User talk:IronDuke/Archive 3

Thanks

Thanks for beefing up that somewhat-controversial section of A.N.S.W.E.R. with some sources. Greatly appreciated it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for noticing. I've since added another source, and I think there are more, though I'm not altogether certain when it gets to the point of overkill. But in any case, nice to meetcha, SchuminWeb. IronDuke 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Honey, for you to say that you can read Cyrillic is like anybody saying that they can read Latin because they read a language written using the Latin alphabet. :)~

--72.76.80.58 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you at least bought me a glass of Syrah before you start calling me "honey," if you don't mind. That aside, I think the word "characters" is implied in my post, don't you? Or perhaps you struggled with its meaning to a far greater extent than I had previously guessed. If so, profound apologies, but glad you were able to piece it all together finally. Cheers, darling. IronDuke 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie, this is an encyclopedia...we must be precise. Besides, you didn't imply "characters." My point was, and is, transliteration is not enough. How do you know the document isn't written in Bulgarian, or any other language written using the Cyrillic alphabet? --72.76.80.58 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to be quiiite so precise on AN/I, I don't think. And if the word "Cyrillic" didn't imply "characters," by what formidable leap of logic were you able to determine it? Perhaps because it was mind-numbingly obvious? And, if you actually knew anything about reading Cyrillic, you'd know one of the beauties of being able to do so is that you can transliterate many different languages. Erm... doy? But let's not fight any more, shall we, Любимая? IronDuke 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Любимая?? -- are you making a pass at me, sugarplum? Besides, Я думал, что мы имели хорошее обсуждение, не борьбу. BTW, what are the other "beauties" of being able to "read Cyrillic" other than what you said above? --72.68.30.90 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When I make a pass at you, you'll know it, свийтчикc. As for other beauties of being able to read Cyrillic characters (took me a second to figure out what you were talking about), why, being able to have this very discussion springs instantly to mind. PS: you should get an account. IronDuke 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User page

I'll keep an eye on it and protect it if it happens again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, IronDuke, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear IronDuke, 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)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This Irishman, Englishman, and Scotsman walked into a bar. Then they shot each other.

So, what, you wanted a joke about my concern about high levels of hostility? :) Relata refero (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See, now that's what I call a quality post. Thanks for sharing, and congratulations for being the first one to actually take me up on my offer. It's way past my bedtime now, so you will have to wait for me to correct share my thoughts with you on your other comments. IronDuke 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

Sorry, I posted that message to the wrong place. In answer to your (presumable) query: I don't consider that I'm in a dispute with you. I'm not taking any view on whether or not you should use the source in question. I've given you my honest opinion on the narrow technical question of whether it would qualify as a reliable source per our criteria. I've explained my concerns about your "petition" on my talk page, and I've asked you to accept that I do have the authority to ask you not to repost it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the calm message. Please see my prior response on your talk page. (Perhaps we should centralize this discussion?) IronDuke 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RSN#The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

The reason I did not participate in the revived discussion is that I didn't become aware of it until it had already been closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. IronDuke 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the closure that I need to respect? Andyvphil (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very high up on the "Wikipedia food chain". :) Relata refero (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, of course, he did not. It is a difficult issue for me: I can see Relata's point in that the only person objecting to McNeil was me, and I was no longer contributing. On the other hand, given that I had effectively been banned from speaking freely on the page, it may have been a bit precipitous. You are certainly free to un-close it, or star a new thread. I would like to continue the discussion, but I'm in the middle of sorting things out with the admin who threatened me: I am hopeful that matters will soon be cleared up. IronDuke 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask

Well, lets see. Looking at my contributions, I see I commented at the AfD on Ouze Merham immediately before that, so I must have followed the contribs of someone from there. Looking at the overlap between the two pages, I'd guess either Eleland or Jayjg. Does that help? Relata refero (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is following you about, and his or her editing is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, you should certainly report it to AN/I. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vry creditable. In my experience, though, demonstrating intent tends to be difficult, and its the above, more objective clause which usually trips up wikistalkers, so I'd keep an eye out for evidence of that. Relata refero (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're lucky. In my experience that leads to another admin coming and disagreeing with the first admin, and everyone's commenting on my talkpage and I can't get any work done because the orange strip is always across the top of the screen... Relata refero (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, grasshopper, it was a long time ago and under a different name.... Relata refero (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What, you didn't assume I read the manual? No, we haven't run into each other that I recall. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

By popular demand -

[1] - :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your question

I rarely email, I tend to keep things out in the open. DHMO posted an entry into his blog here. He makes some irrational comments about a cabal and other crap, which means nothing to me. He does take the immature, naive, or possibly irresponsible view that White Pride is somehow an acceptable racist code-word, as opposed to less acceptable words such as White Supremacist. Unfortunately, because he is either immature, naive, or possibly just is a racist, he's wrong. Using Wikipedia as his source (give me a break), he claims they are different. Using a reliable and verifiable source from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, who watches out for this crap, they say that White Pride is most definitely racist, anti-semitic and unacceptable. Anyways, racism can be subtle, so who knows. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

heads up on voting

I've started a nomination process to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_%288th_nomination%29#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

just letting ya know! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An ArbCom case you might be interested in

I have commented on one of your recent actions here. You may wish to make a statement of your own. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Thanks for looking in. It's a bit much when content disagreements lead to people being called a monumental jackass, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Maybe your comments will quiet things down. - Juden (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, hope you are right. I agree that comment is past unhelpful. IronDuke 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review Juden's contribution history and their quality. I know of few editors that are as unhelpful as he is. As an aside, when you play mediator you might actually want to review the full history of all involved. Juden has fringe POV and aggressively pursues it; he does not know the meaning of neutrality. Your little bit of vamping only encourages him to continue in his more than unhelpful manner. Sometimes it is appropriate to call a spade a spade or even a jackass. Wikipedia is not improved by the strict application policy to people who abuse the very reason why Wikipedia exists; that is a misuse of policy. Maybe reviewing what we are not would be helpful here and then bring that conversation up with Juden. That would be an activity where an actual improvement to Wikipedia might be accomplished. Now that he thinks you are his avenging angel, he may listen to you, but I seriously doubt it.

Having been around just a while, reviewing my history, you will note that I do not tolerate fools easily. Those who purposely go out of their way to destroy Wikipedia by making it their personal little blog should be blocked indefinitely. Just because we are a public encyclopedia does not mean that we should continue to coddle these types of editors. I am not sure we need to continue this conversation further. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points. Is it, given the nature of certain personalities who edit Wikipedia, sometimes necessary to call people "jackasses?" No. Not at all. No grey area here. Simply don't do it, full stop. I'll note two more things. 1) You provide no evidence of Juden acting inappropriately, only your assertion. 2) At the moment, and using only the evidence available on my talk page, it is you who are acting in an aggressive, insulting, and unhelpful manner. I think you should reconsider your approach here. IronDuke 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudolph

Thanks. This is the second BLP concern that has been raised; the first one I declined because that was the subject of the dispute. However, two concerns = undo for now. Thanks for the heads-up, and best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I set it to automatic expiry after three days. That solves the problem of admins forgetting about it etc. I'll review the situation and reprotect if necessary. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring others' comments on talk pages

Hi, I noticed what you did here. Please don't refactor others' comments on talk pages again or you are likely to be blocked. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding comment below previously posted elsewhere for record-keeping purposes and ease of reading IronDuke 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your thanks are premature. Your calling Kauffner's post "retarded" is well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I was entirely in the right to remove it -- contrary to your assertion, we do indeed "do that here." Any admin who blocked me for soing so, provided it was part of a pattern of misbehavior, could potentially be desysopped. I notice you declined to replace the word you used. That's good, although the word you used to replace it still fails WP:CIVIL. Still, I appreciate your reducing the vitriol of your comment. IronDuke 23:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Inappropriate POV terminology on Hamas page

Dear IronDuke, Thanks for your message. I am not the only editor who considers inserting the POV political label "terrorist" into the Hamas article to be vandalism. There is no agreed definition of "terrorist" and this is a political label used to tar one's enemies. Many Palestinians, for example, consider the Israeli army to be a "terrorist" organization, but I am not sure that would fly in the lead of the article on the Israeli army. I think it is much better in such cases to avoid such POV language and stick to accurately decriptive language. So I have no problem at all with the assertion that Hamas is "known for numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] directed against Israeli civilians and Israeli security forces" because that is precise and descriptive, not emotive, POV and political. Thanks. --Tirpse77 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on the Hamas talk page. I said I am happy to back down from describing the insertion of the word "terror/terrorism" as vandalism, but I maintain that it is totally POV and inappropriate for the reasons I stated. Hope that satisfies your concerns. --Tirpse77 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for the nice Anthony Cordesman quote on the Nahum Shahaf page. Besides being relevant and such, I like it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your saying that. And thank you for creating the article. I agree, there is something rather nice about the quote, quite apart from any partisan unpleasantness the topic tends to generate. IronDuke 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Elonka

Hi IronDuke, I wasn't sure if you were aware of this RfC on Elonka WP:Requests_for_comment/Elonka but knowing your involvement in the al-Durrah article I was sure you would want to know. I hope this is not seen as canvassing, but I believe those who may have a special interest in the article should somehow be notified of it, and I have taken it upon myself to notify a few people who have been involved. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was previously aware of the RfC, thanks. IronDuke 21:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Elonka RfC

Hi Bainer. I was wondering if you had an opinion about whether ChrisO's RfC was properly certified? I have no strong opinion, except that it should be made crystal clear whether it is or is not okay: otherwise I fear there will be a good deal of additional drama if/when the result (assuming there is any) is set aside if it was improper, or there might be attempts to deny or disparage legitimate results if it was in fact done correctly. Is there a good board here to sort it out? I'm not sure the talk page of the RfC is the best place for it. Advice appreciated. IronDuke 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The question revolves around whether the certifying users have actually attempted to resolve the dispute through other means (ie, talking to the subject) and failed in those attempts. The importance of the certification requirement is to prevent unnecessary escalation of disputes; it's a low hurdle to pass, but an important one.

I think the problem here is that Ned Scott has signed in the certification section, and mentioned attempts to resolve the dispute, but has then forgotten to add diffs to back up his certification in the section above. I see Jehochman has posted some diffs on Ned's behalf, but they don't seem to relate to the substance of the dispute as ChrisO has outlined it.

Perhaps you might want to remind Ned that he has forgotten to post diffs. --bainer (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have done so, but he does not agree with my assessment (see this thread). I don't know what, if any, action should be taken now. IronDuke 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OBL

I just wanted to apologize in advance if it seems as if I am being argumentative. That is not my intention and I hope you can understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but no need for apologies. These discussions make articles better. IronDuke 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done!

Your post at Elonka's talk page is excellent in my opinion! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. IronDuke 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bother you, but in light of the responses to it though, may I suggest you unindent it, i.e. remove all the colons from it so it goes to the left margin, in order to avoid seeming to be replying to any one particular comment? Or you could add a few words to it to that effect. Some people may not have time to read the later comments clarifying the situation. Thanks. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks for the heads-up, though. IronDuke 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. Of course I'm not insisting that you format your comment in any particular way; however, you seem to be saying that you changed it as I suggested, yet your last edit here merely fixes a spelling mistake and leaves the comment indented as if it's in reply to Durova. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There may well be a misunderstanding. As you suggested, I added a few words to the effect that the comment was not directed at Durova here. IronDuke 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Ceedjee, you seem to be graduating from a violation of WP:NPA to violations of WP:STALK. I really need you to leave me alone (no more insults, restoring insults, following me), and I need for that to happen now. Thanks. IronDuke 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Please, be sure I don't follow you. I have the WP:AN and WP:AN/I in my follow up and I checked the threads were I was talked about. No more, no less.

About the other thread, I never insulted you either. If you feel that, please, accept my apologies.

The threatening tone you take with me right now show there is a misunderstanding. I apologize for that. This is my mistake.

If I cross you on a talk page, I will try to stay away.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit) I have just seen you deleted a part of my message. For what concerns other editors, it is not my stuff and I don't have to take care of that. But I ask you not to delete mine. You have absolutely no reason to do so. Ceedjee (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Fred Phelps

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Fred Phelps. Whether you are right or not, you need to take the dispute to the talk page instead of continually reverting. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I did take it to the talk page, where I was supported by two other editors. The person you blocked just wasn't hearing what was being said. I appreciate your taking action, though. IronDuke 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Todd, thanks for unblocking so quickly. There goes my pristine block log :(. IronDuke 00:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have quickly un-done the block that was erroneously issued by me in this case. I am sorry, but I miscounted in sorting this out. You clearly did not violate 3RR. I hope your block log adequately reflects my error - not yours. Again, my apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It happens, no problem. You did give me quite a start, though. But no worries. IronDuke 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to still be blocked. Lil help? IronDuke 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

working on it.Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Just sent an email, feel free to ignore. IronDuke 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be un-autoblocked now. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CP and Canada Jack

Iron: Thanks for the note. Didn't need to be told that "asshole" was out of line, but that was a first for me and a scolding at the very least was in order for me to get. However, I didn't fully appreciate this at the time, and while my use of words was poor, what seems to be going on with the individual in question is something akin to what happens to political candidates in some "democratic" countries in Asia and Africa - sure, you can participate, but certain people will ensure that hurdles, up to and including expulsion, are in order if you don't play their game. And I am increasingly getting the impression that that is what is really going on with CP.

Now, I am not sure if you are the person to handle something like this, but perhaps you can suggest what to do here:

First off, I didn't know the person in question was persona non grata - I haven't been fully participating in the forum long enough to know this. I was generally aware that he was no longer there, but unsure what his status was. Second, CP's response was not to first note on the talk page that the person in question can't participate, it was to first threaten people with sanctions if they posted his remarks. That to me was a bit over the top. He may have been "polite" about it, but if he was truly "polite" he would have noted that quoting a blocked member is not kosher here and not proceeded with what will happen. It's what can be termed a "passive aggressive" approach. Personally, I had no clue there was an issue here at all, and I turn to my page and read I'd like to note that indefinitely blocked and banned users are not allowed a voice or an opinion on this project, that's why they were blocked/banned. Giving them one, as you did for the indef. blocked Robert Young here, can land you in the same type of trouble, so a friendly recommendation is to not do it.

He claims that that was no "threat." It most certainly was and I called him on this. I now have learned that this is an outgrowth of a dispute between the blocked member, Robert Young, and CP aka Canadian Paul. Mr Young is one of the world's leading gerontologists, CP is a 22-year-old College student in Texas, as far as I can make out. While Mr Young can not participate in discussions until his block is lifted, he certainly has pertinent opinions on what is going on and, in this lone case since he responded to me personally about my proposals for the page, I thought it was warranted to post those remarks.

Now, and this is where perhaps you can clarify matters for me, as far as I can make out, there is no explicit restriction here on what I have done. I posted a response someone had to to something I posted, there was no request or anything otherwise to put this on wikipedia. Indeed, he was taking issue with some things I advocated and as such I felt it intellectually honest to note some dissent to my approach.

Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. By my reading of that, nothing has occurred to cause offence. Nothing has been edited directly or indirectly by or for Mr Young. An opinion expressed to me was posted. Further, it would be hard to argue that the comments he made are in any way "disruptive," unless I held firm to the belief that my views were sacrosanct. And, looking at the "purpose" section of the "Blocking" page [2] it seems clear to me that what we are blocking are the disruptive activities of an editor, not the views of an editor. The unblocked editors, after all, are the only ones who can actually do anything on and with the pages, so what the effect of what CP has done is to declare that some opinions, not edits, are not permitted to be expressed.

I fully appreciate that no one can, in the name of a blocked editor, do his will. However, I wasn't and the others here weren't. Indeed, what I posted was something I, by definition, would not have changed as they were points of mine he disagreed with! I was simply posting his to-me expressed opinion on something I posted, and since it was pertinent to the discussion, I felt it was relevant.

So, please answer me this: Are there any specific policies on posting the views of a blocked editor, and if so, in what manner would they be acceptable. If I, say, said "I think we should do 'x,' but Young tells me that that would mean we leave out 'y' information, so I am not sure how to proceed", would that fall foul? Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey CJ:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First off, minor note, I don’t think CP was out of line to warn you that you could get blocked for posting Young’s messages. You did, after, not know that. If he had left that information out and then you had gotten blocked for it, you’d have been bummed, no?

As to your question about where it says you can’t post stuff from banned users, see here. Young’s being indef blocked amounts to a ban, unless and until some admin decides to unblock him. I looked at his stuff briefly: I have no strong opinion about his block (from a cursory review), but the fact that he got blocked and continued evading it looks bad, and that he may have engaged in off-wiki harassment (if true) is also very bad. You are right, of course, that Mr. Young may have much that is good to contribute to WP. But being banned, there’s no way he can get it in. That’s how a ban works. It’s not “You are only allowed to make good contributions,” it’s “Your contributions are so compromised, you cannot be trusted to edit WP.”

My advice to you. 1) Refactor the “Asshole” comments. You don’t need them, do you? They only subtract from the force of your reasoning. 2) Have a discussion with the admin who blocked Young, Maxim. Ask him if there’s anything Young can do to rehabilitate himself, eg, can he come back provisionally, with 1rr limits in his preferred topic area a day, civility parole, promise to cease making off-wiki attacks, etc. Further, if he could get a responsible mentor, someone to watch over his edits and make sure he isn’t violating policy, that might help too. Keep in mind – this may all have been done before, or the blocking admin may not go for it (and possibly for good reason). Hope that helps, please feel free ask me for more info on this or any topic. Cheers. IronDuke 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello, I just fixed your archive for Leo Frank. You had created an article page instead of a subpage for the talk. Please use [[/Archive #]] on the talk page proper and it will automatically create a new page which you can edit. See also WP:archive. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at WP:archive! And still messed it up! Sigh. Thanks for cleaning up after me... IronDuke 18:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre

Hi. Rather than engage in a revert war, please do me a favor. Go to the article's "See also" section. Now look at the two paragraphs directly above the "See also" section.

Now do you understand why a "See also" link to Blood Libel at Deir Yassin is unnecessary? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. IronDuke 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{main}} tag under the Milstein heading pointing to Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, that should be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. IronDuke 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Hello, regarding references you've been adding, I'd like to ask you to consider organizing multiple links within a single <ref> tag, as [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] is really quite annoying to see in Wikipedia articles. Even more so when it is just to document something that is highly unlikely to be challenged as verifiable (e.g. the statement that Bin Laden has been labeled a terrorist by governments and media). I'm not sure there's a relevant WP:MoS policy here; just going by what my eyes tell me. :) Thanks for your contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando130 (talk • contribs)

Hm... you may be right -- in general. But in fact, if you look at the talk page, the point was bitterly (if not very convincingly) disputed. Having a bunch of refs visible makes it less likely someone will come along and, with the best of intentions, remove the sentence. IronDuke 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Refactorization

Thanks for intervening; clearly appealing to Piotrus to use his influence was going in circles. I've actually asked Ryan to zap that whole vulgar rant, beyond just the overtly anti-semitic parts. It's getting out of hand. Cheers Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Slow and steady wins the race, I think, even on Wikipedia, where the race never ends. IronDuke 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrie

I really felt that putting the fifth movement title in there, "I Had No Mercy" showed how anti Israel it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to self-revert that part, though I don't 100% feel it's necessary... give me a sec. IronDuke 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, it's a bargaining chip when the "Corrie as victim of the wicked Israelis" group weighs back in.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I try not to see things that way. People have strong felings about Corrie, pro and con, and I think it's important to get all the notable ones out on the table. IronDuke 16:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Nice addition and rearrangement of the artistic tribute section. But where did you get "bordered on antisemitism"? I didn't see that anywhere in the article - only that the cantata was virulently anti-Israel. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You can see where I got it from the ref I put in: here. IronDuke 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I said "the article" I was refering to the reference, not the WP article. Sorry for the confusion. The Anchorage Press article says nothing about antisemitism that I could find. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I knew that, I think. I was pointing you towards a different article. IronDuke 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section has two references: one to the Anchorage Press article, and one to the Anchorage Daily News. Neither of them contains any reference to antisemitism that I could find. Are you referring to yet a third source? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it all back. I found the reference. Sorry for the bother. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Booth

The 3RR rule does not apply to contentious material added to BLPs' Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Care to weigh in since there have been paralells drawn between Ayes and Rudolph? CENSEI (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weigh in where? IronDuke 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page. Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said on the ERR page, I don't think you can draw parallels. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. That said, the article should reflect what the sources say. I don't know enough to say whether that word is appropriate for Ayers. IronDuke 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

McKinney

OK, that's fine. I see you've already fixed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Moved from Nickhh's talk page Nick, I make your appearance at Pat's talk page the third place you've followed me to. That you misrepresented the number and nature of my edits does not make me any gladder to have you tagging along after me. I'd like to ask you -- very, very firmly -- to stop. Okay? IronDuke 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalking you, where? I believe our paths crossed most recently on Second Intifada, an article I have been involved in from time to time in the past. You of course turned up on the talk page after me, not before me, as clear from this section. Subsequently I came across your attempts to insert the Dershowitz stuff into the Cynthia McKinney article. The reason I came across that was because, yes, I was having a bit of a trawl round for an especially egregious example of WP:UNDUE material, based on limited sources, being shoved into I-P pages or those with vague links to them, which I could use as a diff in a more general debate elsewhere. I commented on the talk page itself a day later I think, but did not become involved in editing the page itself. Then naturally, when I saw you had posted a 3RR complaint against another editor on account of the dispute there, but had not notified them, I did (ie yes, I did go to their talk page, but in fact precisely because you had NOT gone there to inform them, as procedure asks that you should - I take a poor view of editors who try to go behind others' backs and try to get them blocked).

As for misrepresenting the number of your edits on the McKinney page (which you have now accused me of twice), I'd advise you to review them. Four edits, all returning material removed by others, between 1704 & 1926 (my time) on the 4th. This one, this one and this one all involved the return of the Dershowitz quote (this is the earlier one, making four in total). I said "Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself, 2 of which were of the Dershowitz material", which you are right was incorrect, I apologise. It was 4, with 3 of them involving the Dershowitz material

Cheers, you're a funny guy. You can't read, you can't count, and you're rude with it. --Nickhh (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now you're just making this easy, aren't you? Check your diffs again. Your first and fourth diffs are part of the same edit I was making. That does not count as two reverts. There was no intervening edit. Are you telling me you really don't understand this? (I note alos that you split up those edits which occurred right next to each other, making it harder for someone to see you were wrong. Possibly you did not intend to do this.) Looking at Second Intifada, it appears I was there before you (on talk), but please do check me on that. The other article I was referring to was Urban Outfitters, an article you barged into having -- by your own admission -- no idea what you were talking about. You showed up very shortly after I did. That, combined with your recent behavior, suggests to me that you have an unhealthy fascination with my editing. And as for rudeness, you just got blocked a few weeks ago for incivility, no? But I've not been rude here at all. So again: willing to stay away? IronDuke 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy for myself, yes:

• McKinney - As usual, read what I said above. I said four edits (I have also referred to them as reverts). There are four edits, all of which are going back to a previous version of the page, even if the 1st and 2nd follow on directly from each other and therefore do not technically count as separate reverts for 3RR. I never accused you of a 3RR violation. Btw I split the 1st and 4th diffs above simply so that I would be highlighting all the Dershowitz reverts first, and then added the 1st at the end as an afterthought, since you asked.
• Second Intifada - I have checked; you either have not or have been misreading again. Prior to my October 30th comments here in response to points made by Nishidani & NoCal100, and here in response to Michael Safyan, your last appearance seems to have been way back on the 5th August. So perhaps delayed reaction stalking, who knows. However you then suddenly reappeared in the midst of one of the above discussions, to selectively quote the Mitchell report and to make a not-so-subtle (and misplaced as it happens) dig at one of my earlier observations
• Urban Outfitters - er, it was way back in May when our paths crossed there, so another 3 months previously. Nor do I recall admitting that I had "no idea what I was talking about", not that has any relevance to charges of stalking (and it would perhaps reflect better on you to be a bit more gracious when bringing up the fact that six months ago someone did accept some of your points on a talk page).
• Rudeness - you told me here that I needed to be "educated" and that you could point me in the direction of some books to read. That's kind of rude by any normal standard when all I did was raise a source/BLP query. And yes I was no-warning blocked recently for making one single mildly sarcastic but non-offensive remark in response to an editor who was accusing me of disruptive editing, and swiftly unblocked as well.

I come across other editors on a far more regular basis than I do you, and I'm not stalking them either. I'm adding paranoia to the list of problems - unless of course you edit here with more than one account, and I come across you more often than I realise. Post on my page again and I'm deleting it as trolling. --Nickhh (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is your talk page, and you are free to remove my comments. Adding an uncivil edit summary will just be icing on the cake. But "boring?" I take that to mean, "I have lost this argument pretty badly, and now must make the other person's rebuttal disappear."

• Your first point. Okay, well, a child could see through that excuse, couldn't they? You're actually calling two back-to-back edits that could have been made together (but weren't just for my own technical ease) separate edits? But wait, no need to argue. We have your own words. You write above I never accused you of a 3RR violation." And yet, you wrote on Pat's page "Given both these points - and that Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself..." That's accusing me of violating 3rr. There can be no question of this. Look, I understand it's embarrassing. You write above that I cannot count, and then, well... I won't rub it in, but suffice it to say you could simply apologize, rather than make up a transparent excuse.
• My point re Second Intifada was that I was at the page before you. In fact, way back in March, you showed up shortly after I did. You cannot therefore accuse me of following you to a page I already have watchlisted and have edited. Indeed, as you followed me shortly after I got there to refute my point, what's going on is obvious.
• On UO I linked to the diff where you said you had no idea what you were talking about. But I will concede, you were gracious enough to admit it. Notice I didn't rub it in at the time. However, as you continue to stalk me, and as you took such umbrage at the notion that you might be less than au courant on the subjects you edit, I thought it fair to bring up.
• I'm sorry if you felt my comment was rude. I will delete it or strike it out if you wish.
• I don't know what your last point meant about paranoia, probably don't want to know, so you needn't elucidate me. I think I've accomplished what I meant to here, which is to get you not to follow me anymore. That doesn't mean that just because I'm on a page I consider you somehow "forbidden" from editing it. If you're on an article, I wouldn't take that to mean I couldn't edit/comment. But I wouldn't go out of my way to follow you, and I'm requesting in the strongest possible terms you extend me the same courtesy. IronDuke 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For best results, please try to keep comments on article talkpages focused strictly on the article. Comments about contributors are better suited for user talkpages, or administrator venues. In other words, these comments were not as focused on article content as they could have been.[3][4][5][6] Also, if you haven't read them (or haven't read them recently), these two pages are worth reading: WP:MASTODON, WP:BAIT. Thanks, --Elonka 01:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall redouble my efforts in that area, though I believe you may be misinterpreting some of the diffs you link to. That said, I'm not likely to tolerate stalking and abuse -- I know that has nothing to do with article content per se, but it makes the editing environemnt intolerable. I don't merely have a right to comment on this, but a duty. IronDuke 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize. However, please ensure that you are bringing these things up in the proper venue, which means user talkpages, and administrator pages. As for article talkpages, I'd like if everyone could work hard to keep those discussions very very focused on the articles, rather than side matters. And don't worry: If there are user conduct issues, they'll show up in the long run. In the meantime though, it's very important that you keep your own behavior as clean as possible, which makes it easier for administrators to deal with any other issues that may arise. --Elonka 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. I have refactored the one area I think could have been taken wrongly. If you have further suggestions, I am open to them. IronDuke 01:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?:

• "removed wikisource see Talk:Gerald Seymour It is not a James Bond expression!" Someone else made a claim about who wrote "One man's terrorist..." and there is a Google book search there that shows it was a common expression back in 1945.
• "Edit clash put back words agreed on talk page" I had started an edit before you made yours, but as mine explained why it should go you also made a change to the text I did not agree with. So rather than make two edits it was simpler to save my original edit (that reversed the wikisource wikiquote edit and kept the original text on top of yours. -- Philip (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Please stop challenging someone who was 10 years-old when 9/11 occurred and clearly knows more about Pokemon than you do. RL academics that have published books and articles on the subject are not acceptable. Remember, on Wikipedia it is policy to defer to the youngest editor on the talk page. You should know that by now. Don't make me report you. Viriditas (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir, what on earth gives you the impression I am not knowledgable in the ways of Pokemon? Perhaps you were unaware of Pikachu's status on the FBI's ten most wanted list? And yes, I'll say it: he's a terrorist. "Electrical sacs" indeed. As soon as I have time, I shall change the article to reflect this. IronDuke 00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you challenging my nonexistent authority? How many times do teenagers with serious work experience pouring frozen yogurt in the local mall have to correct you? Look, if you insist on arguing from facts and evidence you leave me no choice. I suggest you start engaging in wishful fantasies, promoting pet theories, and positing pipe dreams or else I'll have an administrator block you for trying to maintain historical accuracy. For the last time, Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist. Don't make me prove a negative again. This is your final warning. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But can you prove he has no desire to fail to be a non-terrorist? As someone once said, "Facts are stupid things." Can you prove otherwise? As for being blocked... er... isn't there a Pokemon card I can play that will prevent you from doing that? I'm sure I have it here somewhere... IronDuke 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you write this: He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies? You're going to need to defend it or a more improved version. I would suggest replacing each example with the name of an organization. I don't think it's important to list "journalists", but it may be instructive to find out what journalism guides have to say. I'm also interested in how other reference works treat the subject. I suggest you look into it. I'm going offline. Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did write it. The full sentence is: He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies. And I offered to provide more refs. Many, many more refs. IronDuke 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Focus on what I am saying. At this juncture, references aren't the problem. Essentially, the issue is WP:LEAD. If the statement you are adding to the lead is a summary of a section[s}, then you could argue to include it. PBS is conveniently forgetting WP:LEAD (watch him point out that's it's only a guideine, heh) and Sceptre is basically tossing it to the wind by arguing for such specificity. You need to focus on this point if you want to include it. In other words, if the body of the article already discusses the terrorist designation by named scholars, journalists, analysts, and law enforcement agencies, you can argue for your chosen wording. However, without looking, I'm guessing that it doesn't, and you are expecting editors to simply look at the references. In some respects, that's acceptable, but in most cases, Wikipedia articles need to make summarized information clear in the body, not just the references. So, you may have some work to do here. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Stand by. IronDuke 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration board

I have no idea what arbitration board does or who the people running for it are. But I respect your opinion, so I copied your votes. Consider your vote doubled. Kauffner (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the vote(s) of confidence. I'd be a touch concerned that you might not share all the views/priorities upon which my votes were based, but I nevertheless very much appreciate your note. IronDuke 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Would you mind joining it at Rachel Corrie? I posed a question to you and Wehwalt there regarding your deletion of external links that I would like to have answered. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the heads-up. IronDuke 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Muslim myself, no. But lots of Muslims (practicing and non-practicing) in my life and a few in the family as well. Could ask one of them, depending on the question. Tiamut^talk 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. Tough question for me to get an answer to since most Muslims I know would not be familiar with the nuances of the use of the word "jihadist" in English. I confess I'm a bit ignorant on the subject myself. I'll try to ask someone tomorrow (people are sleeping now, it's 2:35am here) and see if they have anything to add. Can I ask why though? What's up? Tiamut^talk 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuck. I am officially saying there is no need to worry, that page will not attract my interventions in any way shape of form. Still will try to find out what people think about "jihadist" (out of curiousity) and I'll pass it on if anything comes up. Not so keen about the alternative your are proposing myself though. "Terrorist" is a word I avoid using here like the plague. It's a tactic, not an essence. Anyway, my penny for your thoughts. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Iron Duke is a martian", maybe, but try "They eat Hummus in Palestine." I don't think you'll have the same success. Tiamut^talk 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still no source for "IronDuke is a martian," but when I find one, I'll be sure to add it. By the way, I'm officially not canvassing you to get involved in that discussion either. Fair's fair. ;) Tiamut^talk 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are one of the very few to find my jokes funny IronDuke. Glad we can always share a laugh, no matter how vast the differences in our perceptions sometimes. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 01:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked about "Jihadist" by the way, and the one response I got was that it would be offensive to characterize a militant group that way, since it associates a term (jihad) that is much broader than armed actions, with only that. Funnily enough, when I asked if "terrorist" would be better to use to describe militant groups like Al-Qaeda, the response was yes. The individual I asked thinks as I do, that "terrorism" is a tactic, but concludes from that belief that it was not in fact an emotive or pejorative term. So there you go. I disagree with the latter part of his opinion and this is all hearsay (and therefore inadmissible in a court of law), but I hope I answered your question. Tiamut^talk 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy regarding talk page edits,

In this edit, the user in question not only deletes a comment aimed at himself, but he also inserts text into another user's comment. This is called refactoring. He first denied doing such, and then when he did, he used described the edit as bullshit. You can't just deny something when the evidence is right there in front of you. Despite the fact that the page I noted was a guideline, that does not change the fact that change other people's comments is disruptive, and blocks are issued for it to prevent disruption. I also notice that when I tell you to actually cite a diff concerning this so-called content dispute that you think exists, you fail to do so, and completely avoid answering the question.

Why is it, that when faced with overwhelming evidence that this editor you're supporting was wrong, do you continue to act like he was right?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to answer your last question first, I stopped beating my wife last Wednesday. Why do you ask? The reason I "failed" to provide diffs were because they had already been provided. Why did you "fail" to read the whole discussion before weighing in? Malcolm says he didn't see the part of PR's comment he removed. I believe that, as it actually took me a sec to see what was being discussed as I looked at the diif. But let's say he's lying; he really meant to dleete the comment, then told a lie that anyone could uncover with one click. Even if all that were true, he broke no rule. And before you start back in on "disruption" I'll say 1) I saw no disruptiveness stemming from that edit and 2) Gwen's block was far more "disruptive" -- you can tell by looking at the whole AN/I thread, the subsequent reblock, and my very own talk page to see why. Blocks are a last resort. This was a first resort. A warning was issued, and was not violated, but a block was issued essentially for "mouthing off." I can't tell you how little I like it when admins feel like they can do that with impunity, and even less that they are largely right. IronDuke 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the entirety of threads before I comment on them, here, you're assuming way too much good faith in this situation. Again you refuse to read what I right, either that, or you refuse to acknowledge what actually happened.

As said, I asked you for diffs of this so called content dispute that you kept noting. Not a single diff has been provided concerning this. The only diffs that have been provided are the ones showing that MS had been disruptive.

Again, I suggest you read up on WP:BLOCK. A block is meant to prevent, not to punish. Gwen's block was clearly justifiable, as the user had shown that he would not stop refactoring comments. To be specific, as I was not before, it says on WP:TPG that removing, or refactoring others' comments is unacceptable. Or, to be more specific, it falls under the policy at [7], where it states that modifying other users' comments is vandalism. Third, since you appear to not read what is present to you, let me show you a diff. As you can see in the diff, the editor in question, MS, actually adds content to another users' post, when he adds the sentence It is also noticeable that the first material you fought for is highly inflammatory, almost calculated to permanently the collegiality that needs to exist between editors. into User:PalestineRemembered's response post. This is called refactoring a comment.

The warning was issued, and violated, in terms of a future offense. As stated at WP:BLOCK, and by me and others several times, blocks are meant to prevent disruption. Here, the user is told that he will be unblocked if he agrees to stop refactoring comments. He says no, he will not stop refactoring comments. Since refactoring comments is against policy, unless of course, they're removing a personal attack(which this edit was not), and this editor said that he would not stop breaking policy, the block is justifiable, in that, it prevents him from causing further disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I see what must have happened. You read the entire thread except for this post where Malcolm responds to my question about what disputes there may have been with Gwen, and provides those diffs you’ve been so anxious about.

“Or, to be more specific, it falls under the policy at [7], where it states that modifying other users' comments is vandalism.” It says nothing of the kind, or at least is nothing like the kind of blanket statement you’re making. Yes, MS interpolated his own comment into PR’s. His only mistake was that he failed to sign it. He clearly wasn’t trying to later PR’s meaning, he was making a comment. You’re allowed to post within other people’s posts, I see it happen all the time. Personally, though I used to do it, I’ve come to feel it’s confusing, so refrain. But blockable? Not by a long shot.

And he doesn’t say he won’t stop refactoring, he denies having done it. What to do? Patiently explain to him what he did, where he did it, and what it’s called (with diffs). MS is being way too stubborn, but he’s also feeling under attack, and I’m not sure he fully understood what was being said to him. That applies, it seems, to you as well, but here I am explaining it to you, not threatening to have you blocked.

Last, perhaps most important point: you write “Since refactoring comments is against policy…” What can I do to show you how very incorrect that is? Do you really not understand the difference between a policy and a guideline? If not, I’m happy to explain.

You’re wrong, wrong on every point you make, and demonstrably so. That’s okay by me, but I find your iron-clad certainty in the face of that strange. IronDuke 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost find it funny. The only diff you mention for the content dispute isn't even a content dispute. The first diff mentioned in the the post is a disagreement on an AfD. AfDs are not content disputes. The second diff mentioned in the post is again, not a content dispute. The editor in question noted that if the subject of the article's origin is not cited as coming from a specific country, edits in regards to that country should be removed. Gwen then answered him, saying that, if that was the case, references to any country should be removed. This is a minor disagreement on an article talk page, and is hardly a full-blown content dispute. Content disputes usually result in edit waring, blocks for edit warring, and/or dispute resolutions. Two accounts of disagreement is not content dispute. And I did read that post, as I said, he has yet to link to a content dispute.

Yes, MS interpolated his own comment into PR’s. His only mistake was that he failed to sign it. He clearly wasn’t trying to later PR’s meaning, he was making a comment. You’re allowed to post within other people’s posts, I see it happen all the time. Really? I don't see it happening at all. I've never seen someone create a line break where there wasn't one, and insert text just as MS did. Since this apparently happens all the time, would you care to provide some diffs?

And he doesn’t say he won’t stop refactoring, he denies having done it. What to do? Patiently explain to him what he did, where he did it, and what it’s called (with diffs). Really? Because as far as I can see, there is no possible way that he could have removed removed that last, bottom paragraph without knowing, seeing as how there is a large block of text between the reversion he made, and the text he deleted, as can be seen here. Secondly, the user incorrectly states in his block You are asking me to make this promise to hide that you have blocked me improperly., despite the fact that Gwen's post was crystal clear. He didn't even respond to Gwen's actual post, his response had nothing to do with her request. She said: "If you agree to never refactor talk pages (other than your own) anymore, I'll unblock you." So how about we get it straight. He never said that he wouldn't stop refactoring, and he in fact worded a response to a question that didn't exist. Gwen was not asking him to hide anything, she was asking him not to refactor posts. It's a simple no, I won't do that.

As for explaining it to him, he actually tries to lie about what happened. In this diff, he lists several diffs, lying about the order of two of them, in that, edit number four happened before edit number five(hint, look at the timestamps, edit four takes place at 18:21, while edit five takes place at 18:18). He denied having removed the content right up until the two admins supply a diff that proves he, did in fact, remove the content. After that, he slaps the edit with an insult, as if it was justify it's removal. The paragraph he removed was not a personal attack, and it is only acceptable to remove comments like that when they are a personal attack.

Lastly, disruption is cause for a block, as is possible disruption, hence a block to prevent further disruption. It has long been realized that when one deletes others' comments, it is disruptive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

“AfDs are not content disputes.” Okay, that’s… a new one on me. So, if I may rephrase, “Content disputes are not content disputes.” What sort of a dispute do you think a disputed AfD is? A style dispute? And yes, there was a dispute on Hummus. For myself, I think Gwen was making a lot of sense on the page, but the fact remains.

Next point. Here’s an example of massive, serial refactoring. User Jayjg creates a long post here. In it a couple users “refactor” by commenting within his comment, and Jay does the same within his own comment. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I don’t see anyone threatening to block anyone else for inserting a comment within a comment. It is not a blockable offense. I think I’m making some headway there – you do see that now, don’t you? All Gwen had to say was “Look, this is the graf you removed, please put it back.” Then waited to see if he would, or would take it back out once she put it in. (And the graf in question was pretty nasty, I have to say. When MS later refers to it in a negative manner, I can’t really blame him.)

And of course he can have removed the last paragraph without seeing it. It’s not a difficult mistake to make. Should he have taken more care to really examine the diff? Yes. So? And Gwen’s request that he never refactor another page before she’d unblock him (when she should not have blocked him in the first place without his having violated her warning) was improper. He was right to take umbrage.

Can you say what disruption was in imminent danger of being caused? That would necessitate a block without proper warning?

I also don’t think he was lying in his list, just as I don’t think you’re lying when you say you read the AN/I thread. You just didn’t read it very closely. IronDuke 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut Cerejota some slack

I think he's being wrongheaded, but his user page also says that he's not a native speaker of English, so I think it's more likely that he has a skewed view of the language from web sources and choice of reading material than that he's being intentionally malicious or muddled. Ray (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I know Cerejota of old. I agree that he's not being intentionally muddled, but the wrongness of his position combined with a hectoring, lecturing tone is not a felicitous combination. IronDuke 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add this: my assumption is that Cerjeota's English is excellent. If it weren't, his commenting on a style guideline that depends on an in-depth understanding of the language could be problematic. IronDuke 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's under the impression that WP:WTA is a NPOV guideline, not a style guideline. It seems to be a problem that some of the other people on the thread are having too, with fewer excuses. Ray (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Kudos on your disquisition about paramilitary, militan, etc. It's what I was thinking, but probably wouldn't have expressed as well. IronDuke 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

I don't know you, but I found some poor quality comments by you posted on my talk page. Maybe this is your regular habit, but please don't pollute my talk page where I would like to discuss only about articles I edit, not about me and my motivations. In case you are interested in a reply, you can have a look into my talk page. Btw, threatening to block based on unexisting reasons may scare some Kindergarten children and novices, not me Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 09:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Zencv, if your goal was to de-escalate this dispute, do you really think that the above comment was effective? I recommend trying again. --Elonka 19:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka - I agree, this is not the most amicable comment one can think of, but it was rather a response to his posts and I hope you would try to read it in that context Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I have given a third opinion pursuant to a request on that noticeboard. I hope this helps resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted an third opinion on the talk page as well. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

FYI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)