much the same way as The Guardian is a reputable major UK media newspaper/media outlet. Perhaps the page carried an advertisement ( in your locale ) that linked to something harmful, or there was a glitch in your locale. The link is fine here and no one else has complained.Vexorg (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining your POV. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Blair likes France, this is a fact and I know it is true because he has a holiday home there. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

So, when you get unblocked, include it in the article under the personal section if you have a good source for it. Your sarcasm with that comment, in regards to the relation to the Blair/Israel disucssion, is of course noted Vexorg (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Zionism" tends to imply slightly more than merely a support for Israel, and - in my view - shouldn't be used to describe LFI (or any organisation) unless the organisation describes itself as "Zionist", or WP:RS do so. I'm happy with the term "pro-Israeli".

You're quite right about the Guardian cite; I hadn't seen further that the Haaretz one. Sorry about that. The Haaretz one does look fine now - I'd be interested to know what issue Beganlocal had with it?

Cheers, TFOWR 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

""Zionism" tends to imply slightly more than merely a support for Israel" - What do you mean? I think you'll find Zionism is just a support for Israel .... http://en.wikipedia.org/Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It tends to imply - at least in Britain and New Zealand - an unyielding belief in Israel. For example, the Israeli Labour Party's wouldn't be seen as "Zionist" because of their present support for a Palestinian state. For that matter, what's traditionally been called "Liberal Zionism" wouldn't be regarded as Zionism - Zionism would be more typically associated with Israeli nationalism and religious conservatism. I'm not saying that the inference drawn from the word is necessarily correct, just that it's an ambiguous word that should be avoided when more precise words are available. Cheers, TFOWR 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict..Where I come from, the uk, the word Zionist has become connected (rightly or wrongly) with extremism. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Sorry but it isn't. And I'm from the UK as well btw. Zionism is Zionism. A support for Israel. Of course there are extremist Zionist elements, just as there are in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. But you wouldn't refrain from calling someone a Christian or refrain from calling the organisation they belong to as being Christian just because there are extremist Christian elements in the world. Even David Cameron called himself a Zionist at one of his speeches to the Conservative Friends OF Israel ( The speech is still online on their site if you're interested - I can't remember exactly which year, I think it was 2007 IIRC ). There's nothing wrong in calling someone a Zionist, or labelling an organisation Zionist. Even an 'unyielding belief' in Israel doesn't make someone an extremist. Please be careful in not helping to make Zionism a dirty word. It's not. Vexorg (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is quite normal for words to get attached to perhaps not quite correct usage. The general usage in the english press reflects that position, that is ..extremism, correct or not..would you say then that Tony Blair is a Zionist? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Given that we're all happy with the WP:NPOV term "pro-Israeli" (which is the term Haaretz used, by the way) why worry about it anyway? I'm not concerned about turning Zionism into a "dirty word" (my argument is that in some parts of society it is already) so let's avoid an ambiguous word and go for a phrase which is clear. Cheers, TFOWR 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also happy to have what is there now in the article. A little bit of chit chat, that is all. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Well I read the British press all the time and I only see the word Zionist used as a description and not a slur. And yes I would say that Tony Blair was a Zionist. He has a very strong support for Israel. Anyway, look, I'm not arguing to use the 'Zionist' label in the article ... Zionist and Pro-Israel are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned and I'm also happy 'Pro-Isael', I'm just debating the point about the word Zionist/Zionism. What's more important to me is Off2riorob's seeming passion for removing the reference to Blair's membership of LFI altogether and calling references to it in the article a 'Jewish Coatrack'. A support for Israel is nothing to be ashamed of and an ex Prime Minister's membership of a Pro-Israeli lobby group is significant and notable enough to include in an encyclopaedia article about someone. Vexorg (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also happy to have what is there now in the article. What did Blair do in this group? Did he go to any meetings? Did he make any speeches? Did anything happen at all? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Vexorg, you read a better class of paper than me ;-) Unfortunately, Zionism is used as a slur - this Guardian article complains about this issue, for example. It's distasteful, but if you can stomach it see how the extreme-right's papers talk about Israeli - or even Jewish - issues: "Zionism" will feature almost exclusively, whereas "Israeli" will be conspicuous by its absence.

Off2riorob, I don't know whether Blair attended regular meetings (I'd guess probably not, but I'd also guess he didn't tend regular Constituency Labour Party meetings either), but he was typically the major drawcard for LFI fringe meetings at Party conferences during his time in office. (Fringe meetings are held either side of normal conference proceedings, and are intended to promote affiliated societies to conference attendees).

Cheers, TFOWR 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a story is it? The recent addition says ."blair has been a long term member of the of the pro israel lobby group, labour friends of israel". ..Why does it need the double confirmation? ...Pro israel ...is that not obvious from the name..friends of israel? I also wonder about his membership, was he given membership or did he apply? and the loose expression long term member what does that mean? is he still a member? Is there any evidence to say that he is still a member? (Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

One source (the Guardian, I think) mentioned "a couple of decades". I don't know whether he applied or not (I'd guess he did, since he would have joined before he was "famous", but that's conjecture). I don't know whether he's still a member - worth investigating, as given his current role as Middle East elder-statesman it's pertinent.

I do tend to agree with you about the redundancy of describing LFI as pro-Israel. I think the description was probably lifted from the LFI article, but at TB we just need an explanation of affiliated societies.

Cheers, TFOWR 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

two weeks

Time is a healer, I find it hard to accept that anything I have done can be worthy of a 2week block. But hey perhaps I have, take care. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

I disagree that there is any benefit to the wikipedia from a continued two weeks block . I should be less disruptive, ok, I have learned that. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Image:2008botswana.JPG

Could you point me to the image listed on commons? I searched through and could not find it. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the image something to do with me?

Was it a picture of a beauty contestant? yes I remember something now..I could well have changed the name as it wasn't really a picture of botswana. Had a quick look at commond and the original file is not there. I am unsure if I can find it in my history....so thats the thing..it has likely been renamed...I will have a little look for it..(Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

I can't find it. I have left a request on the commons talk. You might also ask user Luc User_talk:Luk as he signed off some of my name changes. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

It looks like I attempted to move it to commons and it didn't make it there, the template that says it is at commons needs to be removed. It is not on commons. OK? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Galloway.

] revert. BLP. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Alt text to Gordon Brown removed by User:Therequiembellishere

Hi Therequiembellishere, you have removed the alt text to the Gordon Brown infobox, it was added there as part of the good article reassesment and you have removed it without even an edit summary. Please explain why you have removed it. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

This ] is the edit, totally unexplained. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC))