User talk:Haber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Haber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jkelly 23:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 World War II 2 Comment 3 hello 4 WW2 5 Vandalism warning 6 Mediation re WW2 economic data 7 White Supremacist? 8 Complaint 9 Haber-my friend 10 Reply from MartinDK 11 3RR 12 Civility 13 WP:CIV again 14 Friendly Advice 15 to administrators 16 Discourage? 17 Apologies, explanations, and point proven, I think 18 "Racist moron" 19 Tarlis incident 20 RfC on Mitsos

[edit] World War II

It seems as if we keep reverting each other's work. I like my revision because I think it allows the text to flow more smoothly. Could you please explain your position on this? Green caterpillar 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You're changing the text for style reasons, making it longer and unnecessarily wordy. Readers are capable of processing "defeated" at the same time as they learn who the combatants were.Haber 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The "spin", which you humbly acknowledge as "crap", will become more prominent in historeography as the war becomes more of a distant memory and less effected by Allied propaganda. As with most things in life, neither side told the absolute truth, which lay somewhere in between. Only when one approaches different viewpoints and angles does the narrative completely make sense, unless we digress to the notion that the world is black and white and become calvinists in regard to good and evil, the reliable side and the fabricator. In modern times, the propagandist is never in the clear, nor is the straight-shooter. We have learned to question. Regarding the Iraq and US or Lebanon and Israel situations, we could just as easily assume the same. The points I illustrated were valid in the article: Britain's break in behavior, the Anschluss' lack of a relation to the outbreak of war, the situation between Germany and Poland, the Sudeten minority's lack of minority rights within Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia's inner tension, etc. Today we not only get the opposite POV of an event, but due to a distrust in the upper hierachy due to events such yes, the Holocaust or even Watergate, many times the third party view is endorsed over that of the governments. Times sure have changed, but if we reallly want to understand the past, we would be wise to apply these same standards. --Hohns3 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have a responsibility to question authority, but disagree with your methods. One does not arrive at the truth by simply blending the opinions of more than one authority. This style of reasoning has been discredited since the Enlightenment (though it is making a scary comeback). One looks at the facts, and forms an opinion only after understanding the facts. This "he said/she said" business is ok for the six o'clock news, but it's irrational and it inevitably slants toward the side with the more extreme claims. e.g. A says 1, B says 10. You say 5, but the truth is 2. Parroting the lies out of Goebbels' office without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true, is not likely to lead to NPOV. Haber 03:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good example, but who knows that truth is 2? You speak of the rhetoric of Goebbels, but what about your own rhetoric of "knowing the truth"? How do you, or anyone else know what really happened regarding any incident, not just World War II? We can only make educated guesses, nothing more. However, Allied propaganda has been taken as "truth" and repeated as such for so long. Old habits are hard to break, especially when they are introduced to the mainstream for the explicit purpose of not leaving our collective conscious (their version justifies everything they did, from bombing Germany into the stone age to getting involved in the war in the first place. War is a climaxed power struggle, though sometimes more, sometimes less.)

Say one side's pov is a 1 and the other an extreme of 10; each end (1 and 10) represents an absolute acceptance of that side's pov. Because there are too many inconsistencies in the Allied version, if we allow ourselves to take a chance and consider other views, you may start to realize that not everything the Germans had (or have) to say was "crap" - In fact, far from it. And with that, the answer starts to look more like a 4 instead of a 2, if a 1 represents the Anglo-Amer. pov. I think World War II has remained in the 1.5 range for quite a long time. (again, if 1 represents total acceptance of Ango-American World War II point of view).

Perhaps in this new era there will be less of "winner writing history" because it seems anyone can write it and we are free to form our own version based on the conclusion we reach after reading all samples (of course, if the internet becomes consolidated under corporate control, this will not be the case).

I don't want to go on a rant here, but I think I should mention something else: I've read some real whoppers that passed as scholarship regarding the war, but because they promote the "right" view, they recieve mainstream publishing. "Revisionism" isn't always revisionism, but to give you an example of bias, a colleague of mine has a (Russian) friend who has tried to publish Suvorov's "Icebreakers" in English and bring it to the states, to no avail. The book runs at $500 in English, less than $20 in its original Russian form. I don't necessarily agree with Suvorov's conclusions, but where is the open forum to at least read what he has to say and form our conclusion by how well he supports his thesis through documentation others overlook? Fair? This shows the bias in publishing that has made it very difficult to challenge the absurdity of a 1, even if not everything lines up.

"without stopping to think whether there is any factual basis for them, and deleting relevant facts that we do know are true..." after reading your revision, i think that pertains more to you than myself. --Hohns3 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)--Hohns3 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have time to get into it with you, but just believe me there is such a thing as truth. Sure, it's a human idea, limited by our senses, but on a practical level, we know a lot of things. Even complicated subjects can often be broken down into smaller, less contentious points of agreement. That's what I try to do here. I think that what disturbs you is that when the excuses are stripped away, the side with the exaggerated claims tends to look bad.

As for the conspiracy theory... I don't know what to tell you. You must be aware that in the United States, people are free to publish whatever they want. We have Mein Kampf sitting in bookstores. If it makes money, a publisher will pick it up. My guess is that the publisher your friend talked to didn't want to take a chance on an obscure old foreign book with a very limited audience. If your friend wants it that bad, he should self-publish it.

-Haber 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not sure I agree with you. I have studied the war and other related historical topics for most of my life and, I'll admit, went through some stages where I felt pretty strongly about one theory or two. The problem is so many of them draw from a relatively deep fact pool, yet they sometimes contradict one another in their abrupt conclusions. BUT perhaps we are not in disagreement afterall, because I believe the truth does exist, I'm not sure if I was clear about that. Whether we stumble upon it and are able to identify it as such is another matter. The only way we can gauge such factuality is collecting various evidence that leads us close enough that we feel comfortable to say "this is what happened" even though, there is always the possibility that we were completely off-base.--Hohns3 07:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Haber 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly give you the citations you are looking for, btw.--Hohns3 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems control of this article is held by the one paying the most attention to it. I'm currently involved in research that relates directly to some of the things we've discussed many months ago. I have a number of quality primary sources and this article is in need of citations. Anyway, I removed the "massing along the border" and "war rants" nonsense, but I haven't the time to thoroughly peruse and mark up the article. Please cite this source if it exists. Needless to say, the "War Rant" award goes to Churchill and the minority Conservatives, if you have been paying attention to primary docs.--Hohns3 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I thought you were gone forever. Reference of German troops massing on the Polish border in August 1939: http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4837140-110738,00.html. Haber 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello

hello, mr. haber how r u? i have seen ur user page and ur contribution. however, let me introduce my self. my name is mahadi mahmud. i am a new wikipedian. so, i dont know the rules and regulation of wikipedia quite well. so i need ur frindly help. howver, see u soon. keep well and keep smiling. --mahadi mahmud 08:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WW2

Well, we have been having some interesting discussions on the WW2 page. I was simply trying to do a wake up call on the intro, as I thought it could be improved. It seems to be changing rapidly at the moment, for the better, I hope. By the way, I never get upset, if people "call me out". It just means that they are getting interested in the "debate" sometimes. Anyway, I do really like some of your points about the quality of allied soldiers and generals over production. The truth is probably that both were important. I also appreciate that you stopped that poll that was going nowhere. Polls are only valuable, if one side has a big majority, and then the minority can see they may be incorrect. If its 50/50, best to kill the poll, as you did. Anyway, feel free to call me a prat at any time, and I might call you one too, if I get bored. Wallie 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning

Blanking serious material is vandalism and is unacceptable behavior by Wiki editors. Since you are new to Wiki this will be a first warning before being reported to Wiki as a vandal. Rjensen 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Deleting your chart is not vandalism. The chart is too detailed for an overview article, and it is of low quality. It lacks units, it's large, it omits important information, and its sole reason for existence is for you to reinforce a point that is clearly explained in the previous paragraph. Haber 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you're new here and not used to the Wiki policy of providing more information rather than less. (We're talking about 12 lines of text.) It is concise, covering only the major countries and it summarizes vast amount of highly relevant data. The economists and economic historians use it and many Wiki users have the business/economic education to use it. People uninterested in numbers can easily skip over. So please do not vandalize--if you have something to say about the data then please annotate the section with your evidence. Rjensen 02:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism warning is completely unfounded, and Wiki policy clearly is to keep articles within a manageable length. To any serious statistician this chart as it is presented is useless. It reports the nebulous variable "munitions" with no units, and omits Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary... all major Axis players at least on par with the mighty Canada. Furthermore, the WWII article does not have space to present all sides of the "Why did the Allies win?" question. It's POV to go on and on about industrial production which is only one factor among many. The article barely has space to tell what happened, and it really cannot do justice to the "why" question. I'm willing to let the two short paragraphs slide because they are mentioned in passing in most histories, but I think even that is bending NPOV a little bit. Haber 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation re WW2 economic data

I have requested mediation on this edit war via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 World War II Economic data Rjensen 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Haber, I am from the Mediation Cabal and am here to help with this dispute about the economic chart. There are basically two ways I can go about this, so I am offering both methods to the parties involved. The first way would essentially be that I consider the old arguments, along with any new ones that are presented, and render a decision. If you choose this method, please also agree that my decision will be binding, no matter the outcome. The second method involves a negotiation process whereby we will discuss the matter. If you choose the second, I would ask that you be willing to compromise. Please let me know on my talk page which method you prefer, or have another suggestion. LawrenceTrevallion 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I am sorry if I offended you. I examined the Cabal's policy, and realized that my offer of making it binding was a bit unusual and perhaps uncalled for. I apologize. Please view the talk page of the WWII article as I have started a discussion about the chart. LawrenceTrevallion 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I must ask that you not refer to Rjensen's work as "sloppy" and in need of "babysitting," as it violates Wikiquette good faith and civility. I understand and appreciate your concerns with the chart's appearance, but calling it "sloppy" does not help the mediation process. LawrenceTrevallion 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Haber, I understand you have some concerns about the graph's clarity. If a footnote was added to the chart, clarifiying some points, would this satisfy your concerns? (Along with improving quality of the graph's appearance?) LawrenceTrevallion 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree? Do you think that this project was well thought-out and carefully presented? Do you think that it hasn't required extensive feedback to get it to adhere to basic academic standards? I think forbidding the words "sloppy" and "babysitting" when clearly referring to substandard, incomplete, careless work is taking civility a little bit too far. I don't see how good faith applies to this at all. I do not believe, and have not said or implied, that his mistakes are deliberate. Haber 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Supremacist?

Please explain now, why you called me a White Supremacist. Subversive element 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Subversive_element is disgusting, and you are not as subtle as you think you are. Haber 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point out what especially you are so disgusted by on my talk page -- and how exactly this makes you think you can call me a white supremacist. I am clearly not in agreement with the other user on my talk page over political attitude - and just talking to him doesn't make me identical to him, you know. Maybe you never talk to persons with opinions different from your own, maybe for fear it will somehow magically compromise your point of view, but I do it because I like to discuss outside of groupthink. About not being as subtle as you claim I think I am: Not being subtle doesn't make me a white supremacist, either. I think you owe me an apology or a much more accurate answer as to why you attacked me like that, calling me a white supremacist. Subversive element 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I will not respond to threats. Go ahead and report me. User_talk:Mitsos, User talk:Subversive element, and Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#POV_tag speak for themselves. Haber 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to be honest: Your comments are a bit confusing to me. It is certainly not my intention to threaten you in any way. How, in your opinion, am I threatening you? By issuing an (adequately justified, in my opinion) NPA warning in compliance with WP policy? And how does any of the mentioned places give any hint whatsoever as to me being a white supremacist? We obviously do disagree on how they are "speaking for themselves". Finally, I assure you, I am not going to "report you" unless absolutely unavoidable. Let's try and work things out between the two of us, that's why I posted here in the first place. Subversive 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You came jackbooting in here demanding immediate answers and threatening to have my account blocked. It's obvious what you're about. Go to hell. Haber 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You called me a white supremacist on an article talk page. I'd just like to hear an apology or a good explanation for that because I can't think of any. That's all. I don't like being denounced and discredited like that, and it's against WP policy. I didn't "demand", I said "please". I never meant to threaten you in any way, I am not even an admin and I cannot block you. With your "Go to hell." however, you leave me no choice but to issue a second warning. Please read WP:NPA and please take this serious and let's just talk about it in a civilized manner. Subversive 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Please reply and let's talk in a civilized manner. Subversive 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Response is here. Haber 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

After reading a complaint, it did come to my attention that you did, indeed, commit a personal attack. I am therefore asking you, kindly, to please apologise to some extent to Subversive element; otherwise this is going to go nowhere. People who commit personal attacks, and the extremity of yours, will get you blocked in future cases, perhaps banned. For the sake of kindness, please apologise. Thanks, Kilo•T 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Subversive element has been blocked permanently. Haber 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks anyway. Kilo•T 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haber-my friend

As you can see, Haber, I'm back in action. I can not really thank you enough for your positive comments, which helped me out of a very black mood indeed. I was just so completely pissed that I though of throwing the whole thing over, caught as I am between Nazis, Stalinists and administrators, who seem to combine qualities found in both. The whole thing was just so arbitrary-no warning, no discussion, no explanation, nothing. I'm in the process of trying to register a complaint, but it's very difficult working through the bureaucratic Berlin Wall. I'm asking others for advice. Anway, I really value your Wiki friendship, and will assist and support you in any way I can in times-and battles-to come. My very best wishes. White Guard 00:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know the mood you're talking about well. Remember, whether we participate or not, Wikipedia will still be a very popular way for people to get their information about history. With those who remember WWII dying off, we can't afford to leave this medium to the revisionists. About the admins- they may have a few tools, but they don't own this project any more than we do. My recommendation, if your complaint isn't well-received, is to just let it drop and keep editing. We can still feel superior to them, influencing people out in the world rather than dealing with internal disputes all day long. See you around. Haber 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from MartinDK

I have given your comments a lot of thought today and I agree with you. The main reason I became discouraged was that while I don't consider people with long educations better people I do think that, when it comes to discussing specific topics, hard earned knowledge through years of education should be respected. I see a lot of nice and respectful admins here but I also see some that are 18-19 years old. How is a kid that age going to be able to settle disputes or judging whether a specific edit constitutes vandalism or an attempt to correct a serious error? The way Wikipedia seems to deal with this issue is to disallow any major edits before a consensus has been reached on the talk page.

BUT I agree with you that this should not deter us from correcting such errors and contributing to the most common reference on the Internet. It is our responsibility to participate in this process even if it is not always rewarding work.

I will do as you suggested, spend a few minutes every day editing and try to stay out of debates that cannot be settled. There is plenty of work to be done elsewhere without engaging in heated debates with people who just want to cause trouble. Hope to see you around though I doubt I will be engaging in the WW2 articles for a while. There are just too many emotions involved and too much controversy. So I will leave that to the people with more time and energy to spend here at least for the time being. But rest assured that your work is being appreciated and fortunately the vast majority of people born well after the war ended can understand why revisionist views holds very little value. Unfortunately it is the small minority of troublemakers who seem to be making the most noise. To stay calm in such a situation requires more patience than I got right now anyway. MartinDK 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back, and thanks for the words. You're right that patience is often tested around here, and in my opinion this veneer of NPA/AGF/Civility/etc. is simply producing more sophisticated behaviors, rather than more cooperative or civil. We'll do what we can. See you around. Haber 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've violated the 3RR rule by reverting four times in less than 24 hours at Animal testing. You may want to take the opportunity to revert yourself. If you don't, you may be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ok Haber 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

If you do not desist with comments about me I will report you for them. Comment on content, not the contributor - saying I am whiny is not on, whatever you may think. Why should I enter into debate with you when you refuse to be civil?-Localzuk^(talk) 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You obstruct, then recite the AGF/NPA/Civility tune and threaten to have people blocked at the slightest offense. Get a thicker skin. Haber 22:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Haber, but you seem to misunderstand what this site is. It is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. 2 editors have now stated that your edits are too wide ranging - this indicates that the users prefer the old version better and you should alter your proposal. Instead, you have launched yourself into a series of uncivil and borderline personal attacks (calling me whiny for instance). This is not the way things are done on this site - if you think I'm being 'obstructive' that is your perogative but do not make it personal and revert to attacks and uncivil language.

I am perfectly open to improving the lead on that article, as I have explained there, but a unilateral change followed by your method of argument (such as saying 'inadequate response on talk' in your edit summary) is not acceptable.

Don't take this is another case of 'point at the policy' like you seem to be assuming I'm doing, but if you take a look at WP:BOLD there is a good line in there that adequately sums things up: If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page and it goes on to say If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references... If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial. That pretty much states that, as SV and I have said, you should have discussed first. If you look through the talk archives you would see that there is a large amount of discussion on the topic of the intro - you should have seen that such a large change would be met with aprehension and, in this specific case, opposition.

Also note that you seem to be constantly saying that using policies and guidelines to support arguments is a bad thing. The policies and guidelines are there to aid with the creation and expansion of articles. They are created by reaching consensus between many editors. Simply invoking WP:IAR when you do not like the fact that your edit was reverted is not acceptable - it does not help the project, it just causes disruption and causes people to view your edits in a more negative manner in future.

Also, one of the things I have learnt on this site is that it does help if you take notice of people who have been here for longer than yourself - for example SV has been here for a lot longer than me, has helped write many of our policies and has a grasp on how things are done most effectively that it will take me a long time to gain. Of course, I don't mean that we should go 'oh they've been here a year longer than me so they must be right', but it should mean 'hmm, they have edited a lot longer than me, maybe I am going about things in the wrong way. Maybe I should discuss it with them'.

Remember, we should all try to leave our personal grudges and pov at home when editing this site. Both myself and SV edit from 'opposite' POV quite often, do you? Looking through your contributions to the animal testing article, I cannot see any.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't get past the first paragraph in which you accused me of being uncivil for the millionth time. Haber 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of being obstructive and then when I explain myself you make a comment such as that. I think that pretty much sums up your attitude to collaborative working. -Localzuk^(talk) 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Take some advice instead of dishing it for three seconds. If you're going to begin and end every single discussion with the "You're a jerk" hypothesis, then don't consider what you're doing to be collaborating. The admins will give you points for using the correct wiki-language. I won't. Haber 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well so far you have not really given me much to go on in terms of acts of good faith. My advice still stands - stop being confrontational. Your edits can be good but your attitude will likely get them ignored - people don't like being treated the way you are treating us. I'm sorry if you think I'm working with a pre-set mind on this but until you show some signs of good faith I do not see how else to treat you. I collaborate well with people who discuss politely, not with those who make wide ranging changes and then revert war, use uncivil language and personal attacks when they are reverted.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIV again

Haber, please don't accuse other editors of "whining," or make personal attacks on them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Advice

I hope this message stays on your talk page and actually gets through to you and isn't deleted by the net.cops who are surveilling you rather intensely. Wikipedia is heavily censored unless you want to publish pornography, gossip, or pictures of turds. Did you commit a Wikifelony like telling it like it is? :-) Anyway, you're 100% right about what you said on the Civility talk page. It's a bulls**** policy that I can only describe as reminiscent of a totalitarian nation run on political correctness. I used to contribute to Wikipedia. Now, I don't waste my time. You're already under such intense scrutiny, I suspect this is getting to be a joyless enterprise for you. The lowest common denominators and bullies with the most fortitude run this place, which explains why the content is so silly, unimportant, and lacking. Maybe you should close this account and make a clean start. I did that for a while, moving from account to account until suspicious admins would check my edits and ask me how I was making such "adept" edits if I were a newbie. That was f***ing unbelievable. My edits were sound, excellent even, but they had to get nosy. I also hated getting warning messages for basically nothing and having policy quoted at me with links included by little pipsqueaks and playground tattletales that need pantsed and given a good swirly. It's condescending and rude, and lots of people get off on it. I can't believe somebody accused you of having a problem with authority for suggesting that people say "please" and "thank you." That is civility in the real world. Barking orders isn't. BTW, SlimVirgin is one of the most heavy-handed admins when it comes to "personal attacks." You're on her s*** list, and she's going to keep at you until you're banned. She gets off on it, as she has no other purpose in life. I've got a good idea. There should be an unofficial policy on excessive or hysterical snitching, like they do in jail. First warning is a piece of cheese on your bunk. Second warning is a serious beat-down. Third warning is a shank in the guts or a d*** in the a**. I'm sure templates with illustrations could be made. Of course, anyone using them, even in jest would be blocked under NPA. You can't win for losing around here. If you wish to contact me to bitch or get advice, send mail to Pimposaurus.Rex at alum.dartmouth.org. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I have edited your comments slightly for word choice. I hope you don't mind. So far this has been my first and only account. I agree that the code of conduct is broken. I will do my best to work within the system for now. Thanks for the laugh too. I'm glad to know that my comments do not entirely fall on deaf ears. Haber 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, please don't discourage people from communicating with me on my own talk page. Haber 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. F*** off. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be wary of accepting "encouragement" from somebody who advocates beatings, stabbings and rape for something as trivial as Wikipedia edits. CovenantD 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a literal minded child moron. That's not a personal attack, as it is the bloody obvious truth. Didn't you see how I was joking above? Of course you did, but you chose to treat it as a threat for your own purposes. Again, I say, mind your own fucking business. I'm trying to talk to Haber, not you, you worthless pigfucker. There, you have your personal attack. Now be a faggoty ratty snitch and get me blocked so I can use another sockpuppet. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

He's using over-the-top language to screw with the hall monitors. Of course I do not advocate violence. But thanks for the tip. Haber 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See? He understands, and doesn't want interference or any trouble. He even censored my comments to toe the Party Line at Wikipedia. Leave him alone. Blame me, block me. I have other accounts. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to administrators

Do not block Haber! Bock Localzuk and/or me. Localzuk is a worthless fucking tool who is gunning for admin by being a hardass about rules and kicking a guy while he's down. He's also a child. Any adult would have refuted my claims of his childhood. Haber represents a minority opinion, but an important one, and he is particularly articulate. Leave him alone! He hasn't hurt anyone! Block my account if you must, as it doesn't matter, but I will fight to the last to defend this Wiki, which is supposed to be a fre exchange of ideas. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discourage?

No, I was trying to discourage incivility and personal attacks against other users (in this case SlimVirgin). Talk pages are not owned by any individual, the rules still apply even if you are just talking between yourselves.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, shut up and f*** off, you as*****. I'll be blocked, for sure, but you'll look stupid for chasing me. I'll just make another account. Wilhelm Clintonenberg 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And now you have been, because that comment was totally unacceptable. This is not USENET, and you simply cannot just abuse people. Please be more civil with your next account, if you won't with this one. And Haber, please do the same. Thank you. Snoutwood (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm, please avoid profanity as it is a bit tedious for me to clean up. Snoutwood, I'm not sure how much more "civil" I can be than I have been in the last day. If you have suggestions for improvement I would like to hear about it. If this is about something in the past then I humbly request that you talk to me first before passing judgement. Haber 06:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just a cursory opinion after having read the comments on this talk page, such as "go to hell," "screw with the hall monitors," etc. The purpose of being here is to create an encyclopedia; that requires polite, not reductive, discussion between users. It was also based on your accepting and encouraging comment from a user who was advocating and handing out prolific abuse, as well as saying that Wikipedia users should be beaten and raped as in a prison (comments that are so far outside the boundaries of what is acceptable that it's ridiculous). I am simply advising that you a) build, foster, and continue a polite and courteous manner of speech, and b) not to encourage or support such behavior. If you have been so in the last day, then great! That's brilliant. But looking at this page I'm sure you can see why I might be concerned. Snoutwood (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. Obviously our styles differ but you did manage to admonish me without using the word "civil" or referring to a single Wikipedia policy, which I can respect. Regarding the "Go to hell", if you're curious you should do a little research on Subversive Element. Suffice it to say he was racist, was very disruptive, and self-destructed shortly after his encounter with me, going out with a blaze of profanity and harassment. Anyway good luck and I hope you enjoyed your visit to my talk page. Haber 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies, explanations, and point proven, I think

As you can see, you were completely right in your comments. I apologize for the profanity, but I was proving a point. I'd suggest you scrub your talk page. You can do that, since I'm a permabanned user, and what I wrote is considered vandalism. It's pretty easy for me to get around bans, so I can be a thorn in Wikipedia's side for years to come. Really, you shouldn't try to find out who I am, and you should disavow all knowledge of me. All the best, Wilhelm Jagr Klintonenberg 16:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't actually been permabanned. You've just been asked to be polite, and have been blocked to emphasize that. If you will be courteous, then you won't be blocked. I hardly see that as anything onerous. Snoutwood (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. We'll continue to try to make the encyclopedia better. Haber 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Racist moron"

Don't make personal attacks on other people. Be carefull because you might be blocked. About "Incident at Tarlis", it was created by a user who is using WP for propanda. He has created many articles like that, and were all deleted. Mitsos 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Buzz off. Haber 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarlis incident

The original versioh of the (now deleted) article Tarlis incident relies on a single source. The source is a book, and the page(s) where the incident is described is/are not mentioned. In the book, the original sources of the report should be mentioned (it is not thinkable that Ms Τούντα-Φεργάδη was present when the incident happened).

I am convinced that there are many other articles on human rights violations that are not based on reliable sources. Inclusion of reliable sources is especially important for human-rights violation incidents because of the sensitivity of the subject.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern that this encyclopedia not become a catalogue for poorly-sourced human-rights violation incidents. At first it seemed to me from the zealousness of the response to this allegation that maybe it is something that is talked about in Greece and Bulgaria, and that if so there is probably a reliable source out there somewhere. I would not be opposed to having the Greek version of events in this article as long as you can find a source, but I can also see why no article may be preferable to a poorly sourced article. I've been unable to find a really good source myself, so I won't try to recreate the article unless something changes. Haber 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mitsos

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)