This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 28 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:50, 28 March 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Hi Doright, I responded to your recent email but it was returned as disabled. Hope all is well. --MPerel 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mperel, I haven't been on WP for a long time and the associated email address was deactivated. In any case, it's nice to know that I'm remembered with some affection. However, I did not email you. I have now reactivated my email address and look forward to hearing from you either here or there. All is very well. :) Doright (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Correction
Oops! Sorry about that. Aelffin (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Palestinian People
Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is. At least for the moment I’m afraid I lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people on many sides (including "my" side) and I don’t think I have the fortitude to bear it. Vandalism patrol, reverting "penis" and "poo", is the extent of what I can handle for the time being : ) --MPerel 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Doright, it would be nice if you would actually participate in the discussion on the talk page (Specifically, this section here, rather than making repeated undiscussed changes to the introduction as you did for example here: , . I'm not sure if you noticed the multiple sections stressing the need for changes to the introduction to be discussed first. One change was permitted to stand, using the WP:BRD rationale, for which that talk page section was opened. Editors who revert the change however, are expected to make a case as to why on the talk page. Failure to do so, makes the revert disruptive, rather than constructive. So please, if you do revert the edit again, revert to the last introduction to enjoy some consensus, and outline your objection in the section I've linked above, so that we can discuss how to move towards a consensus version. Okay? Thanks. Tiamut 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is an extraordinary remark. You appear to call for collegiality, starting from the set of alterations you have made, without talking to anyone. You made, from out of the blue, 11 edits in a 'couple of days', amongst which a comprehensive change to the intro. which are usually the hardest things to negotiate, and the text was the result of long work. (2)You have been inactive for a long time and have suddenly jumped at this page, saying, while requesting outside assistance from an excellent editor User:MPerel, that because others have requested you to slow down, because edits you have not discussed are challenged, this 'miserable' page is suffering from WP:OWN, which, practically means that a newcomer with no record in the area, making a dozern changes, is disconcerted that several experienced editors disagree with his unilateral edits (3) Your edits were often technically faulty, as Eleland indicated (4) Effectively the edit you were pushing replaced a complex rich summary statement of much recent scholarship on the formation of Palestinian identity with a bare quote from one source: the effect was to impoverish the terxt (5) the talk you engaged in to justify this significant alteration of the lead was minimal (6) I follow this and many other pages closely (7) YOur revert was unilateral and disruptive (7) With significant alterations in negotiated leads one should, in respect for those who have a long tradition of having worked on a page, vet their opinion before hazarding your own preferred material (8) The EB is one source, and not the only reliable source because you alone happen to prefer it. (9) To accuse practiced editors of a page of edit warring when they have made just one or two changes, independently, on a page you seem ready to rtewrite singlehandedly, is calling the kettle black. You appear to me at least to be conducting a one-man show edit war with several people. Show a willingness to justify before others your own take on this line, and achieve consensus, and perhaps you will find your actual edits less troubled by challenges. I have not edit-warred.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I ask please address the article content issue that I initiated on the article talk page as you can see I had previously done here. I suggest that it is more helpful to the WP project than a flame war that I have no interest in. Ironically, your comments here are both self-contradictory and provide additional evidence that some editors may be going too far in "defending" the article. You complain that I do not engage in discussion on the talk page, while in fact I have, for example right here, then you refuse to do so yourself even when I specifically created a talk page section to address your concern. You complain about my requesting a second opinion from an editor by asking them to "take a look at the article," even though we both agree she is an excellent editor. One would think that my seeking input from an excellent editor would be encouraged. And, your characterization of her as an "outside" editor, in this context, only furthers one's concerns that there are "ownership" issues at play here. Interestingly, the excellent editor seems to agree with my assessment of the editorial environment on that page. She says, "Oh gosh Doright. And a miserable corner it is." Apparently, this is not as "extraordinary" of a remark as you think. Rather, it is the assessment of an excellent editor, so much so, that the excellent editor is discouraged from even participating because of the "lack the energy required to involve myself there. That article belongs to a subject area that draws out the worst in people." This seems to provide further evidence that the editorial environment that you seem to covet discourages contributions from even excellent editors. I trust that the irony of your generalized and unsupported claims with respect to the content of my edits are not unnoticed. For example, the WP:RS quote that you reverted came from the Encyclopedia Britannica and is from the same source and paragraph that your preferred POV version is purported to cite. Again, the place to address concerns about the content of edits to the article is at the article discussion page. Please do so. Future rants to this talk page will be ignored when deemed of no material benefit to the Encylopedia. Regards, Doright (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"Blocked"
If you're interested to know about the context of my brief block, you could read a lengthy sectionn of AN/I here. The editor who blocked me (and quite a few others) took a fair amount of heat for this and had to step back from it. If you're concerned that I might end up being blocked again and want to help by making me aware of policies etc., may I suggest that my talk page is the appropriate place for that sort of assistance. thanks Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer but I'm not that interested in why you were blocked. As your user account was opened only last month, I thought you might not be familiar with some of our policies that could result in you being removed from the debate. Since I was pointing out other policies related to the editing dispute at Israel, I also mentioned the 3RR policy. I'm sorry if that offended you. Happy editing, Doright (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Israel -> Zionism and the British Mandate_Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate-2008-03-02T22:47:00.000Z">
hi! i just want to apologize for reverting your edit whitout stating my reason for doing so. i mistakingly thought you had simply removed my sentence, while in reality you had relocated and reformulated it. therfore, i (wrongly) didn't bother to write anything in the comments field. i'm sorry for this rather rude behaviour of mine. Frederico1234 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)_Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate"> _Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate">
- Thank you for this courtesy. Regards, Doright (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Lewis
Thanks for the heads-up. Glad you are okay with my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Doright, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I’m sorry you have experienced the disappointment of an unsuccessful candidacy. However, surely you are not unclear about the advice suggested by my comments. Specific diff’s were provided. As I mentioned in your RfB, my advice is you not exhibit the behaviors that the community has identified as a source of concern. Then, after 6 months, give your candidacy another try, if you are still interested in the position. Regards, Doright (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, your opposition was quite clear on points I should improve upon - blame the copy-paste :) Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
reply at Talk:Israel
hi!
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel#Jewish_and_Arab_immigration
regards, Frederico1234 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Best regards, Doright (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of citations in Jewish lobby
Please be more specific before performing big reverts. Note that you have removed at least nine citations from reliable sources added by multiple editors, claiming they are "original research". If you wish to claim "original research" when removing citations, considerably more specificity is necessary to justify your actions. Otherwise, it's just edit-warring. Exactly which citations do you object to, and why? --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter
|
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
|
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Discussion | ||
Sherurcij 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Prime minister
Hi. I reverted your last edit to that article, I'm afraid. You removed Palestine from the list of prime ministers by country, arguing that Palestine is not a country. While this is obviously technically true, I don't think it is an uncontroversial edit. As such, I think you should discuss on the talk page first whether or not Palestine should be removed from the list. If, then, consensus is reached that it should be removed, you are of course very free to remove it again. I hope this is okay with you, and you should by no mean think that your contributions are not appreciated. -Lilac Soul 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply is here Doright (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lilac Soul, tagging an edit as is a privilege reserved for registered users so that it is less likely to be abused as you did . Reverting an editor's correction to an article in not properly tagged as minor. I hope this is okay with you. Doright (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Gaza "Massacre"
Doright, I have been fighting this exact battle for days (weeks?) now. Glad to have a fellow here. Head hurts from all that wall-banging. I think the final resolution was that enough people decided that since Nableezy speaks Arabic, he ought to know. Either that or some folks just gave up, as I had until you reopened it. In fact, user:Cerejota put it on the OR noticeboard here: . I'll see if I can find the archive as well, if you have a spare month of life, lol. Tundrabuggy (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your notes
Doright, thanks for your notes, but I'm not an admin anymore. I was temporarily desysopped after a little local difficulty. :-) SlimVirgin 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- lol Slim, I hear it doesn't pay very well anyhow. Could you help by bringing my note to the attention of the adults at WP, if any are still here? There are ongoing and systematic bald face violations of policy. Now vandalism has been added to the mix by deleting talk discussion and evidence of a pov dispute from the article. Doright (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just as soon not get involved in that article, sorry. You could try posting an RfC, but the best thing might be to wait until fewer people are interested. Where there's an ongoing news situation in a controversial area, it's always chaos. SlimVirgin 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doright the arbitrary addition of controversial content to the first sentence of an article about a controversial event is bound to be controversial. Please discuss these sort of edits first on Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Thank you. RomaC (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC's Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia
RomaC, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." ] In this case that would be you.
- RomaC, Exactly where in the vandalism policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
- RomaC, That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
- RomaC, That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
- RomaC, That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth. READ This AND This AND More AND Even More AND Yet Another Talk Section Started Here AND Here
- RomaC, I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on the subject of the edit as well as the references to be provided related to it.
- RomaC, You should know that WP:Good Faith does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."
Doright (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's first sentence based on a WP:Fringe theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... RomaC (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your continued failure to comply with WP:Civility, your failure to correct your behavior as documented above, your continued false claims, your assertion that it is I that has been aggressive because I was reverted rather than merely responding to your "harming the encyclopedia" by making false claims of WP:Vandalism as documented above, along with your assertion that Iranian involvement with Hamas is a fringe theory or that the some view the Gaza War as part of a war on terror are just a few more drops in the bucket of "particularly strong evidence," with regard to your conduct. Doright (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
gaza lead archive
Hey, I noticed your comment on the former lead discussion page. I felt the dispute was solved when editors agreed on replacing "much of the Arab world" with "parts of...". If you feel further discussion is needed, please proceed on the ordinary talk page, and copy (or maybe better link) relevant stuff there. It is better to have all discussions in one place, the creation of talk-subpages was an exeption owned solely to huge size/high traffic. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Gaza lead section
I did add a bit more to the section on Talk with regard to your edit of the lead. I believe that the War on Terror should be termed the International War on Terror. Also I found several more sources besides Ledeen that made the same point. I still have a really hard time accepting that those references say that there is such a thing as the Gaza Massacre. Allowing it is to allow an error. Any high school student with a good command of English grammar will tell you that a name is a proper noun and a proper noun is capitalized. It may be a detail but it I choke on it. Happen to have spent a few years teaching this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
stike text
Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
Those kinds of articles are ones I avoid like the plague; recent events on anything even remotely Israel-related, but particularly anything controversial, generally attract the worst kinds of SPAs and POV-ers. In a few months, when this has all died down, it might be more editable. In the meantime, I've changed the archiving time to something more sane. Jayjg 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Robert Michael
I have nominated Robert Michael, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Michael. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)