User talk:Mackan79: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:23, 23 December 2006 editGHcool (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,333 edits Re: PCO← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:28, 24 December 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →Re: PCO Next edit →
Line 138:		Line 138:
	#Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.		#Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.
	#Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ''ever'' be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective. --] 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)		#Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ''ever'' be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective. --] 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

			==User pages==
			Mackan, do not leave hostile comments on people's user pages. I assumed it was a mistake, but I see from your comment that it was deliberate. It could be interpreted as vandalism in future, so please stick to leaving messages on talk pages. Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:28, 24 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Mackan79, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! Sr13 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Khalidi

I will bring some links that I believe may have been part of the article at one time that demonstrate support for labeling him Anti-Zionist. As not all of these sources are acceptable for wikipedia, until I have more time to analyze the issues directly, I will refrain from reverting its removal for the time being.

Remember, it is not what we think Khalidi is or is not, but if there exist reliable sources that claim he is. Misplaced Pages cannot have original synthesis, either positive or negative, it can only bring from other places, so if reliable sources call him anti-Israel, then the category is appropriate regardless of your or my personal opinions. Thanks. -- Avi 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Count Bernadotte

Please cease from removing sourced material from the article. This is sourced and relevant. This is not allowed in wikipedia. Amoruso 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Mackan, you're in danger of violating 3RR at Zionism. I'm leaving this warning in case you're not familiar with the 3RR policy, which you can review at WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin 08:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your posts

The problem is that your responses are too long, which is why they aren't being read. You're expressing frustration, but please try to see it from another point of view. I've asked you the same question about five times now, and I still don't have a response that's readable, which is frustrating for me. Please just say in one sentence what is misleading about including the historical material, because I genuinely don't see it. SlimVirgin 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if you would stop reverting. You're the one who wants to make the change, and so you should simply argue your case (succinctly) on the talk page and try to persuade people, rather than making changes even though people are objecting and clearly not understanding your argument. If you make a good case, we may end up agreeing with you. SlimVirgin 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think the problem may be that you've misunderstood the sentence. Just as "Land of Israel" doesn't refer to the State of Israel (a previous confusion), "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation-state. It can refer to a people. Jewish nationhood developed and didn't go away. It went through periods of decline, where fewer Jews would subscribe to it, and periods of renewal, where more Jews subscribed to it, but it didn't ever disappear. So your point that the nationhood stopped existing 2000 years ago isn't accurate, and perhaps that's the source of the confusion. SlimVirgin 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all controversial that "nationhood" doesn't refer to a nation state. Even the Misplaced Pages article makes that clear. "Nationhood" means something closer to "ethnicity." Some nations have their own nation state and some don't. I think your misunderstanding of the first sentence does just boil down to your misunderstanding of the words, but these are linked and can be looked up by anyone else who doesn't understand them. This is quite common in Misplaced Pages and in other encyclopedias. Not every word can be explained. SlimVirgin 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to Nation is not wrong. Have you read it? Look, the words are clear, and that is what nationhood means to the vast majority of people. How can there be a diaspora if there is no nationhood, or are you also going to say there is no diaspora? Anyone who doesn't know what certain words mean can look them up, because we link to them. SlimVirgin 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The word means the same in America and in every other English-speaking country. You're simply claiming that "no neutral writer" would include that material in the first sentence, but you haven't yet said why not. I can't keep on having a discussion about what a word means, with respect, when it's perfectly clear, and when the Misplaced Pages article explains it for anyone who doesn't know. That is why we link to words, so that we don't have to explain the meaning of every single word in every single article. SlimVirgin 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, if you didn't know the difference between Land of Israel and State of Israel, or the difference between nationhood and nation-state, then why are you editing in this area? I mean no disrespect by asking this; my point is that this vocabulary crops up frequently in articles about these issues, and if you don't know what the words mean, you're going to come up against these problems time and again. SlimVirgin 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, can I ask that you post questions on the articles' talk pages from now on, please, rather than on my talk page, because others may want to respond too. SlimVirgin 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, I saw that current NPOV dispute you're in. I haven't investigated the issue you're dealing with fully, but it looks like you've got the "usual suspects" on you as well (I'm involved with an apparently similar series of disputes elsewhere). Good luck in your endeavors. If you need anything, send me a message. .V. 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your dispute as well. The "usual suspects" are definitely key words here as V has stated. Send me a message as well if you need any advice. I might have some info for you. MetsFan76 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One particularly good way to deal with it can be found at User:.V./NPOV. Just follow those steps and you should be good to go. Also, keep an eye out for misdirection. Oftentimes, if you have a legitimate point, one of the first things to be done is for a functionally irrelevant issue to be brought in as essential to the discussion, so make sure you stick to just what's necessary. Good luck m8. .V. 03:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is your email turned on here? Might be easier to discuss certain things without having to name them on here. MetsFan76 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. I just tried emailing you and it says that you haven't turned on your email yet. MetsFan76 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan and MetsFan, if you want to contact me to talk about this (maybe we can group email each other on this topic), my email is located on my user page (it's on the right under userboxes.) .V. 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, You asked about mediation. It is described at WP:MEDIATION, but in my opinion it is not a good idea at the moment either for Zionism or Folke Bernadotte. If you calmly compare Folke Bernadotte now to what Amoruso would like it to be, you will have to agree that it got better. That's progress so it's better to work on improving and expanding what's there now than to take it back to previous versions that won't stick. Cheers, Zero 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Folke Bernadotte

You have been blocked for 3RR for 24hrs with respect to this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

Just a thought -- if you find yourself in an edit war, with anyone, for any reason, just stop and go to the talk page. Nothing is so important that Your Version Must Be In Misplaced Pages NOW. Step back and talk and most of the irritation and frustration will turn into useful discussion...Also, you need to know that a lot of readers of online stuff are much different from readers of printed stuff -- nature of the medium seems to be that short paragraph writing, almost telegraphic conciseness, is far more effective than longer forms. --jpgordon 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR, Bernadotte

Hi Mackan79. The 3RR rule is about the most prescriptive rule we have and if you really did more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period (I didn't try to check) then you broke it. There are very few available defences, such as reverting vandalism (and for this purpose even the rantings of the worst political fanatics don't count as vandalism). Arguing about the motives or behavior of the person you are reverting is a waste of time on the 3RR page; complaints like that should go to another place such as WP:RFC. It is best to just accept it and wait for the expiry of the block. Last time I broke the rule, I just blocked myself to save anyone else the bother. One other thing: my experience from being around here for a few years is that people tend to read the first few sentences of long arguments and not the rest. So usually it is more effective to distill your main points into a few lines than to present a detailed case. On the Bernadotte article: my plan is to expand the part about the Nazi accusations into its own small section with good sources, then (maybe) to move it to later in the article. Then it won't be juxtaposed so jarringly with the account of his rescue mission. Cheers, Zero 03:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

3RR Block Appeal

SlimVirgin made the initial request, but she was heavily involved in the incident, commiting her own 3RR violation at the same time. Is it possible to take a second look? Mackan79 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, SV's statement that I was recreating a section isn't true. I moved a section which was already there after asking her, and she didn't object. From her previous explanations, I also had no reason to think it had been moved intentionally, and several reasons to think it wasn't. If she had not been involved in the incident her statements could be taken at face value, but she was very much involved, and in fact the only reason she is not reported right now for her own 3RR violation is because she was succesful in blocking me first while I was in the process of reporting it. Mackan79 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've decided to cut some slack this once.

Request handled by: jpgordon 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am Yamla and I agree that I asked Mackan79 to post the above message. I would like another admin to review the case for unblocking. --Yamla 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make this easy. If you'll stop edit warring (and I do not care who else has been edit warring), I'll unblock you. This means working to reach consensus on the talk page of article in question, rather than battling out on the article page. Agree? --jpgordon 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon, thanks for the comment. If you'll change your sentence to "If you'll refrain from edit warring..." then I'll unqualifiedly agree. I just can't agree not to register a similar report against SlimVirgin if I feel like it. If that's consistent with your condition, then thanks very much. Best, Mackan79 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, because you need to stop edit warring; agreeing to "refrain" doesn't mean you admit to having done so, but it's evident you have been. As I've said, in this regard, I don't care who else has been involved. --jpgordon 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you look at my edits, you'll see the /vast/ majority of them are on talk pages. I've actually been ridiculed for how much I've been talking on talk pages. Virtually every time I've edited something, it's been with a very full explanation, and virtually every time I've reedited, it's been explained again, along with a change to please the reverter. This time, SV wikistalked me into the FB article, and reverted me three times without any comment whatsoever. With another user, I reverted her twice, explaining in extensive detail each time. That's truly the closest I came at any point to edit-warring.

So I'll concede, on that edit, that I should have waited. I pledge that next time I will simply wait. I simply can't pretend I've been broadly edit warring, though, when I haven't.Mackan79 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, Slim wasn't "wikistalking" you; careful throwing that expression around. Read Misplaced Pages:Harassment; you'll see it says explicitly that wikistalking does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy. Most of us do exactly the same thing: if we note that an editor is violating WP policy, or making errors, we look at their contributions to see if they've been doing the same thing in other places. Some editors do incorrectly conflate this with the harassment and disruption that constitutes "stalking". I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. --jpgordon 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can jump in here....Jpgordon...have you told SlimVirgin that he needs to stop edit warring as well? To me, this looks like a veteran editor bullying a relatively new one. MetsFan76 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. On the other hand, I agree with what she says: Mackan, you've reverted around 23 times on just a couple of articles since December 11, despite having made only 160 edits to articles overall, and around 48 since December 11, so reverting is a very large percentage of what you do on Misplaced Pages. You might therefore consider toning down your claims about other people. --jpgordon 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, but doesn't an edit war usually involve more than one person? MetsFan76 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I can say, it's not fine, because that is a complete and utter distortion by SlimVirgin. Have you looked at my differences page? I don't know what she based that on, but the reason I've been going back and forth in some instances is that I've been trying to improve certain POV and blatantly defamatory material on several pages on Misplaced Pages. I have not done it in an aggressive manner whatsoever. On the Zionism page, I made reverts in several instances, always changing my suggestions, only when after multiple attempts I wasn't able to get anyone to respond on the talk page. This was not revert warring; I had no pretensions I'd overpower anyone. If you look at my talk page, I have 1 person accusing me of removing material -- a known controversial user -- while I have 1 warning for a 3RR from SlimVirgin. Again, simply look at my differences page. I have no idea how she even counted my reverts, but whatever it is, it is a completely meaningless statistic.

Have you really seen my interaction here? To the extent you have, you seem to have agreed that I talk too much. I can't believe if you've observed me that you truly think I'm simply an edit warrior. That is the complete antithesis of what I've been doing. Please look at my differences page if you doubt this. Mackan79 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan.....was that directed at me? MetsFan76 00:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I appreciate your support very much. I don't think you've seen enough of my interaction in any case to know whether it's a true reflection. While I also appreciate the time from Jpgordan, though, I also have to admit that I find this very insulting. I'm restraining myself from saying more. I appreciate your time, Jp, but I am not an unreasonable person, and I would appreciate the effort to see this from my side, which if you did, you would not be quoting SlimVirgin to me to convince me that I've been reverting people too much. Mackan79 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok...well like I said in my email, I definitely support you. I think that SlimVirgin and Humus use bullying-tactics to get their way. It is very unfortunate. Are you unblocked yet b/c this is getting ridiculous? Also, I will make sure some time tonight to read through all your interactions with SlimVirgin. As an outsider, I might be able to see things differently. MetsFan76 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No luck so far. Thanks again, though. Mackan79 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: I didn't say you've been broadly edit warring; the reason you were blocked under 3RR just means you did it once. Anyway, enough of this. Tone it down in general, OK? Regardless of what other people are doing. Keep a cool head. I've unblocked you. --jpgordon 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats Mackan! Don't let this silly incident keep you from editing though. SlimVirgin isn't worth it. MetsFan76 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Hey...I sent you an email. MetsFan76 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Tom, is it? You emailed me, right? Sorry for the lack of response; I didn't have an anonymous email set up, so I was concerned with giving out my email. Thanks for the comment in any case. Best, Mackan79 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I see that you have been getting into it with SlimVirgin. I would suggest not getting into battles with her or anybody since its almost always a no win situation. I would suggest trying to get as many other editors invloved so "consensus" can be reached. Certain articles are always going to have people who have a certain POV even though everybody will claim to be neutral, its just human nature. Many articles are very frustrating because people feel very strongly about their position even though Misplaced Pages's prime directive, if you will, is that you should NOT have one :) Anyways, don't get into revert wars if possible. This is just one very small editors opinion so feel free to totally disregard it and do what you will/want. Cheers!--Tom 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: PCO

Dear Mackan79, I took the liberty of removing the analysis you wrote on my user page for the following reasons:

It is rude to write on someone else's user page. Your argument would have been more appropriate on my talk page and you should have allowed me to make my own decision about what would or would not be appropriate on my own user page.
Pco is perfectly capable of defending herself. Unless Pco is a minor and you are her legal guardian, you have no right or obligation to butt into a place where you are not needed.
Pco's argument doesn't make sense and neither does yours. How can Ahmadinejad and others like him become "more aware of their errors" by attending a Holocaust conference that they themselves organized? Even if that was her argument (and I think you can see that it is self-controdictory at best), why would a Holocaust deniers conference ever be "a good idea"??? It was certainly a good idea from an anti-Semitic perspective, because it strengthened the ties between racists worldwide against Jews, but I challenge anyone to give me one instance in which an international conference with the specific intent of minimalizing the Holocaust and its effect on Jewish history could be ethically justified from a pluralistic perspective. --GHcool 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User pages

Mackan, do not leave hostile comments on people's user pages. I assumed it was a mistake, but I see from your comment that it was deliberate. It could be interpreted as vandalism in future, so please stick to leaving messages on talk pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 03:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)