User talk:Canadian Monkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Canadian Monkey, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Elmasry

Uttering threats is a criminal code offence and we can't casually be accusing people of that since it's a violation of BLP. The "death threat" accusation is not a generally held view as is suggested by the sentence in question but a view expressed by Tarek Fatah who said that being declared anti-Islam is "tanatamount" to a death threat. Not quite the same thing. Taken out of context misrepresents the issue. As for supporting Hamas I don't see any sources for that in the article. Please read WP:BLP, we need to err on the side of caution and not engage in hyperbole or use biographical articles as attack pieces. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified who is making that accusation, so it doesn't appear that it is "we". I'll add sources for his support of Hamas shortly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't address this problem - there was an authoritative rebuttal to Fatah's claim that was parsed out. The news source for that also had this quotation from Professor Leonard Librande, professor of religion at Carleton University, in regards to Elmasry's comments and Fatah's characterization of them as a "death threat": "There's nothing particularly Islamic in this... There are differences of opinion frequently in the community. It doesn't mean somebody is going to kill you." I've added this to the section on Tarek Fatah - we cannot parse this out and use it to accuse Elmasry of uttering death threats (particularly when his comment was not "I'm going to kill you" or "someone should kill you" or "you should die" but simply a comment that Fatah is in opposition to Islam.) Saying that is a death threat is pure interpretation and there's no reason to have this information twice - once in the opening section and again in the section on Fatah. If there were multiple accusations or an authoritative source, ok, but Fatah's interpretation is not sufficient, particularly when once considers the subjective relationship between the two men. [1]
fair enough. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Or rather, welcome back. May I ask, what was the username of your first account? Do you still use it? <eleland/talkedits> 05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing for a while without a named account. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You are clearly not a newbie. Might I ask what articles you edited before getting an account? Tiamuttalk 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I worked on the CISCO Certis article, as well as Turducken, among others. Why? Canadian Monkey (talk)
I'm just curious actually, since I noticed you editing many Palestine/Arab-related articles, such as Shuafat, Palestinian archaeology, and Mohamed Elmasry. I was wondering if we had crossed paths at those kinds of articles before. Or is your interest in this subject matter new? Tiamuttalk 09:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I edit a few Arab-related articles, as well as a few Gaelic sports articles, and a few airport related articles. I don't believe our paths have crossed before. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean of course, with the exception of our interaction at Shuafat where you deleted information on the psychological effects of settler violence on the children there, citing it as anecdotal. Our only two interactions so far have been you seeking to delete things I add, and I trying to defend their inclusion. (No offense.) Here's hoping that one day our soon our editing relationship will acutally involve building upon one another's edits, rather than trying to cancel each other out. :) Tiamuttalk 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Our interaction at Shuafat involved me educating you about some very basic historical facts about the region (that Jordan annexed all of the West Bank after it occupied it in 1948). I hope you can indeed build upon this new knowledge. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well then, thank you very much for the education and happy happy editing! Tiamuttalk 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ouze Merham

Please join in the discussion there and lets try to develop a consensus on how to handle the text. Right now, you're using highly partisan unreliable sources which is clearly at odds with WP:BLP. Shell babelfish 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have participated on talk, addressed your concerns, and my comment there predates your message above. It seems you did not bother to read my talk comment before posting to my talk page and blindly deleting sourced material for the article. please don't do that again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit 101

Hey, thanks for the rewrite to Unit 101. The NPoV is doing better now =) Jacotto (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Let me know if there are other articles I can improve. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey, thanks for taking the time to source my recent contributions to the Cyberstalking article, that were deleted by User:Calton. I don't think the irony of his deletions on that article, in particular, is lost on anyone! Lol! Anyway, thanks for your help. It is much appreciated. MegaMom (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual irony is that User:MegaMom is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Wyatt Ehrenfels, a crank psychologist who calls himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels", who spams the Web trying to sell his vanity-press book about with his crackpot theories regarding "cyberstalking", and who apparently feels it's okay to engage in a bit of it himself by blindly reverting my edits. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What "proof" are you looking for regarding User:MegaMom and Wyatt Ehrenfels, fingerprints and DNA? It's called "circumstantial evidence"; namely User:MegaMom's sudden unsolicited appearance in an unrelated dispute on WP:AN/I repeating Wyatt's original nutty paranoia and adding some bizarre claims about how I mistreated "her" child.
For some nutty paranoid goodness so you can compare, see this bizarre page of Wyatt's.
As far as I'm concerned, this passes the duck test, and I will continue to treat this character like the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet he/she is. --Calton | Talk 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wyatt Ehrenfels reality check

Since I already dumped this on someone else's talk page:

As for the history of Wyatt's SEO campaign on Wikipedia, some pointers:
User:MegaMom had -- what? -- less than 350 edits over those nine months before popping up at AN/I to start retailing, verbatim, Wyatt's bizarre little conspiracy theories about me, along with some bogus -- and completely evidence-free, of course -- nonsense about how I was harassing "her" "son" on Wikipedia. The duck test applies, in spades: User:MegaMom is a User:Wyatt Ehrenfels sockpuppet or, at best, meatpuppet, and I'm not going to start pretending the sky is green when it clearly isn't. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demon Strings

A tag has been placed on Demon Strings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please take no offense. Basketballoneten 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wyatt Ehrenfels

Hiya - I see you've reverted Calton's re-insertion of the page. He and I had discussed it on his talk page and reached what I think was a bit of a compromise. I have reinserted the tag, but amended the wording slightly - could you confirm you're okay with how the page stands now? Thanks! Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag

Hi there. You placed a merge tag on Palestinian archaeology, suggesting it be incorporated into Biblical archaeology. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the fields, but many would object to viewing them as one in the same. Further, those who do view them as part of the same continuum would argue that Biblical archaeology ceased to exist and has been replaced by "Palestnian archaeology" or what some scholars call "Syro-Palestinian archaeology". I'd like to ask you to remove the merge tag, or at the very least append it to the Biblical archaeology article, suggesting its merger into the newer article; that is, if you insist on viewing the two concept as related, since most researchers in the field today reject being called Biblical archaeologists. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you replies at the talk page. Tiamuttalk 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And I've replied there - which is the logical place to continue this discussion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, except that I've replied to your reply, expanded the article with more reliable sources attesting to the distinction between Biblical archaeology and Palestinian archaeology, and removed the merge tag, which you now (immediately, I might add) restored, without responding (immediately) to my talk comments. What gives? Tiamuttalk 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
After feedback from the RfC, I've changed the article title to Syro-Palestinian archaeology and reworked the introduction to reflect that. I'm waiting for you to agree that the merger tag can now be removed so that the article can be nominated for a DYK. Your prompt response would be appreciated, given the 5-day limit for new articles to be nominated. Tiamuttalk 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think with that title it could work. The article still seems unbalanced - with a very strong emphasis on work by Palestinian archaeologists and minimal details about biblical and Israeli archeology, but that can be fixed. I'll remove the tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny you would mention that ... I purposely avoided adding material on Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel because of your request for a merger. I was trying to avoid overlap. Now that you've withdrawn the request, I will quite happily add more information, particularly on the latter which is covered only sparsely. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, this edit was very poor form on your part. Not only did you make a wholesale revert to your version of this section, but you ignored my previous request to paste any sourced material that you think should be deleted from the article on the talk page for discussion before engaging in deletions. You deleted all the information I added about the Palestinian POV and the POVs of other Israeli archaeologists, and you did so while the article was being featured on the main page, without regard to the work I did trying to incorporate the material you added with scholarly material I found that provides better context. I am deeply disappointed and have expressed that disappointment on the talk page, where I am waiting for a detailed explanation of your actions. I must say that this, combined with your attempts to undermine this article from the outset (by placing an inappropriate merge tag on its first day in existence) make it very hard for me to assume good faith. Tiamuttalk 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of editing restriction

As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied. Addhoc (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article note

Good to have your input at the new archaeology article. i haven;t followed this in depth, but please keep me posted on the discussion as it progresses. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syro-Palestinian archaeology

I'd like to hear your response to this, among other points I have raised on the talk page. Consistency in the application of criteria is important to ensuring WP:NPOV. The inconsistencies apparent in your application of WP:RS, among other things, lead me to wonder if your objections to the inclusion of certain material rests solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Accordingly, I've restored some of the material in question and ask that you do not delete it again without detailing how it is unacceptable and/or differs from the other material of the same type that you insist on including. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified you on the talk that I will be reporting you to WP:AE, unless you self-revert the changes you made to the section on "Challenges posed by the Arab-Israeli conflict" [1]. Considering my good faith effort to meet your concerns on the talk page and my removal of the information regarding the status of the Golan Heights as occupied, all of which met with no response from you, this edit is totally unacceptable. Tiamuttalk 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment on my talk page where you refer to above comment as a "threat" is uncalled for. I am giving you a fair warning that I view your editing at that page to be disruptive. It was good of you to re-add the Golan Heights as you did in this edit just now. Clearly, that is an acknowledgement that your edit removing that information was inappropriate. I am still waiting for a response to a number of other issues on the talk page and would to like to discuss that issue with you further, since it's still not clear to me that the site is in indeed inside Israel proper and that suggestion remains at the top of that section, per your previous edit. I do understand however that you have to go to work. So I'll be expecting to hear from you later. Do be aware however, that I am very serious about this warning, and I expect that when you return to editing, you will give plenty of consideration to the unanswered issues I have raised regarding your edits on the talk page there before continuing to make edits without regard to discussion. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: World Heritage

CM, I already explained this in detail on Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States, but I'm dropping you this note to ask that you please not remove cited content without carefully reading the references. Absolutely everything about the way I've listed "Jerusalem" is 100% in line with the UNESCO listing. I would really rather be improving WP with new content than cleaning up after these pointless drive-by reverts. This isn't a case of my-POV-versus-yours, or a matter of opinion, but simply presenting the UNESCO information in the way it's given to us. <eleland/talkedits> 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Joseph Massad. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop making threats against other editors or I will report you at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, your conduct on Talk:Joseph Massad has recently been poor. If you include content, and this content is removed, because of concerns about neutrality or sourcing, then you should attempt to find a compromise. If you call editors vandals, who have removed content using an edit summary, and provided further explanation on the talk page, then you are not assuming good faith. If editors suggest that under these circumstances that you should assume good faith, then you can't dismiss these comments as personal attacks. Editors who are being cautious about allowing what they view as excessive criticism in a biography of a living person should be treated with respect, even if you strongly disagree. Also, remember that you have been notified of article probation that covers articles related to the Israel - Palestinian conflict. Addhoc (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pcca

Were having a major vandalism problem over there. Would you mind posting a request for partial protection, I tried but did it wrong. Thanks. Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. We've had several users banned in the past, but they keep popping up as new names. The only way to completely stop it would be a IP block for PCCA, where most of the edits come from. But I really don't want that to happen because that would block me as well. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blueprint Negev

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
To thank you for your most excellent cleanup and referencing of Blueprint Negev, which now looks pretty respectable. FrankTobia (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes

I have commented on your revert of my edit on the talk page. I have not restored it - I'll be cautious given that this is a BLP - but I do believe "controversial" is well justified both by the source I cited and other information in the article.

I've done a great deal of work on the article over the last couple of days. It had a bad problem with quasi-plagiaristic failure to include quotation marks, and a messy coatrack-y "praise, criticism, & controversies" section. I've attempted to improve it both stylistically and content-wise. If you have an interest in the subject, perhaps you could take a look beyond the intro and let me know what else you think needs doing.

Kalkin (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pallywood

I think you are partly correct on the page, however, the circumstances made it so that I am uncertain if I wish to post any further on it's talk page at present time. I don't think you should remove 'conservative' though until you list down some basic non-conservatives who use the term on the talk page. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Defensive Shield

  • Just to clarify, in adding that heading I was not myself intending to imply that attacks on cafes in Israel are attacks on military targets. Though I can see how it could come across that way. As I am sure you know, just as some people consider all Israeli civilians killed over the Green Line military targets due to universal conscription, so too others consider all Palestinian civilians killed over the green line potential terrorists. But perhaps just labelling this "violence" is a less loaded way to go.
I still think a solution needs to be found for the heading - a solid paragraph on violence, solely against Israeli civilians, under the heading "Background" is also misleading and needs to be balanced. If only the violence were all one-way...but it has not been, and to present it as such is to offer the public an inaccurate entry. I was expecting that those who had inserted old info on attacks on Palestinian towns would step up to the plate, but they didn't. I may have to go in and find deleted info in the archives.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Green Footballs

Just so you know, I've written Eleland and Timeshifter up at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

He actually did accuse you of being a sockpuppet, specifically one that was "previously banned from Wikiproject Palestine". I added that diff to the AN/I, as well as a bit in regards to his trying to force inclusion of that "Johnson's views are disputed" line. McJeff (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

have you read the verdict ? The court did examine the facts + heard evidence on the case. It was not just a "freedom of speech" issue. To claim what he claimed Karsenty had to pass beyond "conspiracy theory" and present a credible challenge to the "facts" as presented by France-2. France 2 tried (and failed) to prove that what it showed is the truth. Karsenty words are indeed very negative to the reputation of France-2 – the court would not allow that if it was without merit and based on facts. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to tell you -- nice job collecting material on the various mainstream media that said that Al-Dura was a hoax. Excellent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. Please bear in mind these principles when you contribute to articles on the topic.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of Israel

As I've set out in talk there, I think the proposed text should be reinstated, because as far as I can see

  1. The text you removed is, as far as I can see, entirely factually uncontroversial. I am at a loss to see what it is you assert to be incorrect.
  2. The proposed alternative is not neutral, but is worded in a way expressed to further a particular point of view.

If there are specific issues you do identify, please cite them in talk. But for the moment, I think it's appropriate to revert it back to its state as Al-Andalus (talk · contribs) left it before today (bar a couple of typos). Jheald (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might be interested

in what seems to me to be one admin trolling for another uninvolved admin to impose sanctions on us in connection with the above warning. [2] Note the prejudicial manner in which we are being characterised. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ChrisO's notifications

The notifications are indeed disturbing - the fact that, as a highly involved admin, he made them in the first place, his one-sided application of the warnings, and his choice of wording which appears to frame legitimate content disputes as behavioral issues. That said, tit-for-tat notifications aren't the way to go here; I've challenged his notifications on the appropriate page, and I've let the others know that, as an involved admin, he cannot take action against them. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other POV editing of interest

Hi Canadian Monkey,

I realise you're not an admin or anything, but you seem to be dealing with some of the same bias issues I've been seeing I thought I'd draw your attention to this just in case you hadn't seen it [3]. I'm still trying to work out how to do something about it. I spent 13 hours putting together the documentation, but now can't seem to get anyone to tell me how I get it considered and action taken. It's all rather frustrating. Anyway, keep up the good work you do, and I hope you at least find this interesting. Oboler (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Given what I added in evidence was doen at the end of the case and not directly related to it... perhaps that was the wrong place for it to be considered. In any event it is not related to the amnesty in this case (which is limited to members of the group) so it could be investiagted seperately. I just don't know how to make that happen. Thanks for reading through it all though, and for your fast reply. :) Lets hope someone takes it up. If not wikipedia will be left the poorer. Oboler (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can you enable your email? Or send me one? There is something of a delicate nature I'd like to communicate with you about. No worries if you don't feel comfortable doing that. IronDuke 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Article

We both can't fix that, so you fix it. Thanks Beam 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote beside the "capital" line clearly says that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is disputed so how can you claim that saying this explicitly is "original research" or "POV"? Pretending that there is no dispute over Jerusalem's status is biased. Strongbrow (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Hiya, as I'm trying to help out as an uninvolved admin at the al-Durrah article, one of my priorities is to de-escalate the tension on the talkpage. As such, I am asking all participants to avoid use of the words "you" and "your".[4] Could you please try, even as just an intellectual exercise, to do this? I really think it would help to stabilize things, if everyone were as civil as possible. Thanks, Elonka 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nudge #2: Please avoid comments like this, saying "you're a little confused".[5] These kinds of comments tend to just escalate things on the talkpage. Please, I'm not saying whether the statement is right or wrong, but please try to change how things are said. Thanks, Elonka 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)