Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 1 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

Have an Angry Mastodont brought you here?

Damn unluck. They are best avoided.

Sorry

I wish to apologize for my list as it had a number of errors in it including duplicates, proper reversions and places where you just moved material about. I struck the first list and have revised the list and it has only two or three actual reverts on it. The rest I have described as you removing sourced material that was of a positive nature toward Israel, ie POV removals. I put the corrected list here : and hope you accept my apologizes for the mistakes in my earlier version. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe in apologizing for my mistakes and correcting my errors. I did make a number of errors in that list, making your behavior seem worse than it was. But clearly your edits are not neutral. I made the list because of what I was seeing in your editing. I do think the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page were inexcusable, however. And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him, as non-collaborative. It certainly appears to be an effort to silence those who disagree with you. Hey but that's just my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct that one can see another's errors more easily than one's own. You accused me of combativeness in your last post, but it was not until you began with the wikilawyer at various boards that I became less willing to WP:AGF. Prior to that, I excused much of what you said on the basis of my assumption that English was not your first language, which made it harder to understand why you were so willing to revert (without comment) material that rested much of its rationale on English grammar, and WP:NONENG and was being amply discussed at TALK. Looking over your edits more closely and listening to you at TALK, I did come to believe that your removals of material were quite one-sided and thus inappropriate. The chart, which covers only a little over a week of edits, does seem to reflect that. Again, I probably would not have been inclined to be looking so closely at your editing behavior, if you hadn't been running off to "Etiquette Boards" making charges against others when you clearly had a "moat" in your own eye! Stellarkid (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

POV section

If the tag has to satay it has to stay. The section already exists. There are other bullet points besides the massacre concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the clean up template? I think it is important that it stays. The previous lock got part of the lead fixed. Maybe keeping the tag and not letting editors or readers believe in a false sense affirmance will spur continued discussion towards consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is needed for the time being. There is still ongoing on how to handle the massacre line so we'll see what happens. The bullet points are right there for people to see. If they chose not to engage in discussion that is just the way it is. I'll make a mention and see if anything comes out of it.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is needed because it is disputed and only one RS goes into detail on it. If it were not disputed it would be fine. I would love to be more open to compromise but other editors have not reciprocated that effort. All other attempts pf presenting this information that everyone feels is appropriate and factual have been denied. Even with the ongoing row between you and JJ your effort in fixing the second paragraph was a work of seeking consensus that has become rare for the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it serves little purpose also but anything to let the reader know that this is not a fact asserted by Wikiedia needs to be done.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it at all.Cptnono (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I am more awake myself (coffee): I've said dumb stuff while editing hammy so you misreading the situation pales in comparison and is completely OK regardless of sleep or not. It happens. Hell, you can even be a little pissed that I brought it up.Cptnono (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono (talk) has mediated the dispute that you and I had regarding the lead. See our respective Talk pages. Do you still want to arbitrate?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Try disengaging with the conflict. Or go to the IRC to ask for "expert admin help" http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is well needed. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, did you go to the IRC and ask the admins there? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

An arbitration enforcement request involving you has been filed. Please comment at WP:AE. Regards, Jehochman 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)