2knowledgeable
Dear mcyp,
I will try to accommodate the changes that you suggest to the best of my ability. Some of your points are easily accommodated, and others will require more effort. For example, I am not sure how to report more objectively than: "In the reports appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, there is also an allegation of anti-Semitism." This seems like neutral language to me, but I will give it some thought. In general, I am open to discussion, and I am happy to collaborate with you in making this section as professional and as objective as possible.
However, please take this comment into account: Anti-Semitism is not a "VERY SERIOUS allegation:" it's a VERY SERIOUS phenomenon. And hushing allegations of anti-Semitism is not the same as solving the problem. North Cyprus and its general population are not the issue here, and the school, as I mentioned, no longer employs Jewish faculty. However, to write that there is simply "no such thing in Northern Cyprus" defies credibility. It sounds like protesting too much.
Best wishes,
Dear 2knowledgeable,
First of all, as I said I won't edit the article. I can only humbly suggest you to change following points.
- the sub-title "Controversy Surrounding Eastern Mediterranean University" to "Administrative Misconducts".
- There is no newspaper called Cyprus Tuday, so you must change to Cyprus Today with a wikipedia link.There is no online version of that paper, you must provide scans of the articles or a link to copies. Otherwise it will not be a reliable source.
- Rephrasing the following completely,
"In the reports appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, there is also an allegation of anti-Semitism.
EMU does not currently employ Jewish faculty members. Two Israeli faculty members were employed by the school between
2004 and 2008. One Israeli faculty member was forced to resign in February 2008, and the other left the school
shortly afterwards, setting the number of Jewish faculty members at nil."
There is no such thing in Northern Cyprus in general. I beleive you must emphasis strongly that this treatment is an Administrative misconduct and doesn't reflect the people of Northern Cyprus in general. It is also stated in your references as well. Anti-semitism is VERY SERIOUS allegation, and a single forum entry can not be an evidence! I beleive if you put that adjective, it is a gross distortion. I understand that there is an administrative misconduct, so it is nothing to do with religous affiliation!
You must add these references as well for a balanced view.
"..sounds like an average state university... " [1]
"..But i felt there is a very nice side to Turkish Cypriot culture. I have fond memories of Turkish and Turkish Cypriot
acquaintances. Like so many places, I enjoy their culture on a personal level more than American culture but not on a
trust / security level. Just thought I'd add that for a little balance." [2]
"..Thanks, oldcalif, I am happy to endorse your affinity to the Turkish Cypriot people. It should go without saying that my
complaint against Eastern Mediterranean University is not directed against the entire North Cypriot nation and its culture.
But if this does need saying, I am happy to do so..." [3]
If you make the above changes and add a real balance between your feelings and reality, it will be okay.
Please don't get me wrong but, you are an academic person and should know much better then me that generalizing a
communitiy or a race is called racism by definition. I am Turkish Cypriot and I am very offended with your current style of edit.
Best Wishes,
--mcyp (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear mcyp,
I didn't quite understand your last post. Not withstanding your reference to accusations (?), you do seem to recognize that I have a right to express an opposing view, and that I should be allowed to do so. My suggestion is that I will be allowed to append a paragraph to the article that will report appropriately and in a scholarly manner on the existing controversy surrounding EMU. I do not want to create a link to a new article, because I believe that I am providing adequate and relevant information to the existing article, and that a new article is not merited. Again, I am not quite sure what's going on with the mediation page. It doesn't seem to get us anywhere. But perhaps I don't understand the process well enough. Or perhaps I should seek a resolution in a different manner. At any rate, it would really help if you simply accept my request to add relevant information to the article. I will of course do so in the most professional and appropriate manner.
2knowledgeable (talk)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please reveal your name or the person (for example Joe Smith) who has experience this, and create an other article called Eastern Mediterranean University Joe Smith Case. And then we/you can create a section in EMU article called "Scandals" and link to your article. Which is really a SCANDAL.
But for other two cases you have mensioned it is a political problem, and urge you or person in this situation to contact with Teacher's union of North Cyprus. But I am just saying friendly that the points you have mensioned above sounds a political agenda, specially "The resignation of all (two) Jewish faculty members from the school.", wikipedia can not help you on that.
I should add that, you or the person who has experience this bullying accept my warm sympaty and understanding. And you or the person of course every right to share this information with the whole world.
Other than that removing the whole article or its current parts, I see it as very unfair to that.
My warm regards,
--mcyp (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I understand the seriousness of the allegations. I don't think, wikipedia article is an appropriate place for raising the serious concerns you have written, which is really worrying problems. Wikipedia is not a place to write these things. You can create a web-site for very serious issues on the administrative problems in that school, but not on wikipedia. I believe what you are doing on the wikipedia article is kind of vandalism. Considering that your contribution to wikipedia is only this EMU edit, It is obvious that you would like to use wikipedia as a medium to convey that, which is really not appropriate. Please do not further edit the article in this manner. It is vandalism. Please read wikipedia terms. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
Best Wishes,
Welcome!
edit
|
Your question
editHello, I have replied to your question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, to the effect that really you should only raise issues in one place at once, otherwise it can become confusing for editors trying to help you. Let's hope that things can be resolved between you and User:Msuzen, either at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-16 Eastern Mediterranean University or on your talkpages. In the future, it's probably best to try discussing things on user talpgaes and the article talkpage first. For example, looking at Msuzen's contributions, I see that they haven't edited since the 14th. It is reasonable to give them a little time to respond to you before asking for outside help. You may have jumped the gun a bit requesting mediation. Anyway, if that doesn't work out and you get no further response from Msuzen, feel free to come back to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. In the mean time, please don't edit from the account User:TooKnowledgeable any more. Editing from more than one account (sockpuppetry) isn't allowed here. All the best, --BelovedFreak 11:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
EMU
editTake another look at the talk page. Everyone except you wants it to go. You have to provide better sources if you want it to stay. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I urge you to undo your addition, otherwise I will take administrative action. Contentious material does not stay up pending arbitration. Quite the reverse; it stays down until proven true. The consensus is that your forum source is not good enough. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your co-operation! Let's wait until the facts are in so we can take a more objective look at the situation. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
June 2010
edit
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Shuki has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your edits, edit summaries, and inappropriate templates are getting disruptive. Please stop now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't find that this is appropriate. Editor was removing content without discussion, refusing to discuss and edit warring. It seems that you might need to use the sandbox yourself 2knowledgeable (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ohalo College. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Andrensath. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Ohalo College. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Personal attacks aren't allowed anywhere. No, not even in edit summaries. Please desist. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see here Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. It was not my intention to attack anyone. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for the article and I hope that the matter might be resolved. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting the section.2knowledgeable (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
2knowledgeable (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appeal to be unblocked because I am interested in mediating the situation rather than edit warring. As I pointed out, I initiated a mediation cabal in order to resulve the dispute, and I have been asking the other editors to discuss the matter with me on the talk page. Most importantly, I am resolved not to revert my changes when unblocked. Thank you in advance. 2knowledgeable (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately an examination of your recent editing history and the comments of other users makes it clear that, regardless of what you say you're interested in, you have recently engaged in edit warring and have certainly violated 3RR with respect to Ohalo College. The standard first block for this is 24 hours and I see no reason to disturb it. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I have fixed your unblock template. Another admin will examine it shortly. --B (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, I wish this unblock request had addressed the inappropriate templating (nb that is not the only instance) and more general aggressive attitude demonstrated earlier today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTTHEM. You are blocked (and your block will be upheld or overturned) for your own actions, not for somebody else's. You are, as you correctly realized, free to remove warnings (or any other messages, with the single exception of declined unblock templates while you are blocked) from your user space. But the other user's failure to recognize that templating experienced editors is not polite does not excuse revert warring. --B (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:ערב שירה באהלו - כתבה בשישי בגולן.pdf
edit
A tag has been placed on File:ערב שירה באהלו - כתבה בשישי בגולן.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
October 2010 - Queen Mary 2
editHello 2know, it looks to me like you are agressively edit-warring at RMS Queen Mary 2, with all the trimmings of threatening other editors with blocking and indicating that you are "impatient" with people. If you are going to continue in this vein, you are risking a block. It's late now where I live, hopefully tomorrow morning you will have got a much better attitude toward collaboration and discussion and I very much hope I won't see you having again restored your own preferred version. Please consider this carefully. Franamax (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
With due respect, it's users who blank other people's contributions without discussion who have a bad attitude. Perhaps after a good night sleep you will be less agressive and address the issue. Sweet dreams 2knowledgeable (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, it was a good night's sleep and I'm now revisiting this for the second time this morning too. I see no reason to change my assessment. Your assertion that "So long as something is true and well documented, there is no call for removing it" is fundamentally unsound. Repeatedly inserting material against opposition is blockable, and threatening other people with blocks is always likely to draw the attention of an administrator, which is how I came here in the first place. I agree that reverting bold edits without an edit summary (as the IP did) or with a rude edit summary (as Mies did) is a bad way to contribute here. Miesianical admitted they were harsh, I'd advise you to take that as an apology. What you may be missing is our WP:BRD cycle: you are always free to boldly contribute material, but that is where the freedom ends - if you are reverted, then it is up to you to gain consensus for your proposed change. It is good that you started the talk page thread, but bad that you get so upset when consensus does not come your way. I count four registered editors there who disagreed and explained the policy basis for their disagreement, plus the IP editor who did the same. If you want to put that down to closet anti-semitism, then I certainly can't stop you - but in reality your edits were removed because they are incompatible with some of our fundamental policies, and that's really all there is to it. Thanks for ceasing your efforts to war in your preferred version of the article, I really dislike using the "block" button. Franamax (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Right. Well I certainly can't see why some "Boston cup" is an important part of the ship's service history, but human mistreatment and racism is "isolated" and unimportant. You can certainly tell yourself that you are being absolutely objective here and "following the rules." But I think we both know that this is not the case.2knowledgeable (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:AGF.
- And, to turn my half-hearted apology at the talk page into a real apology: I apologise for my curt edit summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Jews
editIt matters a lot to me. Let's fight to get the information on the RMS Queen Mary page and not give in to these anti semites!!! 87.254.67.192 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)