User talk:Leumi
|
|
Don't delete an article's neutrality header without discussion. RickK 01:18, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Quite sorry. I'm new here, I'm still figuring out the rules. Leumi
Hello Leumi. Sorry you didn't receive a very warm welcome to Wikipedia. It seems that you are the only one wanting to discuss the Palestinian refugee issue so I have unprotected the page. Hopefully the points you have made will form the basis for further discussion rather than further reverts once you make the changes you suggest. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Angela 01:51, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re the map. I don't see why you don't seem to understand the nature of the complaint the person who is removing it is making. The point is that the cross-section has a vertical exaggeration. As the numbers state, point B is only 3000 ft higher than point A, yet they are 15 miles away - yet the map has been vertically exagerrated to make the gradient look something like 1 in 2. Now, you can go and argue about whether this is valid or interesting, I just thought i'd explain the complaint since you didn't seem to understand it at all. Morwen 21:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
: Thankyou for noting that Morwen. I was slightly confused on that point.Leumi
Thanks for your note. You don't have to thank me for joining in on that article, though. It's provocative stuff and serious business--slander/plagiarism/ Holocaust/Israel-Palestine. I couldn't resist.168... 01:50, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The page you want is Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. I ask that you move your listing from Vandalism in progress to that page. Cheers, Cyan 01:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) Thankyou, I've decided now to stop responding to 81, except to delete personal attacks on Talk pages, which I am told is within the rules, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that score. Leumi
Opinion is... not settled on that question. See Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. (I'm not sure if you know yet, so I'm going to give you a tip: you can sign your name by writing three tildes (~~~); four tildes adds the timestamp, as in my signature.) Also, I believe you referred to me as a moderator - Wikipedia's hierarchy strives to be as flat as possible, so nothing I write or do is intended to have any special weight. Cheers, Cyan 02:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The thing is is that, since 81 has started constantly attacking me, I've barely had time to do anything else but refute them. It's getting on my nerves. I'm thinking about ignoring him, but it's hard to do when one is being hit with a bombardment of accusations and having almost everything I write be reversed under the claim 'an irgun sympathizer wrote this' or 'removed polemical unsubstantiated claims'. It doesn't matter what proof I provide or sources cited or arguments etc, these attacks and reversions don't stop and carry no actual contributions to anything (case in point being his "wrong as always" comment right above). What would you suggest I do? Leumi 02:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Again, I request your help on this. Am I wrong in assuming this qualifies as a personal attack without substance to the actual discussion? Might I also add that those are not the exact words I put on those pages, though I did put something about accusations against Finkelstein which I felt was proper considering the pages involved matters where those accusations helped place things in context. But that's another story. I'm tired of having to deal with this from 81. What would you suggest I do? (Don't answer 81. I will ignore it.) Leumi 02:46, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe best to ignore him. I've sent you an e-mail about it. Angela. 02:49, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Your talk page is considered to be yours to a certain extent (how much is a matter of opinion), and I think you can feel free to remove personal attacks outright from it. On the talk pages of articles, I believe the best course is simply to ignore personal attacks. Cheers, Cyan 02:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- You're probably right about ignoring the attacks. I shall stop responding to those, you make a good point. But what about the reversions?
- I hardly ever remove personal attacks which are against me. Sometimes I "factor" out personal attacks someone else makes against a third party.
You can't "mediate" between yourself and another person. Attempts to do so often fan the flames, so to speak. "Don't feed the trolls." --Uncle Ed 14:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Another piece of advice: you've been here less than 2 weeks, and are still learning the rules. It would thus probably be wise for you to take a humbler approach toward other contributors, rather than telling them what to do.
I've been here two years, I have a lot of experience smoothing out squabbles and (if I may say) an excellent track record of neutral edits. So, my words might carry a bit more weight than those of a "newbie".
I hope you don't think I'm being overbearing and arrogant :-) --Uncle Ed 14:19, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Not at all. Upon thinking about, I agree with you. I shall endeavour to avoid that mistake and be humbler in the future, thankyou for pointing it out. Leumi 16:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ideally, reversions are not part of the process that creates a balanced article. Ideally, if one has a problem with another contributor about the content of the article, all of the action takes place on the talk page until a compromise is reached. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world. (There are those who favor reversion, but this creates a lot of disturbance; see Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Wik. -- Cyan 17:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
About Anonymous Norman Finkelstein Fan Person: IP addresses have their own talk pages; you can just go to User talk:195.92.168.177 (or whatever IP address s/he's using) if you have to tell him something that's not directly related to an article. --Mirv
I agree that making personal attacks within the text of an article constitutes vandalism, though the constant reversion-without-discussion of everyone else's edits is iffier. I'll support the first; talk to someone who knows better about the second. --Mirv 00:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Placeholder
I added it so that the bottom toolbar (w/ links to "User contributions" and "E-mail this user" would be accessible). The 'x' is a bit ugly, so do replace it when you have time. Cheers, Jiang|Talk 00:48, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
User 195 is an anonymous user, so the block on him is only good for 24 hours. RickK 02:52, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- However if this user comes back with the same kind of behaviour, the user can be blocked again. So don't worry too much. Dysprosia 02:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thankyou, and I don't mean to interfere with admnistrative issues, but isn't it reasonable to institute some sort of more permanent ban, considering the nature of what he did? After all, should a logged in user do the same thing they would most probably recieve a permanent ban, and I don't see any reason why there should be any difference in the response. I do truly thank you for your prompt response. His comment deeply offended me. As I said on the vandalism page, I can tolerate many things and insults, however I am understandably sensitive when someone makes an attack based on a disability.Leumi 03:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
> Replied on my talk page Dysprosia 03:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Three is enough
Leumi, if you've reverted an article three times in a row, it's probably a sign that neither you nor the others are making neutral edits. (Note that I said "probably", not "certainly".)
It would be much better to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page, then to engage in an edit war. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'll try and remember to do that for the future. Thanks for the advice. On another note, Might I ask that you ask the others to stop calling things they disagree with "Leumi's POV"? I find it a bit annoying, as they turn what should be an academic discussion into a personal fight. Thanks.Leumi 22:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the nature of Wikipedia
Leumi,
Wikipedia was founded on the principle of editorial neutrality. The concept was established at the start by the project's founders and has continued to be developed and refined by subsequent participants. It serves as a guiding light for everything we do here. In concrete terms, it means we we strive to present balanced, neutral descriptions of topics. It requires constant effort on the part of everyone involved because we all have our biases. Editorial neutrality is the glue which keeps this enterprise going because it provides us with a common ideal to strive towards and a principle with which to mediate our differences.
Wikipedia attracts a very heterogeneous group of people from diverse backgrounds who tend to have strong opinions (myself included), but the one thing we agree to do is to check our impartiality -- insofar that it is possible -- at the door for the sake of the greater good, namely producing a world-class encyclopedia.
I have been intensely frustrated in my dealings with you over the past few days because of your apparent inability to grasp the concept of editorial neutrality. Over and over again, we have long discussions on the Talk pages in which I explain why certain texts aren't appropriate for given encyclopedia articles, and over and over again you insist on inserting these texts into the articles. I feel I have made no progress in helping you understand how things work here.
This is your choice: either you very quickly get the hang of editorial neutrality or you will leave, voluntarily or otherwise. This is not a threat on my part because I have no special powers. Rather, I am simply stating the fact that this community will not tolerate partisan behaviour like yours, because to do so will destroy it. I have no particular attachment to the articles in dispute; frankly, I would rather be working on other topics, but I will do everything in my powers to prevent you from giving this website a pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias.
- -- Viajero 10:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Viajero, I agree wholeheartedly in the principle of editorial neutrality. Which is why I've been working to provide that balance and neutrality in these articles. As I've stated before, balance means both sides, not just yours. I have been working to present balanced neutral versions of both topics, however you seem to be removing one side in favor for the other. Take the case of From Time Immemorial for instance. Rather than allow an opposing viewpoint you removed it from the page, claiming it was a forgery and calling all my attempts to prove it represented a legitimate view not the work of legitimate scholars. In the interests of balance and neutrality that we both hold dear both sides must be taken into account. Also on the issue of neutrality, why do you insist that the claim that refugees were forced out of Israel be taken as a fact? A more accurate statement is that their are claims of their being forced, but as it is by no means a fact, we should only present the opposing arguments and the let the reader decide. I think that your concept that your views must be stated as fact represents a departure from neutrality, much more than the inclusion of an opposing view that I provide. With respect, I think we both need to allow both sides to be represented in the interests of the editorial neutrality principles that Wikipedia is founded upon, principles that both you and I believe in strongly. In that we both have common ground. Leumi 23:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello Leumi I've come here because Palestinian refugee, West Bank, The Holocaust Industry and Golan Heights have all ended up protected. Viajero has asked that they not be unprotected until the wikicommunity has "unified strategy for dealing with Leumi first, otherwise the situation will simply continue as before." Viajero certainly has a point. There is little to be gained by unprotecting the pages if the edit war continues where it left off. On a personal note however. I hate to see pages protected, especially pages that are nowhere near finished as is the case with The holocaust industry. I've been doing a lot of research on the web, and I know that several others are reading the book at the moment and will want to add content quickly. So I've here making a personal plea to you to modify your editing behaviour.
I know that some others have behaved badly towards you. I feel that Viajero and Zero are harsh on you and are perhaps too emotionally involved. I also feel that the Anon user is downright rude and unhelpful. Never the less I do think that your editing behaviour needs to be changed. You appear to be new here and so probably don't know how we usually handle disagreements, but reverting is not the way to go. It causes bad feelings, looks very bad on the page history, looks bad on "recent changes", and oftentimes other edits get lost in the process. If you make a change to an article and someone reverts it, here is my opinion of what you should do - Copy the deleted part of the text to the talk page and argue for its insertion there. You have seen myself and User:Ed Poor do that, you should copy our example. That way you contribution is not lost while it is being discussed. There is no edit war, everyone get's to take a look at what you want to say, and things cool down. If you can make a real effort to do this, everyone will become a lot more accomodating. Thanks in advance for your support in this matter. I'm sure that with a little cooperation we will get things sorted out very quickly. theresa knott 15:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I will definitely try to remember to do that, and I have in many instances. The problem is that in a lot of circumstances, what I take out and put on the talk page is put right back in.
- You missunderstood me. What I meant was, if you want something in but it get's deleted, shove it in the talk page (So that it doesn't get lost and can be discussed). If you want something out but others want it in, don't delete it from the article, just say you want it out on the talk page, then people can discuss it.
- In the case of Viajero's and I's argument, and please let me state that I have the utmost respect for Viajero's work here and his intentions which I am positive are excellent, on the difference between "claim that they were forced to leave" and "forced to leave" (I'm paraphrasing the exact words), Viajero placed back the relevant sentence right after I removed it, claiming that my argument for it's removal wasn't worthy of a hearing, at the same time he demanded the removal of other wording that I was speaking with him on in the talk page and consented to moving there. When a double standard is applied to these issues, I can't see how we can move forward. I'm willing to work and discuss on these issues on the talk page and I don't want an edit war anymore than anyone else. I just ask that we keep the same rules applying to everyone, in all cases. Leumi 23:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I understand and simpathsize with you. But think on this. It only takes one side to stop the reverting in order to end the edit war. The reason I am asking you to stop is because you have more power than viajero to stop. What I mean by this is you alone represent one side, but the other side is represented by viajero, zero, and the anon user. To get your side to stop it I only have to persuade you, to get the other side to stop it, I need to persuade three people. Besides it is in your best interests. By acting saintly you will get more people defending you, and are more like in the end to get your side of the argument in the articles. (which is ultimately what you want isn't it ?).
Btw no need to respond on my talk page, i'm watching this page for the time being theresa knott 09:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi, I'm really proud of you for keeping out of an edit war at the Zionism article. Thank you for exercising restraint and calling for help.
Perhaps we could compromise by writing:
- The views of Ben-Gurion and others are described at great length at this article, that article & the other article.
--Best regards, Uncle Ed 15:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence. :) I think we need to include equal time though, to both perspectives. Frankly speaking, I suggest we create a new article, perhaps called Zionist views towards Arabs and link to their, removing the issue over here. That way we'll have space to show both sides. Of course, if we don't do that, then what we must do is provide equal opportunity for both sides to be represented. I can't imagine why someone would object to the inclusion of a quote from Israel's first Prime Minister and, due to the democratic nature of Israel's governmental system, obviously representing to majority opinion of Israeli society.
Hi, Leumi, at VfD you suggested merging Palestinian views of the peace process somewhere rather than deleting it. Can you let me know where you actually wanted it merged, as your comment on VfD just refers to a non-existant page. Thanks. Angela. 19:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You need to go to the [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004) page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.
Vote
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine
Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis Thank you. IZAK 09:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade
Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 09:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion
See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations
IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Opinion for IZAK
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 06:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
untagged image.
Hi the image Image:Golan 92.jpg doesn't have any copyright information. I've marked it as unverified, if you know the copyright status could you add another tag, otherwise the image may be deleted!
