User talk:Isarig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1: 2005 - 2006

[edit] Juan Cole Revert

This article is "under mediation"? The mediation's been dead for a while. And I'm not forcing POV onto the page; I'm removing a section which merely repeats allegations made by Karsh in a particularly desultory article. Hardly a good source for such a statement, and furthermore hardly notable. The article cited paints Cole as if he were some lunatic spouting theories of a world jewish conspiracy. I've actually attended lectures by Cole at the University of Michigan, and can tell you that such a Cole exists only in the mind of Karsh and those who, like Karsh, passionately hate Cole's politics. That depiction exists only so that they can dismiss legitimate criticism of the neoconservatives and of the Likud party without having to give a substantive rebuttal. The "Dual Loyalties" section is really inappropriate. -Thucydides411 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, As I wrote above, I am not imposing my POV. You could use more descriptive words than a three-letter acronym when responding to my posts. Again, the "Dual Loyalties" is unacceptable, especially in its current state. I am going to insert Cole's reply into the section. If you delete that, then the entire section must go. -Thucydides411 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Report me, if that's your style. I'm introducing a completely fair change. If you would like your opinion of Cole to be included in the article undiluted by his response, then you are in fact pushing a POV. -Thucydides411 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Zionism and racism

Hi Isarig: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 02:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi - just reminding you about the "rule" about not replying until I've been able to comment - things got pretty hectinc just then leading to me protecting the page which I fixed the edit conflict. Thanks, Martinp23 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep - it's ok for you to add something in reply to me, or to something which I've commented directly under. Sorry for the issues this causes, but it's the best way to keep everyone focused. Feel free to add the 3rd party for MEQ. Martinp23 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Kamm Talk page

Hi, the consensus on the admin board was that the messages were supplying transparency-the name of the board thread was a little unfortunate, but that's all. I don't really see how it's harmful for interested editors to read the thread if they want to-you have plenty of replies on the thread itself.Felix-felix 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's not harassment, only User:Jayjg described that as harassment on the admin board, no-one else did. And it is relevant for the discussion.Felix-felix 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilad Atzmon

The style and content of the postings are strikingly similar to comments by GA in other places. The reference to "Sanhedrin" is reminiscent of his denunciatiopn of me and others as "The Elders of London". The reference to an "undercover network of operatives" is reminiscent of other comments by GA. The praise for "Artie Fishel" in GA's own words. The fact that he sends similar contributions, under assumed names, to weblogs -- such as here on the anti-Zionist Jews sans frontieres. The thinly veiled threats. I can't prove it, but I think it very likely that this is Atzmon himself. RolandR 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the similar comments by "Zadik K Atmar" on the Shiraz Socialist weblog are also by Atzmon. RolandR 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a first time for everything! Keep reading and you may agree with more. RolandR 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not participate in that discussion, instead of re-adding all that false and POV info to the article?'

Why not make the specific separate changes as required instead of ramming through wholesale deletions? It's not that I don't trust you...strike that, that's incorrect, I don't trust you, given your tendetious track record. And I repeat, whinging about "see the Talk Page" isn't an actual reason. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a shame that having edited WP as long as you have, you have not bothered yet to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF.

First, spare me the phony sympathy. Second, it's "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary -- and boy, is there evidence to the contrary. Third, my long edit history has enabled me to come across the long-time POV pushers, bad-faith editors, and other pushing a heavy barrow. Like the head of my talk page says, It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who, unlike me, has already been rebuked by arbComm for baiting other editors and making unproductive and inflammatory commentary...

Uh huh. Spare me the self-serving spin there. And your four blocks were a misunderstanding, then? Hint: whining about AGF with your track record is pretty much a textbook case of "hypocrisy", ennit?

[edit] Please retract your 3RR claim against me

You listed this as a revert. It is not. Thanks in advance. Beelzebarn 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to make sure this doesn't escape your notice. Beelzebarn 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

====Regarding reversions[1] made on {{subst:currentmonth}} {{subst:currentday}} {{subst:currentyear}} (UTC) to Steven Plaut====

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. ST47Talk 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR - 24 hour block

<s?

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.

—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I miss counted the edits. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] civility

I recently left a comment on Sloat's talk page regarding his tendency to attack editors and accuse them of bad faith. He said that you were equally uncivil and that he is exasperated with me for not calling you on it while complaining of his behavior. I therefore reviewed all your recent talk page comments on the MEMRI page. I did find one comment that seemed rude. You asked Sloat if he was familiar with the English language after he denied accusing other editors of lying after accusing other editors of lying. Other than that, I see you defending your position in a terse way, but I don't find any personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Elizmr 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aircraft caption

The aircraft were the only one lost over lebanon so they require such captionUser talk:Yousaf465

See these aircraft are not much known to world and these were the only one lost over Lebanon.If it had been a F-16 there was no need of a picture let alone this caption.User talk:Yousaf465

[edit] Behavior

Searching for mentions of the word "behavior" on the mediation page, the only specific charge of yours I found against sloat concerned his "stubborn refusal to give on anything". If that really counts, it's plainly on the outermost reaches of what can reasonably be considered objectionable behavior; it's also a little unfair to cite that page, consisting of your opinion, as if it constitutes indisputable evidence. It doesn't and despite that you have repeatedly alluded to sloat's supposed bad behavior.

Such repeated self-citation lends excessive credit to your own opinions, a behavior which could underhandedly incorporate your own points into a debate, without representing the equally present and meritable disagreements. For fear of that I would warn against overmuch reference to your own opinions as fact (i.e. this or that statement being "obviously" NPOV because of a past stated position of your own etc.), without at least qualifying them as the opinions they are.

Though you aren't the only one who I could make this criticism of, it is significant nonetheless.

Last point- I think the space you've carved out for defense of your own behavior has enough room for sloat, too. Maybe you could ease up until you see something that is obviously and clearly provocative? Abbenm 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat's behaviour has been an ongoing problem for a long time and and I don't see that there's been any improvement. We will have to take this to arbcom see User_talk:JoshuaZ#edit_warring_on_memri_page and User_talk:Durova#Ongoing_problems_with_User:Commodore_Sloat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armon (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Honestly Armon, I think my above comment anticipated the points you bring up and beyond that several points of mine stand unanswered and in need of further discussion, despite what you bring up. In your links I see unfair invocations of your own opinion as indisputable fact, the very thing I was concerned with, when there was obviously more to the situation at hand than you were representing. JoshuaZ's response, citing your own unacceptable behavior and overblown accusations of trolling (his own characterization) exemplifies this perfectly. Furthermore, on the same page you attribute the entire yearlong dispute to sloat alone, as if he was belligerently trying to obstruct and disagree with your every statement when it is entirely reasonable that he actually disagreed with the content of your edits (sloat's opinion represented many of us who became aware of the dispute later on). Durova had similarly reccommended an Arbcom hearing against Isarig, which, if I were arguing on the same terms as you are, would only reinforce my point. One should at least sympathize with the hypothetical possibility that there is a case other than their own that needs to be heard.

Besides arbitration, a possible way to mitigate the behavior which concerns you would be to think of it as reciprocal, not in that you necessarily deserved it but that it's just as much in your power to ease tensions by increasing your own threshold of tolerance and good faith assumptions. And to not overdo accusations of trolling. Abbenm 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irgun/Herut

Isarig, if you believe that the passage you removed from Irgun is more applicable to Herut why did you not move it to the Herut article? In any case, it explictly mentions Irgun and as the view expressed is not an "extreme minority" view undue weight does not apply. General Idea 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Stop edit-warring on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. That article was protected for over a month and it's finally time to get back to editing it appropriately. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert warring at CNN, accusing it of 'liberal bias.'

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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.

Your constant edit warring is not appreciated. Please make an effort to use Talk pages before going on reverting sprees. Italiavivi 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

I've blocked you for 8 hours for general revert warring on a variety of articles and either gaming 3RR on CNN or revert warring so much that it doesn't make much of a difference. JoshuaZ 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. I was actually in the process of looking over the difs. JoshuaZ 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for a short period of time from editing wikipedia for a result of your disruptive editing, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, If you feel this block is unfair, then please use An unblock request to contest the block. Thank you. Retiono Virginian 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't intended as a warning...

Just a friendly reminder not to respond to personal attacks on the talk page of an article. If you are so familiar with WP:NPA then you should know better. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katz dispute at Palestinian refugee

Hi, Isarig. I note that in one of your edit summaries in the ongoing edit war over Shmuel Katz you "warn" another editor that removing material is considered vandalism. Strictly speaking, that's not true. While malicious removals for the purpose of defacing an article are indeed vandalism, good-faith removals of disputed material are never considered vandalism. It's a mistake to believe that, where a dispute exists, there is some kind of equality between those wishing to include and those wishing to exclude material: it's not equal at all: the onus falls solely on editors arguing for inclusion. As the policy on reliable sources makes clear, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Where editors cannot agree, the material stays out. In light of this, I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of warning another editor that his actions may face sanction when in fact they have violated no Wikipedia policy. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again:

• "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism."

What this passage actually goes on to say is that "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." We can quibble over whether the reason cited in this particular instance was frivolous, but the thrust of the objections to the inclusion of this passage is that it isn't a reliable source, which is not a frivolous objection, and there is simply no way in such an instance an editor will be cited for vandalism.

But the broader problem as I see it is that there doesn't appear ever to have been a consensus to include this material, nor have I detected any serious attempt by those in favour of its inclusion to make a case for it, beyond the bare assertion that it is reliable and if the rest of the editors don't like it they can go jump off a bridge. This doesn't seem to me very constructive and, frankly, nobody looks good in this edit war.

As for whether I've misconstrued WP:ATT, the policy states not merely that material must be attributable, but that it must be attributable to a reliable source. Where editors cannot agree whether a source is reliable, it seems silly to me to argue that although no consensus exists as to its reliability, a source has a right to be cited on the grounds that it is attributable: "somebody published it, so it gets to go in" strikes me as a poor rationale for inclusion.

Now, as to whether Battleground meets the requirements for being considered a reliable source, quite apart from whatever objections editors may have to the content of the passage, there are objections to be raised to including this work on at least two of the criteria defining unreliable sources: first, that due to its age it is an obsolete source; and second, that it is a questionable source, which the attibution FAQ defines as a source with "no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process." The basis for this objection is that, unlike academic publishers, general publishers of trade paperbacks like Bantam engage in no fact-checking whatsoever.

Finally, as I've said elsewhere, I find the devotion to this source somewhat mystifying: if it represents a "major point of view," why wouldn't editors want to seek other, more recent works written from the same point of view, but from a recognized scholar and published by an academic publisher with a better reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking? The insistence on including this source smacks slightly of desperation, as if it were such a fringe point of view that it's not possible to find any published source expounding this perspectie except a trade paperback that dates largely from over thirty years ago and is written by someone who is not a professional scholar. If that's not the case, why not cite a recent work by a major scholar whose reputation is beyond reproach? --Rrburke^(talk) 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your continued revert warring at CNN over 'liberal bias'

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. Italiavivi 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)