User talk:Marsden/Archive1

Welcome

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.

• Welcome
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Help pages
• Village pump
• Help desk
• Wiquette
• Wikipedia:Merge

Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Divided attention

Many edits (such as vandalism reversion) take only seconds. Use of many tabs on a tabbed browser also distorts the picture. But thanks for your concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for the Occupied territories issue, I recommend you revert yourself - it's a bad idea to link to POV forks that will be merged, and your description is POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre for you to take all sorts of unilateral actions, then complain about others not working things out in discussion or reaching consensus. Instead of reverting, how about you try Talk:? It actually worked for you on the Zionism page, when you were patient enough, and the final result was vastly better than your original proposal. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's like this, Marsden: If you work calmly and pleasantly with other editors on the page, then you'll generally achieve reasonable compromises. If you continue on the path you seem to be heading down, which involves aggressive and belligerent talk comments, combined with reverting to your POV, you will rapidly find positions hardening against you, and further progress impossible. That's the way human nature is. You have a choice here, a "fork in the road", so to speak. Which path will you take? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think trying to ally yourself with one-note editors who have been blocked from editing for persistent trolling is the way to go? Instead I suggest you work with those with whom you disagree, on the Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the story of what happened to your new buddy Amin123; he made such a nuisance of himself on a particular article, reverting time and again to his own version and refusing any discussion or compromise, that eventually 1/2 dozen other editors got sick and tired of him and simply reverted him regardless of what he edited. I've seen it happen to other editors as well. I think you're smarter than that though; you've proved you're able to get consensus throught discussion, but this blind reverting will only get you hardened attitudes. I implore you to re-consider the path you are following. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it from your needlessly personal comments that you are uninterested in reconciliation, or in working collegially? You prefer the revert war approach? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So you weren't able to work out any compromise on Zionism, then? And here I thought things had gone quite well for the most part, aside from one disputed link. Of course, your insistence on revert warring has lost you ground even on that. In any event, I see from your continuing needlessly antagonistic personal comments that you really have no intention of trying to work with me. A shame. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Klipspringer Kruger.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, bluemask (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm sorry about the revert, Marsden; you're right, it's not a good way to be introduced, so hello. ;-) The reason I reverted is that I'm very confused about this profileration of pages. There's Occupied territories, Occupied Territories (Israeli), and then Occupation of the Palestinian territories that the second one might be merged with. Could you explain why you created the second one? Also, I think this discussion started on Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, so perhaps we could continue it there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

Marsden, your editing is now becoming disruptive. You've created a new article (what I call a POV fork), because you didn't like the contents of the two existing articles it could have gone into. You've engaged in an aggressive revert war to keep it there, calling on editors with less than brilliant reputations, and no knowledge of the subject, to help you revert. You're now moving pages and causing edit conflicts and confusion for editors trying to edit them. No matter how right you may be about the substantive points, your behavior is undermining your position. Please stick to the arguments. You argue well. I'm quite enjoying debating it with you. (You made reference to there being no private language: do you have a background in philosophy?) I honestly feel we misuse the word "occupation" when it comes to Israel and that, as much as the Israelis appear to be militarily the stronger party of the two "sides," when it comes to propaganda, they're not. I think this is one example of where their POV is perhaps unfairly blotted out of Wikipedia, or mentioned in such a secondary fashion that it may as well be blotted out. I really think we should do some research into how widespread Gold's position is, and that may take a few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marsden. Thanks for the thanks. Sadly, Jay is a member of the establishment here. Draw your own conclusions. You can see from the above that editors in very good standing, such as SlimVirgin, who I personally have a lot of time for, are practically blind to their own bias on this issue. (She thinks we "misuse" the word occupation, which is a bit odd, because we are supposed to be simply reporting what others say. It's their "misuse" of words that counts, not ours.) Unfortunately, they have been empowered. The combination of genuinely feeling that they are not acting in a biased way and having the power to back up their views makes it impossible to make headway on that particular area of Wikipedia. There's a bit of a pattern with new editors, I'm afraid. The new editor, perhaps with sympathies towards the Palestinian cause, is quite surprised by how slanted our articles on the occupation and similar issues are. They try to edit them towards at least a middle ground and face fierce resistance from the pro-Israeli editors. The latter form a spectrum, just as any set of editors will, with some that are mildly supportive of Israel, through some quite fierce Israeli nationalists to some that are borderline anti-Muslim at best. "Our side" has a similar spectrum, I suppose, although you must expect Jay to treat you as though you are an extremist if you take even a moderately anti-Zionist line. Personally, I only rarely bother editing these pages because they are so closely patrolled by editors who outnumber and outgun any grouping that wants to see anything resembling balance. Grace Note 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

I give you high credit for honesty. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I like that. Well, I am selfish for honest reasons. I try to support those who try to do the right thing.

Can I ask why you want this enforced against Jayjg? It seems out of spite since he is the most vocal on talk but he seems to be reverting you no more than at least two other users on the same articles. What do you hope will be the outcome of this request? Do you feel he is violating the spirit and should be punished in hope of better responses in the future?

Do you feel that even though many other users are reverting your changes that you will still be able to make a valid argument against Jayjg? Won't the others reverting your change support his view that you have not substantiated your claim?

Why follow a revert war on these two articles for days and days? If it is you against many wouldn't it be best to drop the "brute-force" reverts and instead sway people or develop a compromise on talk? - Tεxτurε 15:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I do notice one supporter on one article but you are revert warring with at least four other users. Perhaps you should request page protection until the issue is resolved? - Tεxτurε 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Response on my talk page - Tεxτurε 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Stochastic integral

Hi. I noticed that you blanked your article, Stochastic integral. Please don't blank an article you create if you decide it should not remain. Instead contact an administrator to delete it if you were the only contributor. If it was expanded by another user you would need to post it on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Since you are the only contributor for Stochastic integral would you like me to delete it? - Tεxτurε 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I need to revert the blanking until then. (Deleted is ok and your article is ok but blank is not.) Let me know what you decide. - Tεxτurε 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the article at your request. I'm sorry things aren't resolving well. - Tεxτurε 18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom decision

Aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", the Arbitration Committee ruling also only applied to me for the period of my editing restrictions, which was 0 days. The Committee has clarified this, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. I regret that you have personalized this conflict to me, and that you feel that your role is to recruit allies in an attempt to war with others or punish me in some way, rather than focussing on resolving conflict on the Talk: page. I feel you have rejected my many honest overtures and requests that you try a more collegial path to dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I receieved your request to block Jayjg. However, first, as Jayjg stated above, you have misinterpreted the ArbCom ruling, there were not restrictions imposed against him. Furthermore, please try to work this dispute out with Jayjg, rather than try to get him punished. As Texture said, you also were involved in the edit warring, and do not recieve my sympathy. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my "HOWS MY DRIVING" RfC page, I just wanted to make note that the votes in the proposed arbitration decision count: it is how they come to their final decision. Of course, if you look at the "editing restrictions", you'll see that the Editing restrictions against you and Jayjg did not pass; only the editing restrictions with respect to you passed. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you can see, that ruling does not apply to Jay because the arbitrators, some of them his personal friends and adherents of his POV, voted it down. He was not considered culpable in that edit war, and I'm afraid he won't be in this one, no matter what he does. You'll note that because you have reverted a lot, you are marked as a "bad user". Because Jay is a "good user", he's allowed to revert without being considered an edit-warrior. I don't see the point of pursuing a dispute resolution against a member of the establishment. You have absolutely no hope of a just outcome and the time spent in providing evidence would be entirely wasted. The attitude of Texture will be reflected by the other empowered users here. You are "working against community consensus" because you take a minority view at the page. All the editors you oppose need to do is email a few friends, make sure you are outnumbered, and you are working "against consensus". That only a handful of editors involved escapes the likes of Texture. Their view of "consensus" is not that we should reach an accord but that everyone should agree with the gang or be silent, sometimes even silenced if you will not acquiesce. If you were to draw the conclusion that a POV that is not strongly pro-Israel is considered a priori "anti-consensus", you probably wouldn't be far from the truth. Your motivations will be questioned, I'm afraid; his never will. Jay is absolutely out of reach of justice and you have to live with that. -- Grace Note

I'm glad you've decided to stay. Take care. Grace Note 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering bailing

Yes, I have. Sometimes I just steer clear of the pages I know are tainted, and work for a while on other stuff that interests me. I try to pretend that Wikipedia just doesn't have a bunch of hasbara propaganda masquerading as pages about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It's not a focal interest of mine, to be honest, because I come from the POV that all oppressive regimes are wrong, and that Israel is not specifically bad but just one more bad place in a bad world. I know that the increasing popularity of WP brings the risk that people will start more and more recommending it as a source of information. That scares me because it is so flawed in so many places. It's not written by experts in the main and there's no real review process. You'd like to believe that the wiki would work towards improvement, but I've often seen the opposite happen. Anyone who's been here long enough can point to a dozen things that are plain wrong. Actually, be here long enough and you'll know of something you know from personal experience is wrong.

You cannot win against Jay, however right you are. You ought to know that by now. This is a guy who keeps a page of "NPOV edits" so that when he is brought before the arbcom again, he can "prove" he is neutral because look, he's done all these neutral edits. This is the level of consideration a case against him will receive. He can't be a POV pusher because on the 17 July he reverted some right-wing nonsense. It's like telling your girlfriend you can't have fucked her sister because look, you have some flowers for her. When you read the case against HistoryBuffEr, you will have noted one of the arbitrators saying "Jay knows the right thing to do". Presumably, reverting every edit other editors make, refusing to compromise and sneering at other contributors are all the "right thing", so long as you are one of the guys.

You have to let them have the Israel pages. It's worthwhile from time to time to have another go just to remind them that they didn't convince you and that there is opposition but you can't hope to make real change happen and you'll break your heart over it if you try. You know that though.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk any more, and to let me know your new ID if you are banished. If you don't bail, that's the likely outcome for you, and it would be a pity not to know who the owner of an interesting and thoughtful voice is. Grace Note 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't leave without getting in touch. Maybe if we talk privately, I can talk you out of it? Grace Note 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

3rr

I only count 2 reverts by you... Unless you were that anon IP.. but explain why the other editor is wrong first before I revert or anything. Sasquatcht|c 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalking and personal attacks

Marsden, you've admitted you're stalking an editor, and you're engaging in personal attacks (saying that editors are working for Dore Gold, are Stalinists, making an ass of themselves etc). If your aim is to make life unpleasant for some people, you're being singularly successful, but you'll find it'll backfire on you, because good editors won't support that behavior, whether or not they agree with your POV. I've tried to be civil to you, and I've tried to engage you in debate, and in fact don't see what else I could have done to avoid the attacks, except to capitulate and agree with you. Please try to find a less disruptive way of interacting with people who hold another POV. None of us can claim to have a monopoly on truth, you included. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

But some of us are much better equipped for ensuring that Wikipedia reflects our notion of the "truth".

My question for today, Marsden, is what is the difference between violent methods of interrogation and torture? Do only badboy Muslims do the latter? Grace Note 11:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look

at the the page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economy_of_Israel Your thoughts about this would be apreciated. Thanks. Regards, Huldra 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

over the top

don't you think your "Jews are evil" user page is a little over the top? User:131.89.192.110

You made quite clear your prejudice. User:131.89.192.110

Good. I'd hate for it to be unclear that I think ethnic cleansing is wrong. How about you? Marsden 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What you made clear is that it's easier for you to demonize "them" by projecting monstrous motives on "them". Why obviously "they" want to murder everyone, therefore you are clearly a moral giant and quite justified in your prejudice.

Barnstar

You deserve one. I'd be glad to reword it. Larsoner 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

sourced quotes

FYI, this diff [1] should address the POV tag team of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Policy says to use sourced quotes, i.e. to quote a source verbatim, rather than allow an editor to paraphrase in their own POV way. Obviously, the URL on this diff uses the phrase "Occupied Territories", and it is straight from the mouth of the URL, therefore the article should use that phrase. FuelWagon 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reason? Don't count on it. Just be sure not to violate any policies while they're editing the article. They'll push POV like the most partisan warrior, but if you break 3RR (for example), they'll nail you for it. It's harder to prove POV pushing, and easy to prove 3RR violations. Just to let you know how these folks operate. keep your nose clean if you want an accurate article. FuelWagon 23:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neutral" titles

When they claim that it's "neutral" to retitle articles to fit their POV, I suggest you invite them to consider Sea of Japan or Liancourt Rocks. The practice in Wikipedia is to use the commonly used names for things, and not the names preferred by small minorities for their own narrow, political reasons. The "neutral" names, in Wikipedia's terms, are those most readily sourced and most widely used, because it is believed that wide use implies wide acceptance, and I think this is fairly reasonable. Wider acceptance implies more "neutrality" for the obvious reasons. Grace Note 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Its HULDRA (not Hulda!)

And please email me. But don´t expect an answer at once; I´m logging out of all Wikipedia-related stuff for 2 days: I have another life which desperately demand my attention. Regards.Huldra 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (PS: Huldra is from Scandinavia mythology.) PPS: and check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine. Read it! All!

Israel = POV?!?!?

Don't you think it's a little over the top to call "Israel" a POV term? You're being a tad radical with that proposal... Are you sure it's best way to put a point across?

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What I've read from your response is this. "I am frustrated against jayjg and co, therefore I will make their lives miserable by making edits that I know they will try and revert". All the politic diatribe made no sense to me, and if that's your REAL reason behind the edits, then you have a problem... Wikipedia is not a place for politics, and knowingly generate edit wars is not only unadvisable but, IMHO, stupid.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Marsden, could you explain exactly what you did with the article and the talk page. The page history has gotten lost in the process, either because of what you did, or because of something I did when I tried to correct it. I'd like to retrace what happened so I can undo it, so please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. Jayjg has fixed it. Please do not move this page again, and never do cut-and-paste moves. You're being highly disruptive, and if it continues, you're likely to find yourself blocked. Please either contribute constructively, or leave Wikipedia alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Well, I first took your proposal at face value, and I regard any attempt to lump Jews together as a Zionist entity as being antisemitic (or when Jews do it; retarded). If you would have used "the Israeli/Palestinian Entity" instead of "the Zionist Entity" when making your point I wouldn't have been as upset (although I still wouldn't have agreed).

That said; yes it is racism at work when these articles have been edited to exclude any references to Palestinian' lands, culture or claims (despite reference from United Nations, CIA, Amnesty International, etc). It is beyond any reasonable doubt that editors like Jayjg and SlimVirgin are using Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda, that there is a group of maybe 7-10 (?) editors who have been successful in their effort to present a very narrow minority view as if it was the majority view, and who have managed to take advantage of the loopholes in the Wikipedia rulebook. I can't for a second even begin to understand why they're allowed to be administrators.

However, in my opinion, it's not a good idea to counter racist propaganda with racist propaganda - it alienates Jews like me and it gives the hardliners a moral high ground they do not deserve. --saxet 14:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, please stop assuming you can get inside editors' minds. Neither Jayjg nor I are "using Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic [sic] propaganda." Or any other type of propaganda. It's you and Marsden who are the new, more or less single-issue, accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely." — Jorge Luis Borges. I like that quote, Borges is (have always been) my favourite author. SlimVirgin, if you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the point of the Borges quote, and in what way am I not assuming good faith? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't it obvious Slim? By assuming that Dervish/Marsden is acting in bad faith by misrepresenting you as an ethnic cleanser whose only motive is to use Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda...it's really YOU who is acting in bad faith. Get it? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Recruiting

Of course you can recruit me,for the sake of NPOV. It seems like the "politics" on wikipedia are played this way. Let me know when you need support by leaving a note on my page. --Vizcarra 17:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

CC: Dialogue between me and Goodoldpolonius2

Saxet, I think you, like Marsden, are a potentially valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, but I would like to echo the suggestions that I made to him on the whole "Occupied Territories" talk page. You are attacking two well-regarded, long-time editors rather strongly (and others in passing) -- which does not mean that your points are necessarily wrong, but rather that that your approach might be, especially given that you are relatively new to the WP community. It also makes it hard to intervene on your behalf in settling the dispute. The kind of chaos that is occuring on the Talk:Territories under Israeli control page is not usual for Wikipedia, and it might be worth trying to calm it down a notch instead of inflaming it. For example, you could help me in reaching out to Marsden to get him to agree to be less combative, and, even if you are feeling provoked by Jay and Slimvirgin, don't shoot back, instead concentrate on the debate. This will serve you much better in arguing your points, and will help establish a reputation for constructive edits, which is the best asset on WP. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, my girlfriend is a long-time member of the Wikipedia community and is the one responsible for bringing me onboard.

I have, on at least three different occasions, let Marsden know that I have found his approach to have been 'less than constructive'. I do, however, feel slightly uneasy about reprimanding him once more - I did accuse him of being an anti-Semite (which he probably isn't) and I've been unnecessarily harsh when communicating with him. Right now I feel that maybe I owe him an apology rather than another scolding. I agree that the actual debate is more important than mudslinging and disruptive behaviour and that the situation on the discussion page is out of control. Since I'm a part of that I share responsibility for the unpleasant atmosphere. But I strongly object to any notion that me and/or Marsden are the ones who should be blamed for the havoc, even if Jayjg and SlimVirgin are long-time editors. I think this would be obvious to anyone who read Talk:Territories under Israeli control, Talk:Israel and the respective user pages. It is frustrating when different standards are applied, that rules/guidelines can be broken if you 'know the right people'. It is frustrating that sources like CIA, U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc, are so easily dismissed while the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is viewed as credible. It is frustrating that people like you don't want to argue the points of the debate because of the behaviour of one of the editors, and also that you give leeway to the equally bad behaviour of other editors. I feel this give readers an impression that Marsden (and probably me?) are lose cannons while Jayjg and SlimVirgin are acting in an honest and responsible way.

I have disclosed my personal POV, I did it because I wanted other Jews here on Wikipedia to take notice of what I perceived to be a group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them), who have succeeded in having their narrow minority view presented as a factual NPOV majority view in a number of Israeli/Palestinian pages. I had a, sort of, not-in-my-name reaction, and I was hoping that others (non-Jews also of course) would feel the same. I believe there is an unhealthy groupmentality thing going on right now where changes/edits made by 'outsiders' are opposed and/or reverted on sight. I believe you're part of that (note; this doesn't mean that I believe you're involved in bad faith editing). I also believe that Jayjg [2] and SlimVirgin are part of this 'group'. As is MPerel, Klonimus, Guy Montag, and Humus sapiens. I think that this is a serious problem for Wikipedia, not just in this case but also as a meta-issue; if I get 50 friends to start edit Ariel Sharon, we could coordinate efforts to have the article say that Sharon had Muslim parents. This kind of 'loyalty' between editors damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

I will try to be more civil and constructive, and I ask you to reflect upon if any of my criticisms ring true. --saxet 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Indefensible?

Hello Marsden,

I've had plenty of experience with Jay and Slim in the past, so I doubt I'll be surprised in the future. Both of them tend to take positions on article disputes related to Israel that I disagree with, and sometimes I find their arguments quite frustrating, as I've obviously made clear in both this instance and the Daniel Pipes article. But they both also are good contributors, and make a lot of positive contributions to wikipedia.

If nothing else, your behavior is indefensible because it only makes it less likely you will get what you want. Making personal attacks on other contributors, especially established and generally well-respected contributors, is not a good way to get others to come around to your way of viewing things. If you look at the discussion, your actions have caused a significant number of people to be unwilling to take sides in the dispute, even though they basically agree with you and me that "occupied territories" should be used. All you are doing is increasing the rancor of the discussion page, without actually advancing your substantive cause at all. Beyond this, the threat to disrupt wikipedia to make a point is always entirely indefensible. john k 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

While Jay and Slim certainly seem to have considerable sympathy with Israel, I have yet to see any evidence that either of them is an advocate of ethnic cleansing. john k 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government does not use the term "occupation," and does not advocate ethnic cleansing (certainly the mass removal of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank is not an official policy, which is what I take it you mean by "ethnic cleansing.") Just because somebody thinks that we should give deference to the official Israeli position does not mean that they are advocating ethnic cleansing and greater Israel. I say this as someone who does not think we should give deference to the official Israeli position. john k 23:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not winning me over, here. While the Likud Party certainly has among its constituencies a fairly large number of people who would probably like to clear out the Palestinians and annex the West Bank, and while I would suspect that the "disputed territories" flim-flammery is partly designed as a way to satisfy these groups, it also seems to be part of a bargaining position. Basically, calling them the disputed territories means they are disputed, which would allow annexation of some of the West Bank settlements. I suppose one could say that the settlement program as a whole is a kind of slow motion ethnic cleansing, but it is not what people normally mean when they talk about "ethnic cleansing" in this context. john k 23:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in discussing this with you, and I don't see what this issue has to do with what we were talking about before. You are clearly constantly violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith - you are quite clearly, in fact, assuming the bad faith of anyone who disagrees with you about how Israel/Palestine issues should be discussed in wikipedia. This ought to be avoided. john k 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Morrocan Wall

It wasn't an anonymous editor, I was accidentally logged out. Wikipedia keeps logging me out. Anyway, you removed sourced information I put in. I did read the site you gave, but it basically said that there was surprise that Algeria supported one of the proposals, but that it was only because they knew the other side wouldn't go along with it and that it was merely a strategic move. Anyway simply stating that Algeria supports a negotiated settelement seems to misrepresent what the source you gave really says about it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Marsden, change it to what you think best for now, I'll be offline for the remainder of the week probably, and will take a closer look when I get back. We can battle it out (cordially hopefully) then. My only concern is to make sure all perspectives of what is happening there is presented accurately. Have a good week. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You should rephrase

In your "Accusations against Jayjg" comment on saxet's talk page, you wrote:

• In this diff you maintain that Jayjg is being paid to edit Wikipedia.

Saxet's actual words in the linked item are:

• So you say that there is no conflict of interest (or a violation of Wikipedia policy) if Jayjg, as an administrator, is getting paid to edit pages relating to Arab-Israeli conflicts and/or issues regarding the occupied territories? And that there isn't an issue if you use your employer's website as a source?

As you should be able to see, saxet was not maintaining anything; he asked two questions citing a possible situation. You might note the two appearances of the word "if." Your accusation against him, in this account, is inaccurate, and you should rephrase it or withdraw it.

I now see that SlimVirgin has noted that saxet has been blocked for "sockpuppetry." If you are responsible for that, I also suggest that you unblock him to avoid the appearance that a conflict of interest was behind this action.

Marsden 21:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion noted, but I stand by my comment. El_C 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

your: "Why They Are Evil" on your user-page

Marsden; I think we agree about many things regarding the bias on editing in articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia etc., but THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY YOUR WORDS ON YOUR USER-PAGE!! (Yes, it makes me feel like screaming; ok?) Yes, I greatly object to the double-standards etc, etc ....but Marsden: I feel that your words (on you user-page) are a huge insult to people who are the victims of real evil in this world. And that includes quite a few in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My point is this: nothing, and I mean nothing, that takes place on Wikipedia can be called with such a strong a word as "evil". Nothing! Wikipedia is a place you log onto, or log out of.....-just as you like. Nobody has to deal with Wikipedia if they don´t want to. You have a choice. Now, do you think people who are the victims of real evil have a choice; just to "log out"?? I feel like screaming: Get real! Marsden; I just feel that you (with you user-page) are seriously belitteling people who are the victims of real evil. I feel very strongly about this: trust me, I`m trying to say this in a diplomatic manner....(!) And I have waited for several days to "cool down" enough to be able to write anything to you, ok? Now, if you had used any other word, (I was going to suggest some, but I better not...); I´m not saying I would agree with everything you write then, but at least you would´t make me feel like screaming at you... Using the word "evil" about Wikipedia-matters does. Regards, Huldra 12:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First: as for your words: "From your comments, I take it that you see "evil" as some distant and exotic, terrible thing, of which we should all be aware yet never expect actually to see." How on earth you can draw such a conclusion! I actually thought the opposite was rather obvious: it is exactly because I have observed/seen what I (and others!) without hesitation would term "evil" at far too close a quarter that I react so immensly strongly to your "casual" (yes! casual, IMO) use of the word. I will not go into details (& you don´t want to know...) ..but I consider it pure luck/chance that I´m alive today. That´s what I (& others who do know the details) call evil. Things that were done on purpose -by other human beeing(s). I had one feeling (besides anger) when I read your user-page, and that was that this must be written by a very young person indeed, who had not seen much of life (?) ..or perhaps just by a very "lucky" person (who had not seen much of life..). I repeat: you cannot just choose to "log out" when you encounter real evil, and I actually hope you never, never learn that the hard way (like I did).

Now to another of your points (as I understand it): wording "matters" (to put it very simply). I agree. And yes, I have noted that e.g. people behind "Radio Rwanda" (as I think it was popularly known) were found guilty of genocide. (And quite correctly too, IMO). Because of their words -broadcasted. Only "words". So of course words here matter...besides wich some of the real double-standard and nastiness is quite..well, I out of words for the moment. But Marsden: Wiikipedia isn´t Radio Rwanda!!! (Not yet, anyway...:-)) (Actually, some places in Africa that is the biggest insult imaginable: calling a newspaper/tv/radio/media-outlet for "Radio Rwanda"...)

Finally, You say that you are "happy to indulge in any amount of extremism if doing so can help in even the smallest way to prevent something that even you might recognize as "real evil."" (Sure. "Indulge"(!)) But that is the point; what do you think you are achieving?? I think Saxet said something of the same: now you only provoke and alienate people you could "potentially" work with. That is the only thing you achieve. You certainly do not win anybody over to your side with your words. (I nearly didn´t vote on the Talk:Territories_under_Israeli_control due to it! Yes, I know that was a very, very, very silly and stupid reaction from me...but that was my "gut reaction". ) Now, I feel you are using such "extremist" words for your own good. Only. It feels good to write it, right? Think about it. Seriously. You achieve nothing pos. with it. Regards, Huldra

PS: Also your "hints" that some are payed to write here: it might be true, it might not be true. But remember that some of us, (including yours truly!) do not need a wage income and spend their whole day (and sometimes night!) working for NGOs and/or projects like Wikipedia.... (I really have to log out now, don´t expect me back the next 24 hours.) Take care, and take a look over at Talk:Jewish_Defense_League ..its "Deja vu all over again"! LOL!...should we warn poor "Stone"?...nah...heck, does Wikipedia need a Chinese speaker.....(?)

Again; thank you for your comments. Well, I hope I have made myself very clear on this matter, but as of now it seems as the most we can do is to agree to (strongly!) disagree about the use of words. But I cannot hide that I´m quite disapointed with you. Just a few final comments: you say "the opinion of someone who would change it out of spite isn't worth anything anyway." -I´m not sure of who or what you refer to here; my comment was that people who on the issues agree with you will simply withdraw from whatever debate you are involved in (...there is no lack of alternative work to do here on Wikipedia!). And yes, sure, it is important that these issues (titles of articles, & "naming" the facts etc..) are debated, however, I´m quite appaled at the energy and stubborness it takes to change anything one mm on issues where the involved soldiers, eh, wikipedians, have been in their trenches since the "beginning of time" (a.k.a. 2002, 2003 or 2004). (See the ref. I gave you 28th Sept.) For all that is written under "Talk:Territories under Israeli control": do you think it has changed the opinion of anybody?? Anybody at all?? Which brings me to my last point: it is said that the best way to tell a lie is to tell only one (small) part of the truth -I seem to see a lot of that here -you can call it "systemic bias" or whatever. Time can be used a lot more productivly here by telling unquestionable truths -truths that people with what I think you would call a "Hasbara agenda" never cared to tell. Anyway: as for me: I have decided to stay until Christmas -and see how the elections and personal appointments (if any) to the ArbCom goes. If people who can write something like this [3] because somebody made a (perfect NPOV!) edit.. and not be censored, but be rewarded...ah well; then wikipedia is not for me. (Btw: I see that nobody protest when CNN is called "left-wing"..amazing: in my part of the world it is considered quite right-wing! ) Anyway, see you around, but NOT on your terrlble User-page.....Regards, Huldra 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

DT/TD might be restored

Thanks, but I (and gf) will not, due to lack of time, continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Best Regards. --DTemail 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Marsden, could you please consider checking my talkpage every once in a while to see that it's not vandalized or anything, it would be much appreciated. If you don't have the time I would be grateful if you could relay this message to User:Vizcarra, or someone else. Keep up the struggle! --saxet 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

4th revert ?

Go ahead. but read discussion first Zeq 13:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers/Trivia:

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers/Trivia on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 04:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for perfect ref.! Just wish I had time to work more at that subject; presently I´m kept occupied by clean-up operations after Zeq over in Israeli Arab. Regards, Huldra 04:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

if you have some time

Users SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and El_C, among others, have started an RfC against me[4].

feel free to add anything you might think applies. FuelWagon 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

I'm a bit reluctant to move back, on the basis that the criticism of "Israeli settlement" as too vague makes some sense. Do you think Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories would be more acceptable? john k 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Territories

I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone (usually jayg) insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Complaints

The ski resort stuff is at least as relevant as the water stuff - if you file a complaint, make sure it includes your insertion of that water stuff again and again. Oh, and include all the personal attacks you've been making as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget to include your admission of wiki-stalking me (and indeed, editing Wikipedia) solely for the purpose of reverting me. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You two are so intelligent and make such valuable contributions, please call a truce, both of you. You can be so productive when you work together. Getting worked up doesn't do anyone (not to mention Wikipedia) any good. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Skiing is as important as water? Clearly, Jay doesn't live in an arid place.

Minor edit

Out of curiosity, what counts as a minor edit for you? Andjam 12:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I also consider it a personal attack to call one of my contributions "cr**". Thanks, Andjam 12:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Amongst other things, you called my work "cr**" again. This is your last warning. Cease all personal attacks against me at once! Andjam 12:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Would you consider weighing in?

Maybe, I'm not sure if my presence would be appreciated by the group. Funny thing this, in my real life (Europe), I'm more often than not on the pro-Israeli side in arguments, but around here it is like a Through the Looking-Glass experience. Ski resort???? That's very funny and very sad at the same time. Good luck. --saxet 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Although Jayjg and Andjam might have a point; all this political turmoil we read about in the newspapers just might be about the (secret) ancient feud between cross country skiers and downhill skiers. :-) Yeah, the strategy now seem to be to drown the article with nonsense, when that has been done someone will (correctly then) note that the article is nonsense, maybe to be merged into better articles. I could have sworn they were going to go after the title, claiming that the unpleasant atmosphere and that 'impulsive' move by El C would be grounds for a reconsideration, and while we all were reconsidering we should (temporarily of course) let the article have a more 'neutral' title like; Disputed areas in and around Israel. Regards. --saxet 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll await, though it looks like someone trying to make a point, which should be done in talk pages, not in articles. Cybbe 18:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You look to be holding your own right now - will add it to my watch list Unbehagen 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and I think he knows that perfectly well. If he and Andjam keep at it I'll have a word with them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried for a compromise version. Sure include the fact. But let's give it a lot less promenance - because it's clearly WP:POINT.. Unbehagen 14:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, as you know, I generally agree more with you than I do with Jay on issues relating to how wikipedia should discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I think you really need to take a step back and think about the best way to get your ideas across and work constructively here. I don't hold to Jay and Slim's expansive view that any criticism of the conduct of an individual user constitutes a personal attack. But that doesn't mean that criticizing individual users for their conduct is something which ought to be engaged in except as a last resort. To an extent, at least, you seem to delight in calling out Jay and in making the argument one about Jay's conduct, rather than about the article content. I think this is usually the worst way to go about things in wikipedia. It is almost always more productive to listen to the complaints of your opponent and see if consensus can be reached by constructive edits to the article to try to address reasonable objections. I thought we did this fairly well in terms of the article opening, and it is always more pleasant to come to some kind of consensus than it is to win a bloody slugfest. It also usually results in a better article. Anyway, I hope you'll consider this in the future. (Note: these comments are not meant to suggest that you are the only one guilty of this) john k 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

At some point I will work on the Israeli-occupied territories article again, but right now for personal reasons my time available to work on Wikipedia is extremely limited. In general, I think the better approach (more likely to be successful) is to make a strong argument on the discussion page, as John Kenny did on the title issue, rather than going after Jayjg directly. I haven't kept up on the talk, but someone should point out, as a start, that the UN resolutions on occupation mention water resources, but say nothing about skiing. Brian Tvedt 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate insinuations and beyond(?)

My move wasn't 'impulsive' (or as paranoically suggested, its insidious opposite). I announced my intention to do so days in advance, there was no convincing or appreciable opposition, so I did it. Obviously the article needed to have the word Occupied in it after being re-named to the inexplicable Territories under Israeli control. And the word occupied shall remain in it for as long as Palestine remains occupied, if I have anything to say about it (providing I'm around; undountedly, some here wish otherwise). All this assumptiveness does nothing but defeat from the work ahead; and same goes with all the unecessary acrimony & related spliovers. Of course the water issue outweighs the skiing one, both (and others) should be mentioned with all due emphases vis.a.vis (vital) national interests, but in order to get to the point of setting up such a framework (sections and/or subarticle designations and so on — what the debate right now should be on, it is currently ahead of itself), we need relative editorial peace, which is soarly lacking (unless things somehow changed in the last few days). I'm glad we got to the point where we have an accurate title, and I'm not just saying it because I was the one who came up with it (or borrowed it from EB, rather) & did the renaming; your OT(I) gave me the association of territories being occupied from Israel, and in that sense, not much more clear than OT(P) (!). Anyway, lot can change for the better with gestures of good-will, and such a process will greatly help to distinguish those who aim at positive improvements from the perpetually disruptive (if there are those in these debates; and of course, a debate is not at all the same as an entire talk page participation, I note as an aside, since there seems to be some confusion). I'm not saying this will happen immediately, I myself am not prepared to deal with that (or anything) for some time and am only writing this now, before this whole discussion becomes history. The Arab-Israeli & Palestinian issues suffer from systemic bias that favour pro-Israel views. I'v said that since day one of joining, and I say that now. Because it reflects the bias in Western imperialist culture, its propaganda, and therefore editorial composition and predisposition in its own leanings. Anyway, the record is clear that my orientation throughout has been much more so on the side of Zero and Mustafaa rather than Jay and Slim. But just because I think the latter two are deeply misguided on these (and also other) areas (as I also find you and most others on Wikipedia, in general; I'm sure the feeling is mutual and we need not and should not get into that), does not mean I think they are in favour of oppressing Palestinians. Nor should this disagreement prevent me from collaborating professionally as well as collegially with them and others whom I disagree with (with notable exceptions that go far beyond the scope of this), and I do. Nor does it automatically imply wrongdoing on their part, esp. in areas unrelated to the A-I/I-P conflict. As for me, obviously I take strong exception to and am protesting the insinuation made here alleging I conspire with them and others to maintain pro-Israeli bias, as it is so clearly divorced from the facts (which any editor who has been with those articles for at least a few months would vouch), the opposite is true. For the most part, we do not see eye to eye on these issues and avoid debating these outside of respective articles simply because it's unpleasent and unproductive. But, the bottom line, it's nearly-impossible to operate with all this negative energy that never seems to dissipate. And as a result, an intellectually honest and unbiased presentation suffers, because some are unable to emotionally restrain themselves from repeatedly resorting to personal attacks, simplistic schemes (as well as simplistic conspiracies alleging these, as expanded on above), which then ultimately prove self-defeating and work to perpeturate the bias, by expending so much needless energy in trying to defeat it. But to suggest that I would make ideological comrpomises for petty politics, friendship or any reason, has to be among the most insulting things I have yet to endure here (not the worse, though, by any stretch). I just read it now, hence the length and convolusion of this one-paragraph note. Thanks in advance for reading closely & critically. El_C 14:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You make me feel like I'm Public Enemy No. 1. :-) I read through your tangled (yet very poetic) paragraph and what I extracted is this:

1. Fighting systemic bias only perpetuates it.
2. Talking about systemic bias only amounts to unpleasantness.
3. Being specific about what/where is nothing but simplistic conspiracy theories.
4. You have been treated unfairly, and not with the respect someone as brilliant as you deserve.
5. And you, someone who knows what's good for the masses, was insulted by some lowly revolutionary.
6. You have always known that the word occupied belongs but didn't want to disturb the editorial peace by arguing about it.
7. The reason why you felt insulted by the suggestion that you have made ideological compromises was because it was so obviously wrong, which everyone knows (without a shadow of a doubt).

Thing is, I believe you could be a truly great voice here on WP, if you could only forget about the poetry and your reputation for a second and dared to be bold; you know that there is no field beyond right and wrong. [5] You'll be rid of me any day now so I'm not the problem - you are. Regards. --saxet 06:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Fighting systemic bias through personal attacks and sarcastic, knee-jerk innuendo and acrimony only serves to perpetuate it.
2. Talking about systemic bias outside of areas that pertains to it only amounts to unpleasantness and is unproductive.
3. Being specific about what/where is leads to nothing but simplistic conspiracy theories without close reading of the pertinent history.
4. You have been treated unfairly, and not with the respect someone as brilliant as you deserve. without provocation, by simply asking for evidence regarding charges of sockpuppetry abuse waged by DT against Jay.
5. And you, someone who knows what's good for tries to struggle on behalf of the masses, was insulted by someone lowly revolutionary. who you percieved as being disruptive in failing to provide evidence for serious charges (which no one seem to have been taking DT to task for; just like no one was doing anything about renaming the Territories under Israeli control title when the conditions were opportune – such decision-making can only be the product of self-aggrendization).
6. The reason why You felt insulted by the suggestion that you have made ideological compromises was because it was so obviously wrong to state this was the case in light of your actual record in editing this set of articles, in general, and the Israeli-occupied Territories one, specifically., which everyone knows (without a shadow of a doubt).
7. You have always known that the word occupied belongs but didn't want to disturb the editorial peace by arguing about it., you have argued about it, and when you saw the opportunity of clear consensus you cited (again) authoritative sources, finally declaring your intention to rename the article, then following through. You were in no special position to influence the prior title beyond making the protests that you and (the unaccused) others made (except that's not all you did on Wikipedia, in terms of both protests and contributions).

In no particular order, but opting for point form: 1. I guess renaming the article wasn't bold enough, I still fail to see how I could be more bold. And how is it that I wasn't involved in the discussions? I was involved, in fact (do I need to cite diffs?). 2. I don't do poetry, I cite it and I am inspired by it. I aim for clear and concrete and precise communication, that I often fail, with it coming across as (bad) poetry is inadvertant and can be attributed to a veriety of factors. 3. My concern with my reputation as alleged co/conspirator (even in an institutional sense, forget the curde simplicities of your so-called 'impulsiveness') is understandable. I'm not going to confront systemic bias in a way that will consume me, as they did Comrade Shorne. I will try to approach it in a way that would enable me to do as much as I can with the time I have. I'm not about to enter into a polemic with Jimmy Wales et al. about objectivism being un-objective or his "strong pro-Israel views," whatever that means. You may find that to be a productive use of my time, I beg to differ. More generally, with these articles, I'm also fighting bias on two fronts, against the overemphasis on the I-P conflict in the mainstream media and pedia. I realize it's important, but ~5 million people died on the DRC in the last few years. I see a lot less attention on my watchlist placed on that conflict, for example. So that is a part of the struggle for me also. One cannot adhere to a revolutionary stance without such an internationalist basis (I did not and would not say emphasis, but still, as a fundamental basis of solidarity). 4 I don't aspire to be a great voice, because in order to get to that point I would have to make ideological compromises. I do aspire to be a progressive one. 6. I'm trying my best under rather perilous conditions, actually, I find. You think I'm the problem, but I challenge that you have not fairly reviewed my work, am prone to kneejerk assumptions and hasty conclusions. I'm not going to offer any apologies for not involving myself with battles I know I'm going to lose. I'm against waste. 7. I'm not going to enter into moral philosophy because I have no use for moral philosopy. Human potential concretly, not teleology and deontology in the abstract poetic field. 8. As for getting rid of you, I'm not going to become involved in any measures or discussions relating to your conduct if these arise, anywhere, to anyone. You can choose to believe me, or not. 9. I would appreciate some benefit of the doubt, seeking clarifications which aim at a deeper analysis, prior to accusations and incivilities. 10. I could say that I might have been making positive contributions which, from what it sounds like, you would approve of, had it not been for the energy you've drained me of in these and other exchanges, but that's not actually the case. I have endured much worse recently, personally as well as on Wikipedia. And, as for the latter, at least I'm speaking to you. I don't believe in an eye-for-an-eye, so if there has been one major flaw with my responses to you following your initial assuming-the-worse answer, is that I did end up approaching it that way. I'm far from without character flaws (understatement), but all my broader points stand nonetheless. I urge you to try being more thoughtful (if not diversified) about your own struggle to combat bias on Wikipedia, with an emphasis on practical results. By failing to do this, you are, in fact, proving to be the problem, in this sense (far from limited to little ol' maglomaniac moi). Please reconsider your attitude, overall tone and overtones. If you have any specific concerns about the role you think I play, all you have to do is ask. Without acrimony, sarcastic and acerbic innuendo, accusations: straight-forward and to the point. I think that's a reasonable proposition, but the effort needs to be reciprocal, and on that note and with all that said, I hope you will reread not only this comment but my prior one also, in light of those explanations. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! This was what I was looking for earlier. [6] You'll be rid of me soon because my real life situation require that I don't spend time on WP (or any other sites). I agree with you that A-I/I-P is only one area out of many that needs attention; there are multiple reasons why I chose this issue, the reason I didn't get involved in the others was lack of time. Like you, I don't aspire to be a great voice - as much as I admire people like Hammarskjöld, Allende, and also Giovanni Falcone I don't have their courage and patience (or intellectual qualities). From your user page et cetera I thought that our viewpoints weren't all that different (main difference being that I'm a somewhat revolutionary social Democrat, and not a Marxist) - that's why I was surprised by some (not all) of your edits. You don't approve of my conduct, and I think I understand how you're reasoning - I could say AGF, but it's just words anyway. The reason I wanted to scratch the Rolls-Royce with my key was to make a tiny crack in the wall (LC poetry: "that’s how the light gets in"). I'm sure I could have conducted myself in ways that would have been more beneficial to the purpose of WP, but I'm not really sure I agree with the purpose, etc. [7] However, it seems like I have made some wrongful assumptions regarding your philosophy and I sincerely apologize for that. --saxet 18:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And you continue to make wrongful assumptions, philosophically. ;) An extremely potent remedy is Jack London's literary masterpieceThe Iron Heel. Read it from beginning to end and you shall earn much (much) credit from myself as the ultimate assumption and expression of goodfaith; and you will realize the true context of how we should Remember Allende (at least he died with a rifle in his hands; naive but sincere and true to the masses). I'll try to revist your last comment on, again, a 10-lines per sentence hopefuly soon to better expand on what I mean as per my first sentence (even on some פרות קדושות, i.e. "the system is very strong," but so is the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions). But for now, I'll just say: your apology is accepted, gladly. El_C 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

zionist terrorism

The usual suspect are now trying to raise an RfC against me on zionist terrorism - would you care to take a look? Unbehagen 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote

Marsden, I saw this and thought your input would be valuable: Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote. I haven't looked at it closely enough to involve myself there yet, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Yes, I appreciate Vizcarra's efforts there. Notice that none of my edits were reverts. I took a look at the conflict happening and saw that neither version listed direct quotes, and my edits were intended to rectify that. I think there's a better format for presenting the POV and counter-POV instead of adding the commentary to the passages, but I'm not necessarily completely opposed to the way Vizcarra is doing it.

The better way, imo however, is to list the quotes directly without context, because the point is not to convince the reader to consider whether these passages actually are or aren't antisemitic; the point is to present which passages are seen to be anti-semitic from the POV of those who think they are. And it's often the case that people who interpret passages a certain way don't consider the context, indeed it may even be that many come to hasty conclusions about it precisely *because* they don't consider the context. This is why I think that presenting the context as part of the presentation of the POV describing which verses are seen as antisemitic is actually an obstacle, too much qualifying. We're not trying to present the "real meaning" of the verses, but rather the perception of people who interpret them negatively, which as I pointed out, doesn't necessarily take context into account. Where context should come in (I believe) is in the followup presentation of the POV that counters that these passages are not antisemitic (context in this case is part of the counter-POV argument). In summary, it should be presented this way: POV1 finds the passages x, y, z to be antisemitic; POV2 counters that these passages are not antisemitic because ...(1) context, (2) other reasons, etc. An analogous situation would be with Talmud quotes. Many nonJews take offense by certain verses in the Talmud (and similarly, many nonMuslims take offense by certain passages in the Koran). If I were to neutrally present this, I would use the same formula I gave above. Any contextualizing would happen in the counter POV, because people offended may not be (and in fact are likely not) considering the context, just basing perceptions on the direct text. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)