User talk:Lokiloki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lokiloki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  -- KHM03 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie

New users tend to run into trouble when adding such controversial material as you've attempted at C.S. Lewis. I would suggest you try editing other articles as well, and not only with controversial material. Then perhaps return to the Lewis article with some experience under your belt. Just a suggestion! KHM03 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd offer a different suggestion: stick to editing what you care about. As much fun as it is to correct spelling errors and look up citations for some article on a topic of no interest to you, you do your best work and make your most important contributions when writing about the things you know the facts about well enough to have formed an opinion. Alienus 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RULES

Welcome and please get familiar with the policies. Articles may not necessarily reflect your personal opinion; they don't have to. Learn to deal with facts and discuss them without personal attacks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal views on the Israeli-Arab conflict. I am neither Israeli nor Arab, nor do I have any concern of the area. But I do find that the lack of opposing viewpoints, found in almost all Wiki articles, are surprisingly absent from the Israeli articles. As well, when I go to your page I see that you are a Shabbat follower, etc, and it seems to me that YOUR bias (aka, pro-Israel) is clearly manifesting in use of the map, which is totally designed to show how "little" Israel is... might we also show, for example, a graph of military capability compared to the surrounding Arab areas? I imagine you would deny that. On "fact" of course?
First, thanks for visiting my page, hope you liked it. Go ahead and add relevant facts to any article, this is how WP works. As for my personality, my religion or my personal views, they don't matter and I don't feel that I need to ask anyone excuses. You are completely wrong that "opposing viewpoints ... surprisingly absent from the Israeli articles." (but it shows you own bias). See Nakba for one example.←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And where is the Nakba referenced from the Israel page? Moreover, you were the one that started this by editing my edit and saying that I should avoid "personal attacks". I made no personal attacks, but, insofar as you referenced my editing as personal attacks, you in fact made such attacks. Moreover, as exampled by your evident bias in your edits, your religion does play a role in your edits: all of your Israel/Israel-Arab edits would, by just about any standard, be categorized as pro-Israel. How can we not separate your ethnic background and religion from such edits?
I see your demands grow. Actually the link is there, but your focusing on my person and not on the content of WP articles is a personal attack. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no link to Nakba from the Israel page, as you assert. I invite and encourage you to add it. Lokiloki 09:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is. If you noticed, Nakba is a redirect to Palestinian exodus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history of that page. You will find that *I* added that reference about 10 minutes ago after I noticed, from your comments, that there was no reference in Israel to that incident. Lokiloki 11:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a redirect to Palestinian exodus and the section on "War of Independence and migration" already includes a link. You included a duplicate link within the same section. So, the initial assertion by Humus sapiens was correct. Please stop attacking other users. —Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see that. And I am not attacking other users.Lokiloki 11:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you have made multiple personal attacks. Please review our policy: WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to continually provide the same link over and over. I have read it, and I do not believe I have made any personal attacks. It might be worthwhile for you to understand that as a non-deconstructionist, I believe that a work's authors and their backgrounds figure significantly. If such references to an author's personal belief-systems are "personal attacks", well, that is quite unfortunate, and that philosophy here should be thoroughly re-examined.Lokiloki 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you've read WP:NPA and you disagree with it, is that correct? —Viriditas | Talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop stalking me. It is clear that you are upset because I deleted your undocumented references in Peak Oil. You took revenge by re-establishing them, and then deleting my references in the Israel-Arab topic, which you have never edited before. It is quite clear that your actions were solely done out of "revenge". Lokiloki 11:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for upsetting you as that wasn't my intention. I noticed that you made a number of attacks on the talk page with Humus and I wanted to personally remind you that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)—Viriditas | Talk 11:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, please stop stalking me. And, I might say the same to you: I deleted your peak oil claims because you provided no facts or citations to back up your claim that two major oil fields "peaked" this year. Until you provide citations, I will do my duty as a Wikipedian and ensure that you do not pass mere speculation off as fact. Lokiloki 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry for upsetting you. On Wikipedia we use talk pages to discuss articles, not to attack other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You have not upset me, but you have demonstrated your inability to compromise by continually restoring faulty edits without citations. Lokiloki 11:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
When you feel ready to discuss an article, please let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you, but I reverted your addition because it's been there already for a long time. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbert peak theory

Regarding Hubbert peak theory, you keep removing content that is referenced, both inline and on the appropriate topic page, in this case Burgan Field. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Your addition of the {{fact}} template to Hubbert peak theory appears to ignore the references on the appropriately linked topic page, namely Burgan Field. 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You are correct; I was mistaken. Next time it might be helpful to include the references directly, rather than as an external link on another Wiki page. Lokiloki 11:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Han chauvinism

Could you take a look at Han chauvinism and the talk page? —Viriditas | Talk 12:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? I have never edited that page, nor ever written anything about the Han chinese. Lokiloki 12:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for requesting your help. Since you've edited Human rights in the People's Republic of China I assumed you could provide some expertise. Again, I'm sorry. —Viriditas | Talk 12:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Viriditas, what's your deal? Do you plan to follow me everywhere on Wikipedia and make comments like this? I apologized for the peak oil thing, and, as I stated, I do not feel that that deserved your edit of my edit in the Arab-Israel thing. But now this? Really, what's the point? Lokiloki 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want to help out, that's ok. Thanks, anyway. —Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about Han Chinese fashion.

[edit] Arab-Israeli

Sorry, I missed your change of heading when I was taking out this vandalism. --Ian Pitchford 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you revert it back? Or tell me how I can do reverts? I have tried to find how to do this but cannot. Lokiloki 20:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

to revert you just need to go to the version you want to revert back to, go to edit page and highlight the entire text, and paste it over the bad version.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While that might work, it is neither efficient nor recommnended due to the time involved (someone may revert or edit while you are doing this, leading to an edit conflict) and the potential likelihood of human error in the copy and paste process. A much quicker and accurate method for non-admins (and non popup users) is to follow the instructions over at Help:Reverting. In other words, select the version you want, edit and save. Please use the edit summary box to let others know of your revert. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One child policy

As a new wikipedian, I request your sage help in One child policy. I have reverted that page once after I witnessed what I feel is vandalism and POV. The user has come back with the same content, plus additional opinions. Should I continue reverting, or is there some better way to handle this?

I am here to give you advice on One-child policy (Viriditas pointed me here). Don't keep on reverting, try to discuss the matter on the talk page. Keep in mind the Three-revert rule - if you revert more than three times over a content dispute (like this one) you could get blocked. Try to be patient, there is no rush to get the article back to a good state. If the dispute continues you might consider Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (eg getting a mediator or something like that).--Commander Keane 09:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou... it appears that someone else reverted the page back to its prior incarnation. Lokiloki 09:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV vs. NPOV

Hi from the Arab Israeli Conflict page. I've noticed you just removed a statement about Palestinian refugees and marked it deleted because of "POV". I just wanted to let you know that NPOV means that that many POVs are presented on Wikipedia in a neutral non judgemental way. it doesn't mean that critical points of view are not presented, as long as they are accurate and can be cited. I note that there have been some disputes about some of your additions and deletions and this might be something to help you work more peacefully in future. elizmr 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence immediately preceeding the one that was removed already referenced the issue. As well, elsewhere in the article there is the following: "Israel maintains that the General Assembly resolutions establishing the Right of Return are merely recommendations under International law, and in any event doubt that the refugees wish to "live in peace with their neighbors"." I referenced this in my edit note as "already mention about concern for safe haven".
I can certainly understand the presentation of varying POVs in an article, but this article often repetitively presents the pro-Israel side. For example, every "Arab view" of the cause of conflicts often contains a pro-Israel counterpoint that is often longer than the "Arab view" itself. Such counterpointing rarely occurs in the "Israeli views" section.
Thanks for your input.
Lokiloki 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about redundundancy. Sorry to interfere. elizmr 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Trust me, I would much prefer to simply be editing wilderness and California gnatcatcher articles... I'm not even reading the other Israel/Arab/Palestine articles due to the conflict that even slight edits elicit! Lokiloki 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I hear you. By the way, do you speak Chinese? I took it in college and still use it in my medical practice. I haven't ventured to any of the china pages, however, because I don't really know anything about what's going on there now. elizmr 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I speak Chinese at a "level 2" (Wikipedia levels), but I know virtually no characters. Lokiloki 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arab Israeli Conflict page

I am unclear why you moved the comment. More in a sec. Lokiloki 11:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You will note that the "Arab views" include multiple counterpoints from Israeli perspectives directly in each individual "Arab views" section. It is appropriate, therefore, to also include counterpoints to Israeli assertions in each of those, from Arab perspectives. Since each side has different primary views, it is important to present the opposing side arguments in their immediate vicinity. Thanks... Lokiloki 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lokiloki--
You took something out from "Arab Views" previously because it was counterpointing there. You had said, "Such counterpointing rarely occurs in the "Israeli views" section". This change of yours was adding counterpointing in the Israeli section. It is totally fine and commendable to try to eliminate over counterpointing; I would just request that you apply an even hand to both sections.
I put the nicely cited little section your wrote it in the corresponding section "Arab views". If you would like to put it back, please go ahead. It will lead to more counterpointing about how Jews have been treated in Arab countries.
By the way, I did not revert. "Reverting" on Wikipedia is taking a page back to a previous version. It is really intended for vandalism.
Please take care, elizmr 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
don't believe I claimed you reverted, rather that you moved the data. Can you show me where I moved something from the Arab views section to the Israeli view section due to over-counterpointing? Thanks, Lokiloki 11:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lok, I thought your title to this section on my user page, titled "Reversion in I/A" implied that there had been, well, a "Reversion".
If you want me to go back and find the exact thing you moved I will, but I've gotta go right now. Please see above or your user page for the discussion we had at the time you did that and the discussion we had at that time to jog your memory in the meantime. hou ba???
Sorry, the subtitle just meant that I had reverted back to the earlier version that included the original placement of the data. // Okay, I checked my talk page... I removed a sentence (which has been restored by tasc, so it is sorta irrelevant now anyway) because that same sentence had been stated about 3 different times in other places (the "live in peace" one). I do not necessarily disagree with counterpointing, but continual repetition of the same points over and over is somewhat tiresome and redundant. I don't think that the facts that I presented (and which you moved) had been presented elsewhere. Thanks, Lokiloki 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand and commend your efforts to combat redundancy, however earlier you had said you took something out because you felt that there was more counterpointing in one section than another and you were evening things out. All I am asking you to do is to apply the same standards to things with your point of view and things with someone else's point of view.
(The "live in peace" thing is a crux and almost universally ignored issue, by the way, and this is probably why people have felt it bears repeating in a few places). OK, I really have to go now. elizmr 12:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi there. I have a question. As you seem one of the most active editor of the article at a time. What the reasoning behind npov tag? I've asked on talk page, but no one replied. %\ --tasc 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the reasoning is. I don't have a problem with it being removed, but I imagine that Nloth will just put it back... he seems to log on at night, so he might be able to provide some more reasons. Anyway, I just checked, and it seems to be gone now. Lokiloki 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
At night?!?! Surely that's POV! It isn't night here!! (I've added why I believe it isn't NPOV to the talk) Nloth 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that the Palestinians simply left Israel, I am however asserting that the absentee property act doesn't just take the land of the Palestinians who fled, but also Palestinans who did simply "leave" for a lack of a better word.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you can begin discussing edits more before you make them, it's okay with small stuff but you are virtually rewriting the entire article, and the only way people get input is when they revert it themselves. It is inevitably going to create conflict, which is not the way either I or anyone else really likes to work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What article am I entirely rewriting? I am pretty much exclusively limiting myself to small changes, with 100% citations... that is to say, anything I add is always cited by neutral sources (BBC, etc). Lokiloki 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added cleanup and rewrite as well as Arab-Israeli conflict/temp to help alleviate any edit wars.—Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Arab-Israeli conflict article you are making a little bit more than small edits, I don't want to link them all right here becasue I think you know that you are editing a *lot* more than anyone else. I'm not saying that is stricly a bad thing either, because even though I think you edit with a obvious POV, I also think you are a pretty good writer and for the most part rational. I just would like to be able to have more of an input.

At the very least do you think you could do more edits at a time instead of saving after every one, when you have like 6 edits in a row on the history section then it makes it really tedious to click back on every one and compare it to the previous version- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to pop-in here and mention that in my experience, most editors prefer smaller edits rather than large ones, so Lokiloki is editing according to "house style", however if any of those edits are controversial, Lokiloki should make note of his changes on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do you know how to respond on my talk page rather than yours? because somtimes I will forget an earlier post I did when the response is still on the other person page- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

I've deleted it. I wanted to make sure you knew before I did so - UtherSRG (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... Lokiloki 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Child Policy

I am afraid readers will be misled if we only say women become part of groom's family after marriage. That's ok and would not be a good reason for disliking of daughters.

In fact, the point here is daughter is not a family member--> she is only an outsider --> raising up daughter is a work for some others--> better getting son instead of daughter.

The issue here is not whether daughter is a member of a groom's family or not, but she will not be her own family's member.

In addition, these are only OLD/traditional thoughts. Most Chinese may not think this way now days. But it's still thereAugest 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi... I changed the sentence to read "primarily" which suggests that the daughter is still a part of her family, but is now primarily in her husband's family. Yes, I agree that these are old Confucian traditions, but they seem to still have a lot of impact in China today. In any case, change it to whatever you like... I was just trying to edit it for a few syntax and vocabulary problems. Lokiloki 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Mount

Loki, Israel gurantees that Muslims are allowed to worship on the temple mount, whether or not they can reach it is another issue. I feel like you are purposely only slighly changing it to bait me into making 4 reverts, which I think is really wrong. All I am asking you to do is remove "claim to", then you can add whatever you want about not being able to reach it as long as it is true. Also the thing about Muslims under 45 doesn't apply anymore as the issue has been resolved since the intifada calmed down.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They do not "guarantee" Muslims to worship as Israel has, currently or in the past, i) limited access to particular ages, ii) limited total numbers allowed to access, and iii) limited access due to restrictions on movement. It seems pretty obvious that these restrictions, as Palestinians have argued, are not a "guarantee" at all. I really don't know what you are arguing for. Clearly Israel has restricted access -- to limit access to those over age 45 is not a "guarantee" to let Muslims worship there, is it? Anyway, I have changed it to "generally allows" which I hope you will agree with. I have also added more citations to demontrate the restrictions that you are arguing against. Lokiloki 10:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Any contemporary references Loki? --tasc 11:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As these issues were in the past and the owrding indicated present tense then it is true, but I will settle for the "government allows".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that other people aren't allowed to visit the temple mount, only that others aren't allowed to pray which your source shows.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Israel, as it is not Israel who controls that... so it is incorrect to say, for example, that Israel grants exclusive rights, or whatever it was that you said. I am really getting tired of these daily battles over single sentences, resulting, ultimately, in totally illegible sentences with multiple qualifications. If you add back what you are mentioning, then I will add the detail highlighting that Israel doesn't control the prayer part, but that is islam council or hwatever it is that detemrines that. Lokiloki 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also am really getting tired of these battles, its not as if I am picking these fights. Anyways Israel is a soveraign state and the Wafq isn't, the Temple Mount lies in territory controlled by Israel, so de facto who do you think the Wafq derives its authority from? Israel allows the Wafq do administer these sites, but It is ultimatley Israeli law that decides who can and cannot pray on the temple mount. I really don't see how you can dispute this as much as you are already.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

--

You are making the sentences turgid and illegible. To insert "and by law they are the only ones who are permitted to pray on the site" totally ruins the structure of the sentence, which contains a "however" after that part... the "however" is directly related to the first part of the sentence, and adding the new insertion makes the "however" and other aspects of the sentence illegible. And whose "law"? Since you mention Israel beforeahand the logical conclusion is that "by [Israeli] law they are the only ones who are permitted to pray on the site"... that just isn't the case. There is no Israeli law that limits non-Muslims, and it is totally unfactual to indicate such.

And your argument that Israel regulates the Waqf who controls the mosque, and that, therefore, everything that happens in the mosque derives from Israel. That's like saying that the USA regulates McDonalds and McDonalds operates many playparks, and then saying, the USA operates mcdonalds playparks. It is faulty logic.

Lokiloki 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not, Israel specifically gives the Wafq their quthority. With the Mcdonalald's example they are able to do what they do because of already existing laws. It is israeli police that remove non-muslims that are praying. Just as the Israeli authorities permit non-muslim visitiors, they also do not permit non-muslim worshipers.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed "by law" so it is now: "they are the only ones permitted to pray on the site". I dont see it as illegible since the however comes afterwards. Do you still take issue with anything?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take issue with the amount of time I am spending on wikipedia!! Thanks man... Lokiloki 03:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it starts as a hobby....and bam your wife and kids are staying at her parents house and you don't have a job.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Tell me about it... as you can probably tell by my edit history, I haven't done any work in, what, 4 days or so... Lokiloki 03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed...It seems that EVERYTHING on Israeli settlement needs to have a reference now, even things you can see with your own eyes but is now considered WP:OR. I've yet to see such a disputed article. I also am fascinated by your in depth knowledge on the subject of Israel without a flag on your user page. I'm at least glad I finished university before wiki was created, still have a job though but pushing the toleration limits with wife and kids. Cheers. --Shuki 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Grouping

a semi-colon and then an end parentheses is a wink right? (:>{)

yessir ;) Lokiloki 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

←Humus sapiens ну? 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, which edit are you talking about where I didn't do that? Whenever I make a major change, I include a reference to it. If it is minor, I don't bother. If you are talking about the Dennis Ross removal, I clearly indicated that in the Edit Summary. Lokiloki 10:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you had looked at the edit history, you would notice that I labeled the statistics change as "09:53, 19 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Arab-Israeli conflict (→Intifada of 2000 - -- statistics update as of yesterday)" Lokiloki 10:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You get unnecessarily defensive in every issue. Please "bother". E.g. (not the best example) some editors may consider a ref to Ross important. Do you think that edit summary is possible to decipher? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? How am I being "unnecessarily defensive in every issue"? I simply told you that in the edit you are complaining about (the statistics) I clearly labelled it... I don't understand what else you are saying, but the Ross thing, as I indicated in the edit summary, was not relevant to the topic it was in. Lokiloki 10:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see: you didn't like the "topic" so you silently removed the content. Iron logic! ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not following your train of logic. If you read what I said above, I wrote: "the Ross thing, as I indicated in the edit summary, was not relevant to the topic it was in". In any case, that section is back, in a new section. Lokiloki 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Quotes

I moved most of the quotes you were talking about to wikiquote, I would've done it before except I didn't know they were there (shows you how long the damn article is) and I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about. I left the two best known ones that are attirbuted to nasser, I would've only left one but I couldn't decide which one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Even Moshe? (arab israeli conflict article)

You're not sopposed to argue by telling someone that an editor with a similar POV disagreed with him, and besides this I felt it was kinda of you rude to say, like saying look, even this other editor which is very irrational agreed with me. Despite disagreeing with you most of the time I have tried to be polite in all of our run ins.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I hear ya... I'm just really frustrated with him: his denial of, say, the BBC as a neutral source, and than using a right-wing Israeli source for his statistics... I mean, he can do that, but saying such things is just going to make his future arguments all the more suspect. He is constantly POV-pushing, and it's extremely upsetting to me. I believe in truth, and that FACTS are important: but I realize here, that much of it comes down to twisting facts into little fireballs. I am pretty much ready to quit Wikipedia (you will be glad to know) because of him, and because I am literally the only one here fending off this barrage against you guys. In some ways, I would prefer the Arab-Israeli thing to devolve into a totally pro-Israel section so that others come to it and pretty quickly realize that it isn't neutral.
Anyway, I think your compromise in the other section is fine... why not add that to the part that he keeps debating about? Lokiloki 11:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Humus is a good editor and usually really cool to people with a different POV, I think you guys just got off to the wrong start and now you both disagree with one another almost by impulse. Also I wouldn't want you to quit wikipedia, It is only natural to get burned out after editing so many controversial articles as you have. You seem like a cool enough guy so I think you should stay. Also may be you should know that people with the opposite POV often say things like: I'm ready to quit wikipedia because of the systemic left wing bias. I'm not saying you are radical or anything, you just came with a well-defined POV which is fine because so did I. Anyways don't get disillusioned so fast, and just try not to wear yourself out.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

The first step is to discuss the issue with the user directly. An attempt should be made to resolve the problem, after which there are any number of things you may choose to pursue. A wait and see approach may be best. If problems arise, other editors may get involved. —Viriditas | Talk 13:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should take a step back and not try to change the world at once. You are making many edits, and by the pace you are working, it might be considered somewhat aggressive. Frankly, I too don't see the BBC or CNN's reporting of the Middle East as impartial and using them as references is suspect. Blocking is not a quick solution, and the essence of you bringing the subject up is that you think your POV is more important than someone else's, making your intents even more aggressive. By all means, don't leave, just take it more easy, join the community, and go through the talk pages for past discussions. So much frustration in wikiworld is because we usually like to repeat the mistakes of others before us. --Shuki 14:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Changing my nickname

Is it possible to change my nickname? It was perhaps a poor choice of names when I started, given that I selected a name after a god of mischief. Lokiloki 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please visit WP:CHU. —Viriditas | Talk 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible just to start using a different account? Or is this a taboo? Lokiloki 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can start using a different account. Add a redirect to User:Lokiloki to point to the new account. You can still request a name change on WP:CHU if you want your contribution history to reflect your edits from your old account. —Viriditas | Talk 09:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A redirect to another account? How do I do that? Lokiloki 09:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy. See Help:Redirect. Simply edit the page you wish to redirect and replace the content with #REDIRECT page name. It may be more efficient if you use the page move feature, like this. —Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Handover

Great question. I suppose it will take a concerted effort by all to form a consensus on the talk page. I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this and I hope we can all work together harmoniously. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing method

This is the new referencing method being introduced into Wikipedia articles. See the AIDS article for an example of its extensive use. It has a number of advantages over inline links:

  • It can accomodate all sorts of references (weblinks, book references, explanatory comments, links to multiple sources) in one format.
  • It automatically sorts a numbers references.
  • It allows references to be easily reused, and subsequent referencing is simplified.
  • It accomodates references that can stay even if websites go away (this is often quite important when new editors come to the page and start deleting stuff because of dead link).
  • It is aesthetically more pleasing.

In general when I'm adding references I do it this way now, and convert other links in the same section to this method. Eventually we should be able to get the whole article upgraded. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

When you click on it, it goes straight to the specific reference, there's no searching required. It's not a new policy, it's a new capability that has been developed, and various articles are being slowly converted. The only real downside that I can see is that the links themselves are more complicated to create. However, the feature that the reference is still good even if the link dies is important; I believe you yourself have deleted parts of articles based on dead links. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Aqsa Intifada

Hi. I don't mean to pester you but please remember to briefly describe your edits in the summary box. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your POV

Colleague, I noticed you've been removing links that do not conform to your POV and covering this by sleazy excuses. Instead of removing them, spend a minute trying to recover the link and/or use Talk. WP is not your personal blog. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Colleague, I never claimed it was my blog. I searched for the broken links, and did not find them. I will not use talk everytime I make an edit or deletion. If an article is a broken link it should be deleted. Period. Plus, several of the links simply contain other lists of links, and are therefore inappropriate. Editing consists of whittling down content to its core essence, and multiple redundant links, or links to articles that say the same things as other articles, or links to articles that simply contain more links are unnecessary and POV in terms of presentation.

Please also respect that order of topics should reflect order within the article: i.e., if the article is named Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab views should be presented first. Similarly in the article where you reverted my change, the views section presents the negative "Pal tactics" section first: therefore, as this is presented first, the references section should present the Pal references first. It is inappropriate to order the sections based on your POV or penchant for presenting particular inforomation first.

Lokiloki 09:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Loki, sorry your good faith credit has expired. I cannot assume good faith with you anymore.
"searched for the broken links, and did not find them" - poor little Loki! How come it took me a second to find them?
"it should be deleted. Period." - wrong. An attempt to fix should take place.
"simply contain other lists of links, and are therefore inappropriate." - wrong. They are not directories of links. Some of them have several articles grouped together.
"therefore, as this is presented first, the references section should present the Pal references first." - says who? I don't see how this follows. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I looked for the links in the site, did not find them, and then deleted them. I did not realize that I was supposed to do extensive due diligence in tracking down broken links? If that is the case, I will revise such deletions in the future, but, since you follow my edits closely, you will have noted that I have done similar in the past to nary a complaint. I do a quick search, and, if not found, I delete.
If the article is called, say, Arab-Israeli conflict, the naming of that conflict suggests a logical presentation of views from, first, the Arab side, and then second, the Israeli side. Any legitimate encylopedia would do that. This is not a big deal, but the presentation of the Israeli side first shows, again, subtle and systemic bias in the articles. And that similar ordering is present in this article. When the presentation is negative, namely on "tactics", it just so happens that the Arab side is presented first. And when it is positive, in the references, the Israeli side is presented first. ORDERING of information is often just as important as the actual facts presented (as Google search results show, for example): therefore, some care and NPOV should be used in assembling and displaying the content.
If you want to present the pro-Israeli links first, that is fine, but please change the Tactics section to first display the Israeli section. Viewpoints should be presented consistently within an article: that is to say, if an article presents viewpoints in one topic A,B,C then another topic in that same article should not be presented C,A,B but should conform to A,B,C. This sort of ordering seems to be a subtle bias exerted in many articles.
Broken links that cannot be found should be deleted. Period. What is the purpose of linking to dead articles that cannot be found? Especially those that present redundant information.
Lokiloki 09:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind, deletions made to a controversial article should be acknowledged in both the edit summary and on the talk page. I agree, you shouldn't have to make a talk comment after every edit, but at some point, a comment describing a series of deletions should be posted on talk. This is the nature of controversial articles, and it's a given that many editors are watching such edits and will have questions. As long as you cover yourself in the edit summary and on talk, you should be fine. You can even skip a step sometimes by writing "see talk" in the edit summary, letting people know that you've made a comment pertaining to your edits. If I can be of any help, leave me a message. —Viriditas | Talk 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... sometimes I forget to add the edits I am making in the edit summary, as I tend to have a whole lot of small edits I want to make and I do them rapidly without adding summaries, i.e., adding links, etc. Anyway, I am trying to do that. I personally am not fond of using the Minor Edit tag... I have noticed that this tag is used by others to "hide" reverts and other things which they think are minor, but others dont. Lokiloki 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand. In the past (particularly while I was working on Drug abuse) I made the serious mistake of marking major edits as minor due to a setting in my preferences, and this led one editor to question my judgement, and quite rightly. I'm still embarrassed about it. BTW, can you weigh in on Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict? I want to move the temp page over. —Viriditas | Talk 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab-Israeli compromise

Yea I'm fine with your compromise [1], but no even moshes again if someone else disagrees.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Don't worry about it. It happens to everyone at least once, and since you were never given a warning consider this a friendly reminder to avoid edit wars. If it happens again, you might be reported and an admin could block you for 24 hours. For now, just forget about it and get back to editing. This is one reason why making use of the talk pages is so important. —Viriditas | Talk 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I apparently didn't fully understand the 3Rs. I thought it applied to only deleting someone's content; and that it also only was counted when you did it 3 times to the same user, not 3 times to the same article. I thought you were an Admin also... Lokiloki 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrect of archives

Sure, what exactly do you want to do? If you are trying to link from the history, it's probably listed on the main talk page. You can pull the content from there if you know the approximate date. Let me know what and when, and I'll help you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humus

Hi, there. Did you ever get my email from yesterday? Anyhoo, I thought it was unfair of you to report Humus on 3RR without warning him first. AFAIK, he didn't report you when you broke the rule. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I did. I was unaware of the 3RR rules when I made my mistake. It won't happen in the future. Humus has displayed consistent, considerable, and far-reaching reverts and belligerent edits (his recent attempt to alter the Views section replaced actual facts with "neutral" analysis from US administration officials), and I felt that the only way to stop his POV edits was to report his 3RR. Mahalo, Lokiloki 09:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic that an editor who endlessly pushes the content from http://www.nad-plo.org (and calls them for license) into almost every article on the Arab-Israeli conflict, accuses me of bringing a non-neutral analysis when I cite a paragraph from a printed bestseller book by Thomas Barnett.
Loki, I was too forgiving tolerating your attacks against me because you are a newcomer. In return, you keep spreading false allegations behind my back. I challenge you to show what "actual facts" have I "replaced". ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me...!

Is it possible to see how many people are visiting Wikipedia, or visiting particular Wikipedia pages? In other words, do editors have access to Wikipedia logs to look at traffic patterns? Lokiloki 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically: no. It takes too much server load (and might be tricky with the caching arrangement) to record the page hits. --Commander Keane 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Try this for some stats: [2] --Shuki 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much...

[edit] Smith and Wo's

whats smith and wo's?

One of the best steakhouses in USA [3]... Lokiloki 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
(Though I am a little sad to see it is somehow connected to TGIFs) Lokiloki 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] already banned

I can't believe you would actually bring that up, everybody who saw the actual edits agreed you were in the wrong, and the only reason I got banned was because sceptre didn't actually see the history. I can't believe you actually tried to get both of the people that disagreed with you on the page banned. I understand your relatively new but it seems like normal human etiquitte would dissway you before you tried. I mean did you notice that neither me nor humus tried to get you banned even though your violation was much less ambiguious? - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that... It was wrong of me to bring that up. Trust me, I have no animosity towards you at all... you seem like a decent guy. What city are you in? I am assuming you are in the US? Lokiloki 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm from LA but I go to school north of San Francisco, what about you?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe, I am from Mumbai (BombaY) originally but I grew up in the east and west coasts of the US (including LA), and now teach at an unnamed college (in a topic totally unrelated to the ME) Lokiloki 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw you went to UC Berkely, my grandfather taught Law and Pshcology there a long time ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me again...

Does anyone know if newly germinated trees/saplings consume more CO2 than mature trees in terms of consumption per unit of mass?

Can anyone explain why China holds onto $800 billion in US dollar reserves, rather than using that capital for sorely needed infrastructure projects?

Thanks, Lokiloki 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you want the Reference desk. --Commander Keane 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... I didn't know that existed. Lokiloki 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article content discussions

As per the header on my Talk: page, please restrict article content discussions to the appropriate article Talk: pages, not the my own Talk: page. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! Thanks for the comment

Lokiloki,

Thanks for the comment - I'll explain on the article's talk page. -CommonGround 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done! CommonGround 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIC

Lokiloki, thank you for your note. Frankly, I'd be surprised if an edit like this, let alone this where text was improved and/or moved, can be qualified a RV. Is this your own understanding of the 3RR or you can present some basis for it? I do not believe that I broke 3RR but as a good will gesture, I will voluntarily avoid editing the article until tomorrow. I think I do know what "viable" means. I prefer content issues to be discussed in articles' Talk pages. Lastly, may I ask you to please fill out edit summary as a courtesy to other editors? Thank you again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of sources

See talk page for my reply. Obviously transference means forced transfer. A re-drawing of border is not, and I repeat, not, a transference of population, because the population stays in the same place. It is however a transfer of territory, which has nothing to do with the article. I have removed those last sources not because they were unreliable, but because they claimed the transfer of territory (true), but did not reflect your paragraph, which claimed a transfer of population (false). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting book?

A quick note: from what I have understood, Tom Segev´s latest book, "1967", (about the war) has created a lot of discussion in Israel. (My inf. is second-hand: I do not read Hebrew). It should be published in English later this year. Check the Tom Segev page for a (very) prelim. summary. Regards, Huldra 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no 3 RR

Most of my edits there are not revertes (maybe 1 is) in any case, I will accept what you suggested and stop editingf there for a while. It seems to me you are not very familiar with the subject of "Land exchange" and confuse it with "population exchange". suggest you look up the Geneva peace plan which included the same ideas. Some Palestinian agreed to it . Zeq 19:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Arabs

It's completely acceptable. The paragraph is rewritten, merged with another, and the source given. That source in turn took the information from the Israeli govt. Or do you think they made it up? Please don't delete material like that again when all you have to do is rewrite and give the source. It's not as though the whole page was copied. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then rewrite it and add the source. You're deleting it simply because you don't like the material or the source, and that's highly disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's always a lot easier to revert, complain, delete, and report people for 3RR than it is to edit properly. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, could I ask you please to start using the preview button? You made 45 edits recently to make two 3RR reports, and today 10 edits to post about copyright to my talk page. It's starting to look as though you're trying to create a high edit count, but it's a pointless thing to do because people can see when it's been artificially inflated. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You've posted 15 times to my talk page in around one hour. Please stop it. Post to the article talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


How am I supposed to ask questions unrelated to the talk page? Lokiloki 03:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Why don'y let Slim put the article in shape ? stay away for few days. It will be good to you. Listen to KPFA maybe one day you will understand that most of what you hear there is false but some of it is the best things I have learn in my life. Zeq 09:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Point

I suggest you read the above policy.

If indeed you have a source that show what you claim (that the effort is not succesfull) or you think that not enough facts about how succefull the grassroots effort was - than, please feel free to change the headline to a more approrpriate one.

Instead you choose to disruopt and delted the whole section. Well you made your point but now you will need to fix it and restore the section you un justifaiably deleted. Zeq 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli settlement

Hi. Just a friendly notice that, against the consensus you and others had achieved earlier in the page, JayJG and company are intent on deleting the Carter quote from the page. See talk. Thanks. Deuterium 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Palestinian humiliation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palestinian humiliation.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.252 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes at Template:User cal

Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Israel_barrier_zigzag.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Israel_barrier_zigzag.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Aldura death.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aldura death.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Palestinian humiliation.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palestinian humiliation.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabra and Shatila

Image:Massacre of palestinians in shatila.jpg The image links have been broken, someone might question its source. You may want to fix that, before someone tags it for deletion. --Knulclunk 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed because I was going to fix its crazy aspect ratio... --Knulclunk 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help-Lao language request

Hello! The Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is working on artwork related to Laos, and we need some help to get the proper Lao language text into the artwork. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Scouting_in_Laos and see if you can help! Thanking you in advance, Chris 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Crowley_yoga.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crowley_yoga.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)