User talk:Bloblaw

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Blanking large chunks of articles, especially controversial ones like that, is often viewed as Vandalism. If you have a legitimate dispute with the text, the proper way to go about things is to raise that on the talk page, Talk:Budapest, and give your reasons. It is precisely neutrality that we are trying to preserve. Please read WP:NPOV. You should also try to leave edit summaries. Dmcdevit·t 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and responded to your comments at talk:Budapest. You should realize that while NPOV is nonnegotiable, NPOV is not the same as noncontroversial. You might want to read the appropriate policy pages again.

The info about the holocaust is relevant to budapest's demographic history, and is not going anywhere. If you feel this makes the article biased, feel free to add other information, but you will not be able to remove this relevant info. Dsol 11:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloblaw, I notice you've also attacked other editors and questioned their motivations. Wikipedia has an important policy of assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks. These sort of attacks will get you blocked from editing if you keep it up. I've left you a welcome note below to help you get the hang of the place. Please read up on how things work here. Thanks. Babajobu 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Bloblaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Babajobu 08:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to caution you, they appear to be strongly considering blocking you from editing, which would probably mean an indefinite ban. It would be in your interest, from a purely pragmatic perspective, to moderate yourself on the Holocaust issue or at least find a topic unrelated to the Holocaust to work uncontroversially on, so you can fall back on that if they try to ban you. I have no intention of banning you and would not want to see you banned, but I am just trying to alert you to how they think around here and how you might be able to survive as an editor here. Everyking 08:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already told him as much above, without making it sound so conspiratorial and sinister. They block you here for questioning other people's motives and for personal attacks. If you want to hang around, don't do it. Nothing ominous about any of that. Babajobu 08:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that they are also considering blocking him for being a Holocaust denier. Questioning motives and making personal attacks are, sadly, part of everyday life here at Wikipedia; blocks for it are rare and generally questionable (they hinge on the subjective notion of "disruption"). The defining feature of this issue is Holocaust denial; there's no point in obscuring that. My point is that to survive he needs to moderate himself about the Holocaust issue, plain and simple. He needs to recognize the minority position he is in and try to work within that context; he needs to respect consensus and try to be uncontroversial. Speaking as a leftie supporter of Israel, I want the guy to edit here and help us to integrate his perspective into NPOV content, but there's no way he can do that unless he moderates himself a lot. Everyking 09:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is really about Holocaust denial. One admin asked if we had a "stance" toward holocaust denial, and every other admin who responded said no, we don't need a special stance. I'm an admin, and I couldn't care less whether he thinks the holocaust happened or didn't happen. My only concern is that he 1) not try to insinuate that belief into articles over the objections of a consensus of editors who have scads of documentation from reliable sources on their side, and 2) that when someone asserts that the holocaust did happen, he not respond by claiming they are a "Zionist shill" being paid by a "Jewish advocacy" group. Bloblaw, in reference to your question on my talkpage, you cannot have the conent removed from the Budapest article because a) a consensus of editors disagrees with you and thinks it is relevant, and b) mainstream sources reject your assertion that the numbers are wildly exaggerated. Perhaps one day in the future mainstream sources will have come around to your belief, and at that time Wikipedia will reflect it. But until then, it cannot.

Bloblaw, thanks for your condolences. A further comment about personal attacks: in Wikipedia you will be much safer if you avoid characterizing the motivations of people with whom you disagree. Are they Zionist shills? Who knows. Just focus on their arguments and on the issues at hand. I edit in some very contentious areas, and I try to err on the side of caution by not even alluding to the personal traits or biases of other editors, but focusing only on the topic. This serves me well, and I think it would serve you well, too. Babajobu 09:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The sentence in question, in my opinion, is an insertion that the Holocaust did happen." Yes, Bloblaw, and it is perfectly acceptable in a Wikipedia article to assert that the holocaust happened. This is because mainstream academic and popular sources virtually unanimously agree that it did happen.
"As unpopular as it is with the editors, there is an alternate dialogue." Sure there is, but that dialogue is marginal and rejected as preposterous by virtually all mainstream sources. Thus, it cannot receive "equal status" in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia generally reflects the views of mainstream sources. Wikipedia would mention the "alternate dialogue" in certain articles where the holocaust is the main topic, but not in an article such as Budapest, where the holocaust is mentioned only briefly.
"We both know that mainstream media (Hollywood, television and print) are owned by special interests. I probably won't live to see the day when true dialogue rules." That very well may be true, but then this means that you will not live to see the day that "true dialogue" is reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not seek to reflect "true dialogue", but rather the dialogue that exists in mainstream sources. Wikipedia is not a place where "the truth will out", it is a place where the truth as understood by mainstream, reputable sources is communicated on as many topics as possible to as many people as possible as freely as possible. Wikipedia is not, and has never claimed or sought to be, a place where all views receive equal billing. Regards, Babajobu 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, NPOV does not mean, as I say, that Wikipedia provides all views with equal space and status. It means to the extent that different views exist among mainstream, reliable sources, Wikipedia presents these views and attributes them to their advocates without "taking sides". However, where these sources are in near unanimous agreement on a point (say, that the earth is round or that the holocaust happened), Wikipedia will not present "alternate dialogues" any time the roundness of the earth or the existence of the holocaust is mentioned. I am not, here, personally arguing that the earth is round or that the holocaust happened, I am simply explaining how Wikipedia works. Regards. Babajobu 05:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bloblaw, the normal way to respond is on my talkpage, then I respond on yours, then you on mine, et cetera. Babajobu 13:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

You asked for my opinion on the episode at Talk:Budapest. I think the bit about the Holocaust should be there, since it sounds like quite an interesting piece of information, and is certainly verifiable. But you should know that personal attacks, like the ones you've posted on Dsol's talk page, are never acceptable on Wikipedia, and it is quite possible to get blocked from editing if you continue like that. - ulayiti (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not to 'question authority'. The point of Wikipedia is to report things, not to try and change the way they are. The fact that the Holocaust did indeed take place is accepted by practically all serious historians, the media (not just North American, which I agree is massively biased), the people... pretty much everyone. You can't expect Wikipedia to suddenly take the opposite stance and claim that it didn't happen. We're here to write about the world as it is, not to try and change that.

'Holocaust denial' is not pejorative at all in my opinion, since when it's used to describe someone who is actually denying the Holocaust it's basically just stating a fact. On the other hand, calling people Zionist and 'not intellectual' simply because they believe the Holocaust did happen is a personal attack and not wanted on Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you then are of the opinion that Zionist is a bad word and is a personal attack. Hmmmm - Is Zionism a bad word too?--Bloblaw 11:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloblaw, as I've already explained to you, the way around all of these issues is not to characterize the other editors at all. Just cite the sources, explain why those sources are notable, et cetera. Whenever you are in a content disagreement with another editor, you always invite accusations of a personal attack when you start to explain their positions by referring to real or imagined facts about their identity: "Oh, you are saying this because you are Hungarian", or "a Democrat", or "homosexual", or "a Zionist". Just don't characterize them at all. Even use of neutral or benign terms will be perceived by many as a personal attack when used to explain their position during a disagreement. So if you really care to participate helpfully and effectively in Wikipedia, just don't do it. Babajobu 12:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't carefully thought out, that's why I made a change to it. The reason for the change is that I didn't want you to misinterpet "argue the facts" as an encouragement to argue the underlying "facts" of history. In Wikipedia, all that's relevant is what is written in particular sources, and why and how that info should be presented in articles. I wanted that to be clear. Wikipedia is actually a very open and tolerant place for people with the wildest, most bizarre, most controversial opinions you can imagine. I have all kinds of extreme POVs, and so do many other admins. Having an extreme and marginal POV is fine...it's when someone starts demanding that Wikipedia articles share that POV that they run into problems. Babajobu 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloblaw, that's not any more of a conundrum than the fact that Slashdot won't publish my personal essay on the nature of mystical experience. It's just not the kind of stuff they publish. As you say, it's a non-starter. In the same way, a Wikipedia article on Budapest will not reflect your own rejection of "the holocaust orthodoxy". It just won't happen. I imagine that there are plenty of websites that would be happy to publish your thoughts on this issue, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. You can still become a valuable and respected contributor to Wikipedia, but not if you plan to continue trying to get articles to reflect your POV. Babajobu 13:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, many people who find Wikipedia's political coverage to be inadequate/annoying find its technological, scientific, or other areas to be very good. Anyway, just a thought. Good luck. Babajobu 13:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page File:BHHSSwimGym.JPG has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this. It seems he tried to remove profanity but ended up removing the licensing template with it. More of an error than an unconstructive edit. Acebulf (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]