User talk:Paul111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Nationalism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.




Welcome!

Hello, Paul111, 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:

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!  - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Multiculturalism

My ' unclear/vague ' text did not need to be edited in such a way as to remove it ouright. Firstly, you forget to mention there have been 5 Race Relations Acts, and you assume their is only one. Secondly, you have not even bothered to create a page on them. I apologise for being so rude, but to be frank, that was the poorest edit I have seen. SnudgeB

I asked you several weeks ago to clarify the text on the Multiculturalism page itself. Please do.Paul111 12:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Paul111 What I mean is, is that the 2003 ammendment has been the most comprehenesive to date. the 1968 version did not include areas such as education and health, whereas the 2003 version did. Hopefully this answers your question. RSVP with what you think. SnudgeB

I asked you to clarify the text on the Multiculturalism page itself i.e. not on my talk page. I could not correct your version, because I still do not know what it is trying to say.Paul111 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White nationalism

The Greek theory about Mediteranneans being the "real" whites isn't mentioned in your version of the article. 87.203.191.237 07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at some info on the Dimopolous book, and he seems to be a Greek nationalist. Does he describe himself as a White Nationalist? That is the point, for this article. Do other white nationalists promote his theory as specifically white-nationalist?Paul111 10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK 87.203.227.114 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder of 3 revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul,

I doubt PinchosC's "warnings" have any basis. He has been extremely abusive to me. I strongly suggest you report his excesses. Thank you. DavidCharlesII 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, PinchasC's warning was quite correct. Paul111 violated 3RR on Zionism; Paul111 please don't do it again. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. An edit is made, it is undone by other editors who request sources, and then the request is fulfilled. It's common sense that the re-addition of the material with sources shouldn't count as a revert. --Anonymous44 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Zionism. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, even on a loose definition. Initial insertion of text does not count as a revert. Only 4 edits were made in 24 hours, including the initial edit, so at most 3 can be a revert, even stretching the definition. In any case, since you have been involved in editing Zionism-related issues, it is not appropriate that you should rule on disputes there. The Zionism article is prominent for its editorial disputes, and is extremely unbalanced. One of its defects is that it downplays the nature of Zionism as a European nationalist movement. Some of those were notoriously anti-semitic, and in any case nationalism generally has a bad image. For this reason, the authors of the present Zionism article want to avoid the description of Zionism as a nationalism, used by most theorists of nationalism. This has led them to delete even uncontroversial assertions about Zionism, (which most of them proibably support themsleves). Zionism , for instance, claims territory for a 'national homeland' for the Jews, that is a central feature. However 'territorial claim' might suggest land-grabbing, so it is left out of the introduction. In this way the article has been sanitised of almost anything that has negative implications, leaving an incomplete and distorted article.Paul111 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first version
first revert
Second revert
Third revert
Fourth revert after warning above
I have neved editied the Zionism article and in related articles never edit regarding whether was nationalist or not. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: "{{{1}}}"

Decline reason: "See below. Iolakana•T 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

3RR. Please just wait for the block to expire.

Request handled by: Iolakana•T 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove this template from your page.

[edit] zionism

Hi. Please take a look at the current edit conflict about External links at the Zionism article. I badly needed some balance and see that you were also interested in this issue, recently. I have found a few links to help balance the perspective in the external links section but its being reverted by another editor. I would appreciate your imput on the matter. I do not want to violate the 3RR rule, but feel that my edit does have support among other editors involved in the article, such as yourself. Thank you Giovanni33 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue.

I'd like to keep this as narrow as possible, and focus only on the links section. If you're interested, could I ask you to provide me with:

a) a few diffs illustrating reversions on the article page that reflect bias on the part of career editors there

b) (if you feel like it) specific instances of incivility or bias you encounted on the talk page there.

Thanks, BYT 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note on the Zionism article

Wholeheartedly agree, but an RFC must focus on specifics. Which documentable problems trouble you the most about this article? BYT 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, let's do this.

The problems you outline are indeed quite serious, and I agree that they need to be addressed. What I would like to suggest is that, beginning, say, Tuesday, you and I work together on that page to make a sustained, coordinated attempt to remedy the defects you've outlined. I will follow your lead. (Not available till Tuesday, though.) If we improve the article, so much the better. If we get shot down, hey, we made a good faith effort, and we can then move on to filing an RfC together. Fair? BYT 12:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the prospect of doing good work on the article is worth pursuing; recording such work and appealing it through the chain, even if it is shot down, is more likely to result in positive change. Please let me know if you reconsider. Peace, BYT 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic nationalism

I think the article's title is extremely POV but at the same time ambiguous. And the article itself has no references. Yes I would support a deletion at this point. Taxico 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Dutch people

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Rex 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop!

You might hold your own definitions of words, scolars however tend to agree. Germanic is a linguistic and cultural term. Stop removing it asa category from articles. Rex 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Germanic is indeed a linguistic term. That's why claims that the English people are a "Germanic people" are false, and that's why such articles don't belong in the category "Germanic peoples". (Apart from a minority of neo-fascists, no-one in England describes themselves as Germanic). Because of its misuse to promote a political agenda, I nominated the category for deletion, there are legitimate alternatives.Paul111 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You can nominate and think what you want, but this doesn't make it right, Germanic is a cultural and linguistic marker. The linguistic use alone makes the English a Germanic people (As English is a Germanic language) you generally stand alone in your point of view, where are your sources if I might ask?Rex 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take the issue to the English people article (or its talk page) since that is the appropriate place for it.Paul111 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop starting the same discussion 10 times.

You do not have to place the exact same message on every talkpage which falls into the Germanic peoples category. 1 is enough.Rex 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at every affected article was requested by user Arnoutf at Talk:Dutch people, and is the only way to raise the issue of placement in the category with the editors of each article. I earlier tried to simply take the articles out of the category, but in every case that was reverted by Rex Germanus.Paul111 10:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to show my support for paul111 that i agree that germanic peoples article should be deleted. Read sugaar's post on wikiethnic groups project page discussion, he has the same veiw to.--Globe01 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/User_talk%7EPaul111_588b.html"