VanishedUser sdu9aya9fasdsopa (talk | contribs) →List of International subsidiaries of IBM: new section |
|||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
thanks [[User:Decora|Decora]] ([[User talk:Decora|talk]]) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
thanks [[User:Decora|Decora]] ([[User talk:Decora|talk]]) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Your email to Noisetier about Ceedjee == |
|||
Hello. |
|||
The law of my country forbids me to report your email here. So I don't post this. |
|||
That is a good thing that you are not from JIDF or any other group of pressure. They threathened people of ...death... No less. So, there is today an absolute discredit on any Israeli or Jewish editor due to these gentlemen. Their behaviour is a far more dangerous and harmful problem that the one on which you focus today. |
|||
Unless of course, you support them, I can harldy understand your motivation. |
|||
I am quite sure Ceedjee came from France. I come from Switzerland. He made a great job on the French-speaking wikipedia with some FA-articles. Nice. I am happy for him. I see that he has not edited here and there for more than 1 year. Was he blocked ? I didn't hear any issue with him. Why don't you email him ? |
|||
I only have this account. No other. And in any way, nothing prevents multiple accounts. The only thing that is forbidden, is abuse and [[WP:CU]] is only performed in such circumstances. Did I perform any abuse ? None. |
|||
Do you want to know more ? Pardon my uncivility (which I will rather call "direct tone") but who are you ? Where do you edit from ? What is your real name ? Why do you take care of me ? You didn't contact me about the encyclopaedia or a content issue (1st pillar of wikipedia !). You didn't contact me about 2nd or 3rd pillar. About the 4th one ? Was I uncivil ? So what do you expect ? On which wikipedian principle do you justify this contact with me about my identity ? A "witch hunt" ? Which pillar would this be ? ... |
|||
I [[wp:AGF|assume good faith]]. You should be a good guy who wants to focus on content issues on wikipédia and who fear a pro-Palestinian bias on wikipedia. Good motivation. But until there are Israeli (or Jewish) people who chase other on wikipedia, threat them to death, you will have to carry your "part" of suspicion. I am really sorry for this. Don't hesitate to solve problems with them. Some maybe on the computer next to yours. |
|||
My conclusions : feel free to contact me for any encyclopaedic, content, npov or verifiability issue related to the israeli-palestinian conflict on the historical point of view. I am quite strong with that. For the remaining, I cannot help. |
|||
[[User:Noisetier|Noisetier]] ([[User talk:Noisetier|talk]]) 08:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:55, 29 September 2010
Welcome
|
no sig
- You forgot to add your sig when you templated User talk:Shoplifter. • Ling.Nut 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. thanks. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Before giving me a warning, you should've taken a look at the talk I had with Mhazard9 on the issue (which I presume you didn't, since you didn't mention it). Also notice that I intentionally limited myself to three reverts for this reason, even though named user at first refused to cooperate or even discuss the issue.
- Moral of the story: It's easy to throw around warnings; it's harder to have good reasons for them. Shoplifter (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a very good reason for the warning, it is spelled out here. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I respect that view, that there's no entitlement to three reverts (even though that isn't chiseled in stone). And, as you can see from the history, I did stop at three reverts, which was a few hours ago. The point I'm making is that you obviously weren't concerned about looking into the discussion I had with Mhazard9, and instead opted for giving a warning posthaste. Unnecessary, undiplomatic, in this case. But that's my view. Shoplifter (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- "A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a template message on their user talk page." (My emphases). That's the policy. And If I ignored it, I wouldn't have stopped at three reverts a few hours ago, would I?
- I respect that view, that there's no entitlement to three reverts (even though that isn't chiseled in stone). And, as you can see from the history, I did stop at three reverts, which was a few hours ago. The point I'm making is that you obviously weren't concerned about looking into the discussion I had with Mhazard9, and instead opted for giving a warning posthaste. Unnecessary, undiplomatic, in this case. But that's my view. Shoplifter (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a very good reason for the warning, it is spelled out here. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- tact
- ■ noun skill and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
- C17 (denoting the sense of touch): via Fr. from L. tactus 'touch, sense of touch', from tangere 'to touch'. Shoplifter (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)~
- No, I'm full aware that more than three reverts is grounds for a block. I'm also full aware that one does not automatically give out warnings for three reverts, which you apparently aren't. We won't get any further here, it seems, but let me end with a friendly piece of advice: If you want to police Wikipedia (and I have no objections to that), why not be a good cop instead of a bad one? Who listens and tries to discern the issue before swatting with the baton. Alas, given your asserted hopefulness to see me learn things "the hard way", I suppose that's asking too much. Shoplifter (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I looked through it, and I concede that I had misinterpreted the policy. I now see that what you did was the right, and moderate, thing to do. I apologize for being contentious. Shoplifter (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Merge}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
- thanks - but not clear to me what this is in relation to. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, for your kind comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
WPO
Somehow I don't think that the World Poker Open lacks notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
BLP
Hi HupHollandHup. Once I was blocked for calling an anti-Semite cartoonist an "anti-Semite" . At that time I had no idea what BLP is, and I was blocked with no prior warning. Of course it really did not matter because even, if I were warned, I would have called the things with their real names anyway. On the other hand a user, who compared Israelis to Nazis (on the same page) was not blocked, but only warned. So, yes, the edit summaries you referred to was a clear violation of BLP. The fact they were made in edit summaries only made the situation worse, but the fairness is rarely in the win on wikipedia. Good luck anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring at The Invention of the Jewish People
HupHollandHup: you have now re-added the same passage (or nearly the same one) into the article four times, regarding Plaut. Please wait to establish a consensus of editors on the talk page before you add the passage again. If not, you may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a correct reading of the situation - in each of the edits I made addressed the (constantly changing) excuses for the content removal - once by providing a new source, once by removing material that some claimed to be a BLP violation, and once to fix an inaccurate quote. I did this over a period of 4 days, while asking for input on the tag team reverting me over at WP:BLPN, and getting community input that their behavior was inappropriate. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's AN/I post, where your edits are mention. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not anyone used unkind edit summaries (which is what you posted about at BLPN) you still need to get consensus somewhere that Steven Plaut's opinion about this book is a net benefit to the article. You are eager that Plaut himself not be smeared, but have not expressed any concern about passing along Plaut's rather crudely negative opinion of Sand, which suggests that Sand is an anti-Semite. Why exactly is this interesting? Isn't Sand joining a very large group of Jews who are also considered anti-Semites by Plaut? EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I did not complain about "unkind edit summaries" - I complained about BLP violations. BLP is a fundamental wikipedia policy, and violations of it need to be dealt with harshly. You, as an administrator, should know better than to defend them. You are also incorrectly analyzing the situation: In direct response to the concerns some editors have raised about the negative comments made by Plaut about Sand, I removed those comments, leaving in the article only Plaut's opinions of Sand's book. I believe that this is not only just as interesting as a fawning review of Sand's book by an unknown, red-linked French intellectual , published on a BLOG (which you and those other editors so concerned about have no problems with) but required, according to our WP:NPOV policy. As an aside, may I inquire why you found it appropriate to warn me about edit warring, but refrained form issuing a similar warning to Malik, who reverted twice, within an hour, using a BLP-violating edit summary? HupHollandHup (talk)
- Whether or not anyone used unkind edit summaries (which is what you posted about at BLPN) you still need to get consensus somewhere that Steven Plaut's opinion about this book is a net benefit to the article. You are eager that Plaut himself not be smeared, but have not expressed any concern about passing along Plaut's rather crudely negative opinion of Sand, which suggests that Sand is an anti-Semite. Why exactly is this interesting? Isn't Sand joining a very large group of Jews who are also considered anti-Semites by Plaut? EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Recall
I'm sure if you think hard enough, something will come to you. Or you can re-read my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Metropolis
Hmmm... not sure what I was thinking there... definitely not vandalism. All I can think is that I was editing quickly and not paying enough attention to what I was doing. To err is human. Feel free to revert my edit. Thanks for pointing it out. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, as I said, I think I was simply not paying attention. Probably editing whilst still half-asleep. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Parasitic technology
I see that you proposed deletion of Parasitic technology. the PROD was disputed, and the article has now gone to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you. I didn't know that. I thought that I would try pushing back for a change. The user concerned was being so aggressive, posting repeatedly to my talk page, and his position was so absurd that it got under my skin. Conspiracy theories are as big a problem in the world as bullies. Also on Wikipedia. The problem is, your solution seems to be to allow bullies to bully people. I was bullied today by not one but by two users; the other is a user who I regularly see taking extreme positions and editing very aggressively. This has the effect of making me walk away from Wikipedia, often for days at a time. I suppose that this is what the bullies hope for when they edit and report people, as this one did. It is very effective. I have fun, when I have the time, editing inadequate pages like Southern Wall . But the behavior of some editors makes me stay away of most of Wikipedia's worst and most propaganda-driven articles. It just doesn't feel worth the unpleasantness. So, by and large, the propagandists and bullies win. And some of the worst pages and most absurd misinformation on Wikipedia stays up year after year. There really has to be a better solution.AMuseo (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again. I believe that I am beginning to understand how this place works. I will admit to some puzzlement over an editor's suggesiton on the noticeboard that the user simply delete my comments form his talk page. I had thought that part of the purpose of writing to an editor on his talk page was to create a permanent record of behavior.AMuseo (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Prior accounts
Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- No HupHollandHup (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
re Ambit Energy
Nothing to provide, actually. The version I deleted was an attack page, so I suppose the wrong CSD criterion was used. The version before that, deleted in April 08, was a puff piece that had no sources and was entirely glowing about the company, I would have said it was from a press release if it were well-written, but even press releases aren't that flattering. So any article you make would be far better made from scratch than from one of the deleted versions. --Golbez (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No objection at all, the previous versions were not deleted with prejudice. They were deleted based on the merits of the articles, not the subjects. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks Decora (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Your email to Noisetier about Ceedjee
Hello.
The law of my country forbids me to report your email here. So I don't post this.
That is a good thing that you are not from JIDF or any other group of pressure. They threathened people of ...death... No less. So, there is today an absolute discredit on any Israeli or Jewish editor due to these gentlemen. Their behaviour is a far more dangerous and harmful problem that the one on which you focus today.
Unless of course, you support them, I can harldy understand your motivation.
I am quite sure Ceedjee came from France. I come from Switzerland. He made a great job on the French-speaking wikipedia with some FA-articles. Nice. I am happy for him. I see that he has not edited here and there for more than 1 year. Was he blocked ? I didn't hear any issue with him. Why don't you email him ?
I only have this account. No other. And in any way, nothing prevents multiple accounts. The only thing that is forbidden, is abuse and WP:CU is only performed in such circumstances. Did I perform any abuse ? None.
Do you want to know more ? Pardon my uncivility (which I will rather call "direct tone") but who are you ? Where do you edit from ? What is your real name ? Why do you take care of me ? You didn't contact me about the encyclopaedia or a content issue (1st pillar of wikipedia !). You didn't contact me about 2nd or 3rd pillar. About the 4th one ? Was I uncivil ? So what do you expect ? On which wikipedian principle do you justify this contact with me about my identity ? A "witch hunt" ? Which pillar would this be ? ...
I assume good faith. You should be a good guy who wants to focus on content issues on wikipédia and who fear a pro-Palestinian bias on wikipedia. Good motivation. But until there are Israeli (or Jewish) people who chase other on wikipedia, threat them to death, you will have to carry your "part" of suspicion. I am really sorry for this. Don't hesitate to solve problems with them. Some maybe on the computer next to yours.
My conclusions : feel free to contact me for any encyclopaedic, content, npov or verifiability issue related to the israeli-palestinian conflict on the historical point of view. I am quite strong with that. For the remaining, I cannot help.