User talk:MarkB2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Shopping for revert warriors
Please do not recruit people to revert for you (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). Also, please refrain from making blatantly false statements (e.g. "I can't seem to convince Jayjg to let me contribute to the Israeli Settlements page"). The issue is with specific inclusions you are making, which are inappropriate, for the reasons clearly outlined on the relevant Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
I have found it increasingly frustrating editting articles on Wikipedia that have to do with Israel and/or the Palestinians. I find it a tragedy that there is a small, but dedicated and obnoxious community of hardliners on wiki (such as Shamir1...) who distort these pages. You can see on a lot of their user pages that they "proudly support the Likud party" for example... And yet they pretend their edits conform to the NPOV standards. I try to come back to pages such as the settlements, or the timeline, but I get exasperated with them. Case in point, as you said, the WB is not "partially occupied", there is no organization in the world which states it is "partially occupied"; the entire territory is "occupied" with the PA having a degree of civil control in some areas. But some people refuse to accept this, and force Likud POV's on the rest of the wiki community. I will try to help with these pages some more, and I hope you stick around with me. It is a challenge to keep wiki on the NPOV sometimes... A student of history 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for message
As others have pointed out before, there is a dedicated community of Likudniks that successfully ensures that Middle Eastern articles are phrased to suit them. However there is nothing that can be done about it. The Likudnik community has many administrators. I don't see the situation ever changing. Ujalm 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Israeli Settlements - US and Israel also said "illegal"
The US looked at these settlements and labelled them "inconsistent with international law".
And Israel accepted they were illegal, only objecting that making settlement a "war-crime" was excessive.
[4] - US opinion, Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, April 21, 1978 to Congress on the legal status of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
........ Conclusion - While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.
[5] The International Criminal Court Background Paper July 30, 1998, "Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs" concedes the point:
........ International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.
........ The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]:
- The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.
(This is reference the TalkPage discussion at [6]).
There is a lot more of this information - would you care to enable your email, or contact me on mail:andy.dyer9@tiscali.co.uk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Islamophobia
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia
Hello! As it would appear, you have not been participating on the Islamophobia RFM. Seeing as you have been listed as an involved party, I think it would be worthwhile if you were to take a look at the discussion and add your own insight. This would be more helpful in reaching an agreement over how to handle the article. Thank you! MessedRocker (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adduce me not
Hey MarkB2 - love your user page. You made an edit to Lewinsky scandal a while back in the "perjury charges" section (good edit, overall, by the way) which introduced the word "adducement". A question was raised on the talk page about this in July and I just posted a further question - could you take a look at it here? Thanks Tvoz |talk 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contra page
-
-
- I appreciate your support although I would appreciate if you try to write with a less confrontational tone. I am trying to to moderate my tone as well, but rest assured I have the same frustrations with Groggy Dice that you have.
-
-
-
- I would appreciate any info you could give me to rebut Groggy dices claims. Theres a lot of stuff I haven't read on this subject, so anything you know of that could strengthen my position on the talk page would be great.annoynmous 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras
You have been listed as a party on the above request for mediation. Please go to the aboce page and indicate whether or not you are happy to proceed. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)