User talk:Kosmopolis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 3RR violation 2 Blocked 3 Block evasion 4 Israel-Lebanon conflict 5 Thanks for your contributions 6 Pallywood 7 Problems with Tewfik 8 soliciting help on neofascism page 9 Wholesale Reversions on July War Article 10 Moved from user page 11 User notice: temporary 3RR block 12 Regarding reversions[3] made on September 26, 2006 to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 13 Thanks for the Barnstar 14 About the snip-away-other-peoples'-work style of editing 15 Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 16 Welcome back 17 Your edit to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations 18 Re: Merge / delete Israel-Lebanon sub-sub-articles 19 Poisoning the well 20 User notice: Temporary block 21 You Should be Back by Now 22 Hey Kosmo 23 Please vote 24 Voting is evil, sometimes... give your opinion 25 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Leo-strauss-aged.jpg)

[edit] 3RR violation

Kosmopolis, you have violated the 3RR rule at 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. This states that we may only revert — which means any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, whether involving the same material or different material each time — up to three times in 24 hours. You have reverted four times. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself; if you don't, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Please review WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please complete your self-revert. In the meantime, I have listed you for a 3rr violation. I'm sorry that its come to this, but the rules are there to protect the consensus. Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

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.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

You have been blocked for 48 hours for evading blocks while already under 3RR block. Please do not use IP address editing to violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Lebanon conflict

I saw your rant about User:Tewfik -- I haven't read the whole thing. But as to the background section, I reverted his, how shall I say, "ellipses", and moved the whole section to a new article. It need work still, but there's plenty of room. Have at it. -- Kendrick7 01:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I also created Category:Israel-Lebanon conflict which has links to all the relevant articles I could find. -- Kendrick7 01:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your contributions

Dear Kosmopolis, Thanks for your contributions to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict page. It sure made the article a good read and more balanced. Keep up the good work.

Marwan123 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Marwan123

[edit] Pallywood

Hi, please stop removing definitions of Pallywood which were not invented by Landes himself. While Landes may have been referring specifically to Palestinians, the term has since then gained widespread use regarding non-Palestinian Arab media manipulation as well, notably Adnan Hajj. Even a simple Google search reveals that many websites refer to Adnan Hajj's photos as Pallywood (or in some cases Hezbollywood, a derived term). Yes it's true that the name Pallywood itself implies the Palestinians, like many words it grew out of its original meaning into something broader. There is no proof whatsoever that Pallywood now refers exclusively to Palestinian media manipulation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here (this discussion might be better if moved to Talk:Pallywood), but I'll just note that Pallywood probably should only refer to Palestinians, but that it is indeed used for other performances. Perhaps the entire article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --GunnarRene 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I will move your posts to the talk page of the article. See you there. Kosmopolis 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Tewfik

Throw your weight in file, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Question. Reaper7 19:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Would you please comment on Talk instead of reverting? This is extremely unproductive. Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am answering at the exact moment. Kosmopolis 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] soliciting help on neofascism page

You know the true worth of a person from the battles he engages in. After reading the discussion here, I am truly impressed. I too have had a wheel war with Tewfik, but I got outnumbered when Silverburg showed up. Tewfik means harmony and togetherness in Arabic and Hewbrew. Keep up the good work!

i'm just sheer outnumbered at the neofascism page. I have a perfectly innocent comment by Professor Juan Cole that keeps constantly getting reverted by Isarig for one and others. At one time a compromise formulation had been reached and isarig came in and reverted it. I stick it back in when I get a chance. It stays there a couple of hours before it's deleted. Here it is:

• The Likud members of Israel that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.)[1][2]

Best Wishes Will314159 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale Reversions on July War Article

Very very distatseful and certainly not cricket to do wholesale reversion. It's so hard to figure out what she's done, looks she's re-written the whole article and tried to count it as one revert subverting the 3RR rule. Can't stoop to her level. Have to look at the changes one by one. but a wholesale unreversion may be in order while her changes are examined. Email me, if I decide to do that, it appears it would take an hour to undo a bunch of little POV pushing changes buried in graphics. Again email me, I just don't feel llike hummus today. Best Wishes Will314159 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very intersting, I hope Daniels edits were preserved during the version revert. Best Wishes Will314159 14:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the block. I"m sure it was caused by trying to correct the unfair wholesale reversions. I had Isarig 3RR me one time after he had violated 3RR. No action was taken contrary to rule. Of course I had to wait a day until the block expired to report him. Too bad there aren't more fluent English speakers willing to participate in fair NPOV editing. Don't you feel outnumbered sometimes? Email me. Best Wishes Will314159 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from user page

Hi - I have to run. We discuss this later. Cheers. Dianelos 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Thanks for the Barnstar

But please it was much more than a stub when I got there, and your sectionalizing when it was only a mere backgrounder inspired me. I have always had a knack for editing the work of others. Forgive me, if you please, if I have been quick to re-edit even your edits, though I am happy that we have never gone to war. Thanks again. -- Kendrick7 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the snip-away-other-peoples'-work style of editing

Sorry for the delay in answering.

First of all I think the 3RR is a very good rule. Actually I personally try to follow the 1RR rule. I think reverting another editor's work more than once a day is unseemly. You know, the golden rule, and all that.

Now the most important thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia works. The system works. It may take a while but ever so slowly the quality of the articles increases. I mean compare the current state of the article about the recent Israel Lebanon war with how it was one month ego – and this issue is as contentious as it gets. I know how annoying it is when another editor just simply deletes a contribution one spent hours preparing. I also find that quickly deleting information that is clearly relevant and well sourced without even discussing one's reasoning in the talk page to be unconscionable. But here are two points to keep in mind: Sometimes, ever so rarely :-P, these snip away editors are right: one's contribution may be too verbose, or its language may not be as neutral as it could, or may not exactly reflect what the references say, or may not really be that relevant, or one's sources may not be as high quality as they could. Secondly, having one's contribution deleted often motivates one to do some more research and find better information and better references. Now an encyclopedia is about facts, and there are plenty of high quality sources of information in the Internet (and in books, have you tried the "search inside" service in amazon.com?) - so if one is right one will be able to cement one's contribution in a way that will stick, and the end result in the encyclopedia will be higher quality and better sourced. A final idea: Contribute in small bits – they are easier to chew by all concerned.

Again I know how annoying it is to have one's contribution simply deleted by others. (Actually I think there should be a rule against that, maybe the DDRR rule: don't delete relevant and referenced information without first discussing your reasoning in the talk page.) Anyway, it's very important not to loose one's cool. After all if one is to be a long-time contributor to WP it's important that one keeps enjoying the process of contributing – so don't let others spoil this for you. My advice: give it time. WP will not go away. If you feel yourself getting angry give yourself a few days off from editing – maybe using this time to educate yourself better and have stronger material in the future - or go work on some WP articles that are not contentious at all, which is about 99% of the lot.

Cheers. And I am looking forward to working with you in the future. Dianelos 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I've left you some comments on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik^Talk 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Welcome back by now. It's easy to fall in those 3RR traps when you are so outnumbered. Take Care. Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 23:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations

Your recent edit to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged 4 sub-articles. Kosmopolis (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Merge / delete Israel-Lebanon sub-sub-articles

I'm not "sabotaging" your attempts, I'm working hard to get an admin to help out. I would appreciate if you stop reverting my reversion there, because the last attempt failed due to their not understanding what I wanted. Tewfik^Talk 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I advise that you not edit Humanitarian and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, as it needs to be deleted so that International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations can take its place with the new name, this preserving the history. Tewfik^Talk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoning the well

You are perhaps not familiar with the definition of the term. To be guilty of poisoning the well, all that you have to do is present information about the speaker, in an attempt to pre-emptively discredit his views. This information is indeed often of the form 'Dershovitz is a liar or fanatic ', but does not have to be. See [4] for a complete description. In the context of the article we are discussing, providing Dershowitz's opinions of Arbour is irrelvant to the charge he was making regarding Hezbollah's use of human sheilds, and is obviously irrelevant to the section "Hezbollah's "human shield" tactics". Isarig 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't understand how "*stating* the subject's (irrelevant to the topic) views "pre-emptively discredit his views"" - read the source I've provided you with. Isarig 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: Temporary block