This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Comment in wrong place
What is this??? Why do you call me a " a possibly banned user"??? --Olahus (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
First, when you comment on a new subject on someone's talk page, create a new section (and please don't use ugly, obtrusive red letters -- I can understand English just fine). Second, I did not call you a possibly banned user; you need to pay more attention to the history of that article. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits befor my innocence was proved. --Olahus (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, instead of loosing yout time in the noticeboard, try better to reduce your stalinist and anti-Romanian attitude from this encyclopedia and stop to remove quoted information that don't match to your attitude regarding the Romanians. Looking to your edits, I see only hostility against Romanians. But I think you're just an exception between Russian users, not a normal case.--Olahus (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, do you think the above suffices for a wikiquette alert?Xasha (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, you vandalized the article Moldovans again and again and again. As usual, you insisted in the deletion of quoted information. This IS obvoiously vandalism.--Olahus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I add that he violated his revert parole on Moldovans, and continues to batter me? Xasha (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Add what you want. You just try to provoke me. Besides, I am not the user Bonaparte.--Olahus (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible block evasion
80.132.200.160 (talk·contribs) restored Olahus's version in every article it edited, after you blocked Olahus for 72 hours.Xasha (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Um... I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mix up those two cases as I didn't even know about the other one. One, apparently, is for the Balkan states while the other is for Eastern Europe. I did not confuse Moldova with Macedonia as you imply. Those two countries aren't on opposite sides of the world, you know... as this map suggests, Moldova could be considered at least partially in the Balkans. Because the Macedonia case allows general sanctions to be applied to articles related to the Balkans (not just Macedonia), "defined broadly", and because I was not aware of the case that allowed general sanctions to be applied regarding Eastern Europe in general, I invoked that case, not the Digwuren one.
Both describe the geographical region related to Olahus's problematic editing (although one more undisputably so than the other) so I don't understand why it matters which case I invoke and where I post the violation. I don't know what "order" you're talking about and I don't find whatever joke you were trying to make funny. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I rather prefer this map, than one with an arbitrarily drawn line, but whatever. Olahus is the third user (I know) active in articles about Moldova who was put on parole and in both previous cases the warning admins (El_C and Stifle) have used the Macedonia warning only to correct themselves later, I assumed that you fell victim to the eM error as well. If that is not the case, please accept my apologies. Still, that last part was kinda stuffy. Relax! :-P --Illythr (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Moldova is not a Balkan country. At least, in according to the most common definitions of this region, it is by far not a Balkan country. This map is obviously an original research and the author did'n mention any source of the map (actually, what source could he have at all? ). --Olahus (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as someone above mentioned, I could move the restriction to the case encompassing all of Eastern Europe, not just the Balkans, if that's what you want. -- tariqabjotu 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Then, appreciating the irony, I did indeed misread you, and there are no excuses. I sincerely apologize. I would just add (by no means in exculpation of my misprision), that we grow up in, and are exposed to, language, customary expressions and newspaper consensus on how the world is described, which people, like I.M. (Jordanian) hailing from another cultural milieu and accustomed to different descriptions for the land, take exception to. I haven't checked that person's record. But systemic bias is something we all have. And that huge swathe of discussion was really just over the refusal to put in an adjective or a locative particle that would have left the Islamic reader satisfied. But I won't blog the issue here on your page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if you're suggesting that we should have added an another word or two to the first sentence of Jerusalem to "[leave] the Islamic reader satisfied", but if you were, I'm going to have to disagree with you to the greatest degree. First, of course, I'm sure there are many Muslims that don't care about this wording, and think it's accurate. But more on point, this reminds me of what was happening at the Muhammad article a few months ago. As you may have been aware, there was an online petition demanding that the images of Muhammad be removed from that article. It snowballed out of control until we had arbitrary IP users removing images from the article and ranting on the talk page about this supposed inappropriateness. I understand that we should be cognizant of cultural differences, but this is an encyclopedia. Further, it seems we are expected to bend over backwards to tailor to Muslim interests -- for Israel-Palestine topics, that means highlighting the Palestinian point-of-view and drawing sympathy toward their causes -- and acting like the world revolves around Arabs and Muslims. Some nerve. And this is obviously not an issue limited to Wikipedia.
Case in point, the Israel article on the Arabic Wikipedia is absolutely atrocious, repeatedly using "Zionist" where "Jewish" is more accurate (and less, as is often intended, ederisive), discussing a Palestinian perspective of the 1948 war and Israel's beginnings. Pure bias, as indicated by the some of the comments on the talk page. On the talk page, one editor even, insofar as I can tell (I can't really read Arabic), suggests that it's okay to present the Israel-Palestine conflict from the Arab perspective. I'm sure Imad, after he's finished spreading his bundle of neutrality across the English Wikipedia, will head to the Arabic Wikipedia next, and eliminate the excessively pro-Arab sentiment. But somehow, I'm not holding my breath. Like I said, it's politics. Civil POV pushers do not deserve to be rewarded. -- tariqabjotu 11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem
Talk page locked? Sorry if you don't want comments here...After a quick review, it's going to DR, so I'd like to keep the protection until there's been some further input. Didn't realise...talk page looked so quiet! Best, PeterSymonds(talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Talkback
I have left you a response on my "Discussions" page (follow the Kacheek emoticon in my signature). -Jéské(v^_^vE pluribus unum) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up note
Hi Tariqabjotu, since you commented at a thread on ANI, I thought I'd leave a follow-up note for you. I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated) and have lifted the block on User:Cush a bit early (1 week effectively reduced to ~4 days). Thanks for weighing in, R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated)
Right... except you forgot to mention the most important part: you forced the half-apology out of him. Seriously, I sure hope other isolated incidents of offensive comments toward other groups are treated with this much vigor in the future. No, strike that; I hope they aren't, because such actions would still be considered excessive. We're not the morality police; we block people to prevent users from disrupting the wiki in the future. People felt qualified to somehow extrapolate this one data point into a career spewing anti-semitic jargon. And, of course, the only remedy for such aspiring Jew-baiters is an indefinite block that may only be lifted once an apology (ideally to the entire Jewish people) is given. Yup, even though he had no block history. We don't seem to treat others like this, but, unfortunately, the entire community seemed to rally behind you and explain, presumably to me, in fifteen different ways why "Jew crew" was offensive (as if I didn't already understand). Why? Well, I might conjecture, but I don't want to be blocked indefinitely and forced to give an apology (oh no, I said too much!). -- tariqabjotu 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tariq, I'm sorry you disagree with what I did, but I really did do it because I don't want that type of language to be acceptable. I also didn't see an apology, half or otherwise, but what I did see was a statement that it wouldn't happen again (which was all I was asking for). Prior to that all I saw was a defense of its use.
I did read your comment at the time it was posted at ANI (and I respect your opinion -so it bothered me somewhat) but as you never replied to my response, I was not completely sure if you really thought I intended to to indefinitely block -or if you thought week was too long (or were against any block altogether).
Finally, I just want to re-iterate that it was not my intent to block permanently. Since I stepped in relatively early, I was concerned that my perception of the magnitude of the insult might be hugely different than the consensus which would later develop. . .I was thinking that that would lead to extra entries in the block log (distorting things later). Maybe we're not seeing things the same way in this instance, but I want you to know I value your input -so if you're thinking I'm off-track again in the future, don't hesitate to leave a note at my talk page. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Emerging Church Lock
Could you return the Emerging Church article to its pre-edit-war condition, as of June 10, since you've put a 5-day lock on it? There are multiple issues with the content (which was slipped in prior to the lock) that have not been discussed.
Specifically, Adminster has refused to discuss changes before making them, even after a reasonable request to do so. Some of the information he's trying to add is unsupported speculation from a blog source (spurgeon.org), and the image, itself, has copyright issues - the border is copyrighted by one individual, but the internal image is not his to copyright. Additionally, the image itself is a parody and violates WP:NPOV. While I'm willing to get a third opinion/arbitrate the issue if Adminster will discuss it, the changes don't belong on the main page until consensus is reached.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood! We have passed the expiry for the lock, and it is still uneditable, though. Will this be unlocked automatically?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is not uneditable. -- tariqabjotu 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the moment, the semi-protection is redundant, but I don't think it's a bad idea to keep it, in case East deletes his subpage. · AndonicOEngage. 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
I was initially unable to find the ITN/C debate about Russert. Thank you for pointing to it in your reversion - I have seen it now. I apologize for reacting so hastily. Bobo. 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What appears to be an hiatus in the Jerusalem capital flack
I am hoping that, in spite of your decision to disengage from this discussion, you were silently following the latest development. Which was that, because of the lack of larger participation in the discussion, we don't feel we have a mandate to recommend any change right now.
I hope that in the future you will participate in this discussion. Your contributions - even when crossing the border into anger - were always relevant.
By deligitimizing their position, you render any chance of compromise or discussion impossible. And their position is legitimate - at least, it is one that is held by a substantial portion of people of this world, and knowledgeable people at that. A little distance goes a long way.
After all, these arguments are only about words. And not very many words, at that. The more we can focus the discussion on one sentence or another, and display a little flexibility where possible, we can, perhaps, make our own contribution to a better Wikipedia, and maybe even a better Middle East. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was silently following the discussion and saw the latest "development". As for future participation... I'm not responding to Nishidani or Imad marie anymore, at least on this matter. As I already noted, in one way or another in several different ways, I find them absolutely impossible to work with -- and thus, I won't try. At this point, I don't consider their opinions on this of any value and will continue to disregard them in the future.
You're entitled to your opinion about whether Imad and Nishidani are civil POV pushers; it certainly hasn't changed mine. I am aware of Nishidani's varied contributions (if you're trying to prove Imad has edited across many areas, you haven't succeeded), but having a narrow or broad focus doesn't make or break a civil POV pusher. There are other criteria on the list in Raul's essay, some of which I have noticed Imad and/or Nish fulfill quite nicely. Unfortunately, you only took select quotes from Raul's essay and proceeded to disprove them, even though I never argued that they were true.
Whether my delegitimization of their position makes compromise or discussion impossible is moot; as I already stated, I want to have neither with them. As far I'm concerned, this discussion is closed and has been closed for quite some time. I have yet to be presented with anything I didn't know already.
I'm trying to discern what you were thinking when you said...
And their position is legitimate - at least, it is one that is held by a substantial portion of people of this world, and knowledgeable people at that.
...but I can't quite tell. I'm not sure what position these "knowledgeable people" are holding. That Israel's capital is disputed? (Nobody said it wasn't.) That East Jerusalem is occupied territory? (I'm aware of that.) That Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their own state? (I never disputed this.) That Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? (This is called denialism and anyone who holds it is not in anyway "knowledgeable".) Or is it that the dispute over Israel's capital should be placed further up in the Jerusalem article on Wikipedia? Because frankly, I don't think most "knowledgeable people" would give a damn about that.
Even still, you obviously didn't troll through the archives enough, or else you would have discovered -- heck, in some of the very discussions you cited in your closing statement -- that my position on this matter used to be that something about the capital dispute should be in the first paragraph of Israel. I said that in January 2007 and I said it again in April 2007, specifically presenting a proposal that had just that. Go ahead, look. However, compelling reasons were provided against that and after a variety of opinions were presented by people who originally wanted something else, a version similar to the current introduction was put in place. The article was featured and, now this may come as a shock, people dropped it. (Oh, but, as has been said, I'm not flexible, I'm not open to compromise, I'm motivated by some nationalism, yada yada.)
Since then, I don't remember having a single discussion where someone has suggested that we eliminate the information about the dispute or move it even farther down, even though we (a) had people who advocated such positions initially and (b) at several points the article actually appeared like that. And yet, we continue to have these flare-ups every once in a while from someone who feels they have been entrusted with revealing to the entire wiki community... (drum roll...) things we already know about the Palestinian position. They claim it's all about neutrality, when, of course, we know it's not. Imad, apparently fluent in Arabic, seems willing to exhaust a month working on getting a few words inserted into the Jerusalem on account of "neutrality", but won't do anything about this piece of propaganda the Arabic Wikipedia calls an encyclopedic article. Why am I not surprised?
The optomistic statements in your final paragraph leave me laughing. If you think a discussion on Wikipedia will help fix the Middle East, you're crazy. Don't lecture me about "flexibility"; you're talking to the wrong person. I never asked for your poetic words of wisdom and I don't appreciate them now. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Skyscraper
You seem to be one of the main editors at {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. Since its talk page is not a high traffic page, I am asking you to look at a tweak I am requesting. Can you do this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not particularly sure why you want a map in the infobox, especially considering there's a Location section in the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It seem you have modified Template:Infobox Skyscraper. However, the documentation does not reflect the changes. Thus, I do not know the names of the new fields. Can you update the documentation, so that I can use your improvements.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Dyukov
Dyukov - fringe historian whose last book only printed 700 copies.
His huge list in article undue weight [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.109.131 (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Soviet_Story&action=history
where use ISasha has added another sheet of info on the article displaying personal opinions of some Dyokov that calls himself historian.. as some have stated before,the article has become a church for Dykov's personal views and is not much about the Soviet Story as it should be..
(I wonder if Dykov is the only "historian" to have an opinion on this so his views are displayed so huge there giving even a special thread just for him..
I wonder if any person who will claim to be a historian, a researcher or whatever will have the chance to have a thread where he can dispaly his personal views.. in that case this Soviet Story Article should expect 100s of pages dispalying personal views of whoever has said anything about the film)
Please delete this last edit- (cur) (last) 14:25, 18 June 2008 ISasha (Talk | contribs) m (16,887 bytes) (reintroduced vandalized section)
of Sasha who is in the edit war as much as the ones who tried to remove this offtopic thread.(I wonder why??? May be he's got some agenda?)
May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, under the {{2nd chance}} rules, he was doing what he hope temporarily blocked people do with their user talk while blocked. MBisanztalk 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of {{2nd chance}} here would be incorrect. It's clearly not pertinent for his situation; no one's doubting that he can write articles and his block is only thirty-one hours. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reminding
Tariqabjotu, I expect an answer. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
To my e-mail (or, alternatively, to what I wrote above). Cheers!--Olahus (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean to apply this for the entire Eastern Europe?
Another question: why didn't you sanction the user Xasha too?--Olahus (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Olahus. Look a few threads up on my talk page, where you commented. Also look a few threads up on your own talk page, where someone specifically pointed to you the ArbCom case I'm talking about and accurately predicted I would just propose changing the location of the sanction. Why does this matter to you? Further, the reason I didn't include Xasha or anyone else is that their disruption did not appear to be as widespread as yours. I'm not going to do anything now either. -- tariqabjotu 11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that Xasha's edits disruptions did not appear to be as widespread as mines? E.g. regarding the article Moldovans, my edits were quoted with serious and official sourcesDespite of those factsm the user Xasha reverted the edits without an explanation. He didn't it just once, but several times. See [2], [3], [4]. According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime.
I asked Xasha in his talk page to stop this vandalizing. Not just that he didn't answer my question, but he also emptied it accusing me of making personal attacks against him! Furthermore, he ignored Illythr's advice to archive the talk page and after I restored the page with my question, he changed the content of the page again.--Olahus (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime.
Precisely why I don't feel the need to sanction Xasha. Xasha's edits are not vandalism; they are edits within a content dispute, and so your edits are not in anyway legitimate. At the time of the application of the sanction, you were edit-warring on Moldovan language, Moldovans, and Bendery -- multiple articles -- and not just with Xasha. Like I said, I'm not going to sanction Xasha at this moment. If you think something needs to be done, take your issue up at WP:AE. -- tariqabjotu 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to contest your blocking of the two editors. I think the protection could be lifted in lieu of something like a 1RR sanction vis-a-vis WP:ARBPIA, but until that happens (and even if it does) a protection of an article and a block of two editors for edit-warring is too much. It should be one or the other because blocks are preventative. Since the two blocked editors can't edit the article anyway due to the protection, the block's goal of preventing them from continuing to edit war on this article has already been accomplished. -- tariqabjotu 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ja, I figured that too late. I'll lift the blocks. My apologies. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious whether you considered a WP:ARBPIA sanction before your protection. I mean, it's a bit miraculous this article has escaped one all this time. -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I had forgotten that this was one of the lengthening list of areas with discretionary sanctions. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked by Dorftrottel to bring your attention to his RfC, which you're more than welcome to comment in. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
These afd's, initiated right after the event, although correct under Wikipedia's policy, almost always end up failing. The correct way of going about these articles is to wait a month or two when all the hysteria has died down and then proceed with the afd. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that you're as confused by the result of this discussion as I am, Honestly, I'm not sure where it is stated that merge isn't a valid closing rationale for an AfD. I'm considering taking this to DRV, but as I haven't really participated there I'm unsure if this is the appropriate or not. Any thoughts? AniMate 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The second was not a revert, he add a source for his precedent edit. So there were 3 (but not more than 3 reverts). And even if you consider the second edit I presented here a revert, still the first block by the admin PeterSymonds was not legitimate since there were only 3 reverts at that time and no more that 3 as the rule requires.
It sais: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts..." AKoan (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the three-revert rule, thank you. "I only reverted three times" is the most common defense in the book. WP:3RR also mentions that the rule is an "electric fence"; one is not entitled to three reverts per day. Desiphral's previous block, which, by the way, was only for twelve hours (rather than the standard twenty-four), was reviewed by multiple editors and another admin, so I consider it fair. (Even reviewing the evidence myself, I still see the block as fair). Desiphral got off his block by immediately continuing to edit war on two different articles. That is why his block is longer. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I commented here yesterday, but probably I just gave "show preview" and forgot to save it.
"one is not entitled to three reverts per day" - that is the most common pretext in the book to block a user for braking the 3RR rule, when he didn't really brake it. If you wanna consider his third edit a revert, than it was only when you blocked him the second time, that he really broke that rule. So I think you should have blocked him for only 12 h, so it would have been 24 h together with the first block.
See also the question that I have asked PeterSymonds
You're trying to argue a block that has already expired. It's history. The problem for you is that Desiphral's behavior after the block only serves to demonstrate why the block was necessary. He made baseless complaints that Peter was somehow biased against him, placing the blame on the blocker, rather than the blockee (himself, the one who committed the transgression). Further, he still didn't catch the hint from his short, twelve-hour block that edit-warring was not okay, as he proceeded immediately after his block expired to do just that on two articles (calling his opponent's edits 'vandalism' as well). One can only imagine what he would have done had he not been blocked. As I mentioned on Desiphral's page, had I known he was edit- and move-warring on another article as well, his block would have been even longer. So, don't waste your time complaining about a block that is lenient enough already. Desiphral's block is not going to be removed or reduced, but if you need several more admins to tell you this, you are free to take this to WP:ANI. Feel free to reference this comment or this discussion in any future complaint. -- tariqabjotu 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
that your saying that free and fair discussion has halted doesn't make it so, right? There has now been an RfC filed, and I've tallied the discussion to show that there's no consensus to merge at this time. I'd ask that you self-revert, for the duration of the RfC. Thanks, S.DeanJameson 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You have some nerve. Today, you have proven yourself a raging, almost habitual, liar who is unwilling to take criticism. I will no longer respond to any of your junk, and, for that reason, any further comment here by you will be immediately reverted. -- tariqabjotu 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Tariq, please be careful, about the personal attacks. Regardless of whether an editor is a "raging habitual liar," there is seldom little good that comes from telling them so. When it the last time you said to someone, "I find that you are totally unwilling to take criticism!" and they replied, "Hmmm, yes, you have a point. Let me consider that and see if I can improve my behavior"? hehehe...
And Dean, as I have mentioned to you, you have also been guilty of ratcheting things up quite a bit. Calling the merge process "backdoor deletion" is a misrepresentation of the reality. Let's all try and be a little more civil, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I was obviously not expecting him to agree with my assessment; I was explaining why I would no longer respond to him. A spade is a spade. I have definitively vowed to no longer respond to him. So, although I appreciate your attempt to act as mediator, it is not necessary and your point is lost on me. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have in the past had to tell people to stay the hell off my talk page. I'm just saying, when you say things like "raging liar," it doesn't do any good, and kinda makes you look bad, especially if taken out of context. You don't have to take my advice :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if someone wants to know the backstory, I can point them to it. However, I will concede that perhaps "raging, almost habitual, liar" may not have conveyed the point that I wanted, namely that S. Dean has been sounding excessively agitated in his comments because of how the article turned out (repeatedly merged, etc.) and how he has persistently misrepresented his opponents' positions as well as the statements of the well-meaning Friday and Calton. Obviously, that's not as concise as my previous wording, but it's perhaps more accurate. I'll copy it to the thread on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
[out] With all respect, tariq, I think you might want to re-think your tone and lack of grace in some of the discussions that have been going on regarding this article - and I'm not talking about exchanges with S. Dean. If you want diffs, I'll give you diffs, but your attitude has sometimes not been particularly collegial or appropriate, in my opinion. Just saying, in the spirit of clearing the air. Tvoz/talk 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just reviewed all of my comments on this matter. While I might describe some of them as pointed, I stand by all of them. -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, Tariq. I wasn't trying to get you to back away from your positions, just your attitude. Tensions run high, and responding with some grace doesn't hurt. But never mind. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying "you have proven yourself a raging, almost habitual, liar" isn't helpful, and doesn't follow the whole "focus on the contributions, not the contributor" ideal. I strongly disagree with S. Dean's actions and position, but he did apologize. AniMate 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think I need to respond to this... again... in the same thread I responded to it the first time. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my attitude and tone
In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S.DeanJameson 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Point me to where The Jerusalem Post says their images are available under the GNU license and I'll stop. Otherwise, they will be deleted soon. We have guidelines on what images are permissible on Wikipedia, and you must follow them. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
