User talk:G-Dett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, G-Dett, 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!  Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My Rfa

I'm going for adminship! Take a vote, please :) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MiddleEastern‎ -- MiddleEastern 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't let Jayjg BS you

South Africans apply the term of Apartheid to Israel and nobody else. Their expertise should be considered. They know the facts and what the conditions are when they encounter them. Jayjg is a Israeli POV editor that seeks to distort the truth on this subject.69.209.222.112 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is Kiyosaki. CJCurrie 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

I left a note at talk, but you did not respond. Unless you self-revert soon in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, you may be reported for violation. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 12, 2006 to Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail (why do people never talk on their talk pages?)... you missed [2], which is odd, cos its one you were reported for William M. Connolley 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response William. I didn't post on my talk page because I assumed the block on editing extended everywhere. The edit you bring up was not a revert. It posted the same material with a different source. This is an essential distinction and not a quibble, because the material itself was never in dispute; only the sourcing was. As I can't imagine you'll be checking my talk page to continue this discussion, I will send a copy of this post to your mail. Thanks again for your prompt response.--G-Dett 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a revert, by the definition of revert William M. Connolley 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It added no previously disputed material. It's pretty contentious over there. Other editors objected to a source being non-RS, so I gave a different one. I was counting reverts, didn't know that this could qualify as one, and wouldn't have posted it if I did know. I generally discuss edits at great length on the talk page, as you'll see from my contribution history.--G-Dett 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll accept it as a genuine mistake & unblock you. In future, you're better staying on the safe side though. Try WP:1RR. Dont edit the article until your time would have expired William M. Connolley 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No I won't... the block has expired... William M. Connolley 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all the same William.--G-Dett 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Getting rough at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Hi,

The current engagement doesn't look to me to be too productive. Best to stick with the points, (especially when you are right) and let the changes come slowly. If you think you see double standards, it won't do to argue against them. Simply argue what is right in each case.

AGF they say. Really, you can assume as much bad faith as you'd like, but you need to act as if all was in good faith. That keeps the tone surprisingly civil. So, if you find an edit summary to leave out crucial information, and it looks like it must have been intentional, just complain about the missing information and keep the intention to yourself. If it is so obvious that lots of other people must see it, then they will, without help.

Sorry, I don't mean to lecture. But I'd hate to see you get in trouble when you could be productively editing. Jd2718 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Happy New Years. I often give advice that I wished I could follow. A small part of my job is adversarial; if I could follow my own advice, I would be more effective. But New Years resolution? Nah. I am as nice as I am, not more, not less. I'm just learning to be careful of all the rules around here. It's easy to get goaded into breaking them. And, for the record, I thought you were arguing a bit at the editor, not the topic. That seems understandable, though unnecessary, but certainly not bitchy. Jd2718 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi G-Dett -- Just curious if you had any thoughts regarding my suggestion at the bottom of Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I think you share my concerns, but I'm not sure if you've offered another solution. Best, Mackan79 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you as well. I have noticed a less negative tone to your comments; let's both work on that. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA Warning

This [3] crosses the line. You need to cease making comments like this and adhere to WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken, FeloniousMonk.[4]--G-Dett 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

Hey, thanks for the support on the Apartheid page. I think we've made some good progress. Your comments, also, are spot on, as well as informative (you clearly know more about it all than me).

You probably didn't see I got blocked the last couple days. You might want to check out my talk page -- word of caution, at least. Best, Mackan79 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cole Mediation

Hi - thanks for your comments and kind words - I've directed the users on the mediation to your comment, and will try to incorporate it somewhere if I can find the time (or just copy-paste onto the mediation :)). Thanks again, Martinp23 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

Your recent discussion on the Cole mediation page contains some pretty strong language:

  • "the Karsh slur"
  • "ten words of puffery for Karsh's academic position"
  • "rank propaganda"
  • "smear campaign against Cole"

Please note that there are editors who in good faith feel that Karsh's statement is NOT a slur, but a valid criticism of Cole's blog work, that Karsh's academic position is not irrelevant and describing it is not puffery, that we don't view his words as propaganda but as a valid critique, and that valid criticism of Cole on his page in no way consistitues a "smear campaign". Even on a talk page, it would be nice if you could use more neutral langauge when characterizing other's beliefs. Wikipedia is about people with different beliefs and POVs coming together to edit articles which will ultimiately contain a variety of POVs expressed in a neutral way. It is difficult for me not to be distressed when my beliefs and POVs are characterized in such an insulting way.

Also, an inaccuracy. You also say that there is, "no mention of the name of the publication that printed the slur," while it is clearly there in the references for anyone to see and has in no way been obscured.

Finally you say that, "there is no response from Cole," on the page as it stands now. Had Cole written a letter to the NROnline replying to Karsh's points after Karsh actually made them, then that certainly would have been included in the article without any difficulty. The fact that he only replied on his blog, MONTHS after the Karsh piece came out, only AFTER the quote was put on Wikipedia, and with a preface that made it clear that he was replying to his Wikipedia entry as well as to Karsh is what made the inclusion of the reply problematic:

"Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole: An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me."

.

Clearly we disagree, but honestly there's no reason to disagree in a way that is so hostile and judgemental of other POVs. Elizmr 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that Cole is a renowned blogger, one would have thought that a response on his blog could be taken seriously. He explains in his blog why he didn't respond to Karsh's smear. Why should he have? It's transparently bullshit to anyone with the least acquaintance with Cole. Writing a letter to the NROnline would only legitimate it. In any case, Karsh is not actually so far as I can see an expert on Cole, nor even an analyst of antisemitism. His academic background is of no relevance at all so far as what is described in the article is concerned (even though in the wider context, his attack on Cole's credentials makes his own of note). I'm very much opposed to the notion that "experts" should be allowed as sources for areas in which they do not actually have any expertise just because they hold a doctorate and an opinion. In this regard, Karsh is just some guy with a grudge against Cole. No balanced biography of Cole would bother mentioning that he smeared Cole. Why would it? It has not garnered much attention elsewhere. I'm afraid that there is every reason to disagree strongly with those who want it included, and I do so in much the same terms Cole himself does. It is a major weakness of Wikipedia that a determined and quite small group of editors can strongarm an article into presenting its subject in a particular way. Grace Note 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that someone who believes claiming that the Protocols resonate in Cole's writing is a "valid criticism" is deserving of if not hostility, then contempt. It's a quite outrageous thing to say about Cole. Equating a respected liberal commentator with neo-Nazis and the worst kind of antisemites is disgraceful. I don't believe there is any need to describe people of that kind with "neutral language". Blackening a man's name by linking him to the worst is precisely what a smear is! Grace Note 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, I don't want to parse substance of your views (however you might note that National Socialism was considered a liberal movement at its time), but please note that Wikipedia guidelines about neutral language are there for a reason, and we all need to follow them. Elizmr 11:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Elizmr, it'd be nice if you'd keep the reductio ad hitlerums off my talk page. You want me to use neutral language, and tell me to avoid words like "smear." The neutral word for a smear is a smear, whether it's the kind Karsh unleashed in the New Republic, or the kind you're trafficking in right here, right now.--G-Dett 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I never heard of that one. I was only responding to GraceNote who left a note on your user page about my reply to you. I found her reply to be very attacking and troubling and should not have even replied back and I apologize for doing it on your user page. However, what I said was true, the national socialists did consider themselves liberal and therefore there is nothing mutually exclusive between being liberal and being antisemetic. Elizmr 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries Elizmr. Anyway I retract the pompous admonition – you can write whatever you like here. After all, one of the first and still most prominent things on my user page is praise from some crank's sockpuppet after he got kicked off of Wikipedia for antisemitism. My first and only fan, yikes.
You're right that there's nothing mutually exclusive historically between liberalism and anti-semitism. These are historical variables; their trajectories have crossed paths in the past and may do so again. "Nazi" and "neo-nazi" on the other hand are more firmly anchored in historical contexts, and don't travel well outside of them. When one starts throwing all these constants and variables and real numbers into loose association, however, and comes up with crazy rhetorical equations between Juan Cole and neo-nazis, or between human-rights-based criticism of the foreign policy of modern states on the one hand, and paranoid-conspiratorial hoax-mongering about a vulnerable ethno-religious minority in the 19th century, on the other, then what you get is sophistry. History as collage, rooted in specious arts of persuasion borrowed from the advertising industry, rather than any serious dialectic. And if you're a professor who's looking for a market for this kind of concoction, don't bother with the peer-review journals – send it right to the New Republic. They pay better and they're uh, liberals as well after all.--G-Dett 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia guidelines

A quote from the NAS page talk page, "I must say I'm accustomed to special pleading, double standards, and aggressive wikilawyering from these editors; what seems new however is the persistent shoe-horning in of bad-faith misrepresentations". Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Elizmr 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message. I see what you mean; I should stress, though, that I didn't mean my comments criticise the three editors whose edits I mentioned. It was more just to bring out that there were hasty words all round, and a good start would be for everyone to take a deep breath and start again. I've been in the same position, so I'm not trying to take some moral high ground; it's just that it's always easier for someone outside the debate to make that kind of point.

Anyway, I hope that I can be of help in this. There are obviously good editors on both (all?) sides of the debate, which is a good start. It's just a matter of finding compromises, or even agreement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism

Hi G-Dett. The paper with the title "Progressive" Jewish Thought & The New Anti-Semitism may deserve it's own article. There is a lot of discussion about it even though it is such a recent publication. Over 10K google hits and many commentaries. Maybe you could get a few others to help flush it out. --70.51.230.180 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You really should create this article, because you can further the discussion you want to have more easily around this article than on the New Anti-Semitism article. Remember that time is precious and you have a choice on where you spend it. --70.51.230.180 00:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Some of the disputes on the NAS page are so ludicrous, and some of the objections raised so obviously doomed to fail, that I wonder whether draining the energy of specific editors isn't part of the point.--G-Dett 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IJV

Hi G-Dett -- Thought: Maybe someone should just write up a proposed section on the IJV formation, and then we could talk about whether the section was relevant. That might help focus the debate. Would you be willing to do that? It sounds like you've read much of the material. My feeling, as I suggested in the new section I started, is that it's relevant simply by presenting the primary criticism of the NAS theory, and particularly in response to alleged stifling of Leftist, and possibly Jewish Leftist voices. It strikes me as a very clear response to the "New Antisemitism" concept (the topic of the article), whether or not to the specific phrase. Anyway, if we had a proposed section, I simply think it might be easier to discuss. Your thoughts? Best, Mackan79 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to give input, I just haven't looked at it that closely yet. Also I think I'll be out till later this evening, but I'll check in then. As I think I said over there, I'd put it in the responses section, as one more response. E.g., "Some groups have responded by arguing that the concept improperly conflates fair criticism with antisemitism," etc. I'll try to look through the material more carefully tonight. Best, Mackan79 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input wanted

Since you was active in the original discussion that motivated the branch-out into it's own article you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22#Antisemite (epithet) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 22#Category:Pejorative political terms. // Liftarn

[edit] List of references

By the way. Do you still have that list of references about the use of antisemite as an epithet? // Liftarn

Nevermind, I found them.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] // Liftarn

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your support regarding SlimVirgin's and Jayjg's traducing of my comments. I have asked both of them on their talk pages to discuss the matter in an attempt to resolve the issue. —Ashley Y 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, I'm a "he", though it doesn't really bother me...) —Ashley Y 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks here as well for the continuing kindness. Also, though, did you see that Slim and Jay are trying to delete your comment about their conspiracy allegations?[5] If they continue I think I'll file an AN/I, but I thought I should let you know about it first. Best, Mackan79 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, how's it going?

So I finally decided to put my two cents into the Israeloi apartheid debate. I wanted to ask you, bsed on your long history of working on that pagem what we would have to do to get Allegations of Israeli apartheid moved to its proper title Israeli apartheid. Can I just go ahead and start an article under that name? Should we move the existing article to that name? How cna it be done, because this "allegations" bs in the title is so weasal wordy, it's just got to go. Tiamut 14:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Taimut. My thoughts on the title of that article are here.[6]

--G-Dett 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 5 or 6 of us that would be willing to propose this, I say we all declare our intent and then move the page! This has gone on for far too long, Israelis like User:Okedem cannot be allowed to censor Muslim, Socialist and Arab editors! --MiddleEastern 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey G-Dett. Your comments were really well-articulated on the talk page, and while I fully see your point on the use of "allegations" actually making it seem like a legal issue (which it is), I just can't abide by this kind of weasal wording. And not because of the potlicis, but because if Wikipedia really wants to produce a serious encyclopedia there has to some standards that are applied evenly across the board. I'm going to support the page move (I know you have said you will too, despite your preference to focus on the content for now, having been through that debate earlier). I hope this time, reason rather emotion, prevails. Tiamut 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My support is assured.--G-Dett 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by User:MiddleEastern

As you surmised, I reverted this user's edit to your talk page because we do not allow candidates for adminship to advertise their RfA in that way. Since User:MiddleEastern's RfA has now closed it doesn't matter if the edit remains here or not. Thanks, Gwernol 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg removed my warning on his talk page

Hello, since you are (involuntarily) involved in the dispute regarding jayjg's accusations of antisemitism (on the Talk:Israeli apartheid page), I would kindly like to ask you your opinion of this. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and now its my turn

I believe you once invited me to join the discussion at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Now I would like to invite you to join in developing Separation policy (Israel), if you are interested. During the course of the discussion at the allegations of Israeli apartheid page, it struck me that the evidence indicating that there is a "separation policy" (reliably sourced and in English) is readily available. This naming of the thing is also less controversial (apartheid isn't in the title) and easier to document. That is not to say that Allegations of Israeli apartheid should go. No. There should be an article outlining the use of the term Israeli apartheid (per the model we discussed for Islamofascism), and perhaps there should even be another page called Allegations of Israeli apartheid that explores the apartheid system as it extends beyond what is documented of the separation policy. Anyway, thought you might be interested. Tiamut 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I merged the information in Separation policy (Israel) into the Hafrada article where I should have added it in the first place. Take a look and let me know what you think. Tiamut 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's as if this one were designed with you in mind (though others no doubt await to be bestowed upon you as well

The Barnstar of Good Humor
for considering almost everything and everyone with the same respect and critical judgement while eloquently and throughly putting forward your contributions and keeping everybody smilingTiamut 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


PS I loved your Alice-related observations. Tiamut 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work and don't let the Zionist POV pushers mess with you too much. 72.88.150.237 06:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/-/d/User_talk%7EG-Dett_c67e.html"