text:
User talk:Analpear

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

title: User talk:Analpear


text:
Nicole Perrot

Nicole Perrot (born 26 December 1983) is a Chilean professional golfer. She is the first Chilean-born player to win on the LPGA Tour.

Perrot was born in Viña del Mar, Chile. She won the 2001 U.S. Girls' Junior and was runner-up at the U.S. Women's Amateur that same year. She turned professional the following year. She started her professional career on the LPGA's second tier Futures Tour. In 2004, she won two events on that tour and qualified to play on the main LPGA Tour in 2005 by finishing third on the money list. She won her first LPGA Tour event at the 2005 Longs Drugs Challenge.

In 2006 her best finish was a tie for 19th at the Fields Open in Hawaii. Hampered by a back injury in 2007, she played only eight events between February and early June.

Futures Tour (2)

 * 2002 (2) The Albany FUTURES Golf Classic, GMAC FUTURES Golf Classic

Results in LPGA majors
{{legend|#eeeeee|Did not play}} CUT = missed the half-way cut WD = withdrew "T" = tied

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Nicole Perrot


text:
WPXT

WPXT (channel 51) is a television station in Portland, Maine, United States, affiliated with The CW. It is owned by Hearst Television alongside Poland Spring–licensed ABC affiliate WMTW (channel 8). The two stations share studios on Ledgeview Drive in Westbrook; WPXT's transmitter is located in West Baldwin, Maine.

History
The station signed on September 14, 1986, as Maine's first independent station and the first new commercial station to launch in the Portland market in 32 years. After a few weeks as an independent, it became a charter affiliate with Fox on October 9. In 1996, the station's original owner, Bride Communications, entered bankruptcy and WPXT was sold to Pegasus Broadcasting.

On October 7, 2001, WPXT switched to The WB; the deal, which also included WDBD in Jackson, Mississippi, came after renewal negotiations between Fox and Pegasus broke down. A Fox spokesman said that the two stations "were not honoring the terms and conditions of the affiliate agreement," an assertion denied by WPXT staff. The WB had previously aired in off-hours on sister UPN affiliate WPME (channel 35). The affiliation change left Maine with no over-the-air Fox affiliate until April 2003, when Portland's Pax TV affiliate WMPX-TV (now WPFO) switched to the network and WFVX-LP signed on as the first over-the-air Fox affiliate for the Bangor area. In the interim, Fox's prime time and children's programming was only available on cable via WFXT (which was owned by the network at the time) for those living on the New Hampshire side of the market and via Foxnet for those living in Maine; WCKD-LP (which was initially expected to serve as the network's replacement Bangor affiliate) carried the network's sports programming during that time.

Pegasus declared bankruptcy in June 2004 over a dispute with DirecTV (then co-owned with Fox by News Corporation) over marketing of the direct broadcast satellite service in rural areas. The Pegasus station group was sold in August 2006 to private investment firm CP Media, LLC of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for $55.5 million. Eventually, CP Media formed a new broadcast company, New Age Media.

As a WB affiliate, WPXT was originally branded on-air as "Maine's WB 51", but in 2004, changed to "Maine's WB" to reflect its status as the only over-the-air WB affiliate in the state. Although Bangor and Presque Isle also had affiliates, they were only provided on cable through The WB 100+ (a similar operation to Foxnet).

On January 24, 2006, Time Warner and CBS Corporation announced that they would merge the broadcast operations of The WB and UPN to form The CW Television Network. On March 9, it was announced WPXT would become Portland's CW affiliate. Later on May 1, it was made public sister station WPME would affiliate with MyNetworkTV. With the new affiliation, WPXT's branding became "The CW Portland". In 2007, WPXT changed its on-air branding to reflect its call letters rather than a city.

WPXT ceased analog transmission August 12, 2008, more than seven months prior to the original Federal Communications Commission (FCC) digital switchover deadline of February 17, 2009, due to transmitter failure. On May 2, 2011, WPXT signed on a new second digital subchannel to become the area's MeTV affiliate. On November 7, 2016, Escape (now Ion Mystery) was added to subchannel 51.3.

New Age Media announced in March 2012 that it would sell WPXT to Tyche Broadcasting for $75,000. The deal was contingent on WPME's concurrent sale from MPS Media to Triumph Broadcasting. On November 9, 2012, WPXT filed a non-consummation notice to the FCC, meaning the transaction is nulled and void. On February 13, 2013, New Age Media filed to sell WPXT to Ironwood Communications for $1,525,000; the deal was concurrent with a planned sale of WPME to Cottonwood Communications. The FCC granted its approval of the sale on April 2. The sale was consummated on May 20.

On March 22, 2018, MyNetworkTV, Escape and Laff programming was moved to WPXT's respective third, fourth and fifth subchannels; the three networks had been carried by WPME, which was concurrently sold to Ion Media Networks to become WIPL, an Ion Television owned-and-operated station. Hearst Television announced its acquisition of WPXT on July 30, 2018; the $3,350,000 purchase created a duopoly with ABC affiliate WMTW (channel 8). The sale was approved on September 12 and was completed on September 21, 2018; concurrently, WPXT changed its branding to "Maine's CW."

The ownership change also resulted in a streamlining of subchannels between WMTW and WPXT the next month. With Hearst's preference for its main station in the market to carry the MeTV affiliation, MeTV and H&I exchanged places, with MeTV moving to WMTW-DT2 and H&I going to WPXT-DT2, and Laff going from WPXT-DT2 to WMTW-DT3, with Escape going to WPXT-DT3 (and the likely non-renewal of the Katz Broadcasting network agreement; Hearst only tends to carry Bounce TV from that provider). The syndicated programming formerly on WPXT-DT3's "WPME" service was removed, and MyNetworkTV programming now airs in place of H&I's prime time, an arrangement similar to the setup for the third subchannel of sister station KCCI in Des Moines, Iowa.

Early in-house newscasts
Beginning in 1992, WPXT operated a news department and produced its own local newscasts. For a time, the station's nightly prime time news at 10 was simulcasted on sister station WPME. WPXT even produced a weeknight broadcast at 7 on that station at one point but the show was eventually canceled due to poor ratings and inconsistent viewership. It made national headlines a week before the 2000 Presidential election when reporter Erin Fehlau (now at ABC affiliate WMUR-TV) revealed Republican candidate George W. Bush had been convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol 24 years earlier.

News Center at 10
On June 15, 2002, after shuttering its own news operation, WPXT entered into a news share agreement with Maine's two NBC affiliates, WCSH and WLBZ (owned by Tegna Inc., which at the time was the broadcasting arm of the Gannett Company). This arrangement resulted in a nightly half-hour prime time show at 10 to debut on the station known as NewsCenter at 10 on Maine's WB 51. On weeknights, the news and sports segments originated from WCSH's studios at Congress Square in downtown Portland while weather forecast segments came from WLBZ's facility on Mount Hope Avenue in Bangor. Weekend broadcasts aired entirely from Portland. The WPXT newscast featured a similar format to newscasts that were simulcast on both WCSH and WLBZ (which largely serves as a semi-satellite of WCSH), with statewide news from both the Portland and Bangor markets. However, since WPXT is a Portland/Auburn market station, there was ultimately a focus on southern areas. With the affiliation switch to The CW in 2006, WPXT's news became known as NewsCenter at 10 on The CW Portland.

WPXT would not face any competition in the time slot until February 5, 2007, when current Fox affiliate WPFO entered into a similar arrangement with CBS affiliate WGME-TV. On November 6, 2008, WCSH moved the WPXT show to its second digital subchannel affiliated with NBC Weather Plus. As a result, WLBZ's production involvement in the newscast was dropped and refocused to Portland. After a six-year run, the production was eventually canceled altogether.

On October 31, 2011, WPXT and WCSH established another news share agreement and debuted an hour-long extension of the big three outlet's weekday morning show. Known on WPXT as NewsCenter Morning Report Xtra, this aired from 7 to 8 a.m. and competed with WGME's one-hour morning newscast on WPFO. It was a rebroadcast of WCSH's 6–7 a.m. show with WPXT inserting its own commercials. This ceased in spring 2014. In 2015, WMTW would move their operations from the Time and Temperature Building and into the same building WPXT/WPME operated from; WPXT's former news studio and newsroom had been subdivided and available for lease in subsequent years.

News 8 on Maine's CW
Following WPXT's sale to Hearst Television, the station announced that a WMTW-produced prime time newscast would premiere on September 24, 2018. A WMTW-produced Saturday 7 p.m. newscast debuted on August 31, 2019, and continued through the conclusion of ABC's college football coverage which necessitated the preemption of WMTW's usual 6 p.m. newscast. The WPXT Saturday newscast moved to 6 p.m. for the 2020 college football season.

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed:

title: WPXT


text:
User:P haze78

If you want to get in touch with me email hayesdaniel@hotmail.com

title: User:P haze78


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F1ngers

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

F1ngers
Non-notable "sporting subculture". Zoe 23:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, really, though doubtlessly highly amusing at the time. Flowerparty  talk 00:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. www.f1ngersinternational.com. Looks real enough to me. Dariuslux talk 01:13, 26 August 2005 (GMT)
 * "Real" is not a keep criterion. Zoe 04:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * This person has three edits, all here. Not to mention copied another's sig... :) --  Etacar11   15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, couldn't figure the coding out on a sony-ericson P800 mobile phone. Dariuslux talk 00:58, 29 August 2005 (GMT)
 * Delete nn. -- Etacar11   03:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep an amateurish entry, that actually does appear to be factual. I cleaned it up a bit, and added the weblink to the page there. Trollderella 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (perhaps put the link to the site in Formula One). Just because something is real, doesn't mean it deserves an article. My own website is real as are my sister's fish, but I doubt anyone would like to see an article on either. Wikipedia is NOT a website or newsgroup directory. - Mgm|(talk) 08:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The important difference here is that a) WP:NOT is not deletion criteria, and b) your sister's fish would need original research to verify, this does not. Trollderella 15:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. nn. If WP:NOT doesn't provide grounds for deletion, what on earth do you think it's there for? Dottore So 18:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some work, but theres plenty of info the 'F1ngers' members can add to this - it's a well-known group in F1 circles. --TheChillPill 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn at this point. --tranquileye 12:17:54, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F1ngers


text:
WGUO

WGUO (94.9 MHz "Gumbo 94.9"), is a commercial FM radio station, licensed to Reserve, Louisiana, and serving the New Orleans area. The station is owned by Dowdy Broadcasting and airs a Classic Country radio format. The studios and offices are on West Main Street in Houma, Louisiana.

WGUO has an effective radiated power (ERP) of 50,000 watts. The transmitter is off Burma Road in Raceland, Louisiana.

History
The station signed on in August 1991, as WADU-FM. It was owned by Virgie Hare du Treil, with studios in Laplace. WADU carried an easy listening - adult standards format. It was only powered at 1,900 watts, a fraction of its current output.

It flipped to smooth jazz as WSJZ on May 24, 2000. On June 6, 2002, it changed its call sign, becoming WXXM. It played active rock and carried the syndicated Opie & Anthony morning show briefly before switching to urban gospel as WPRF on April 21, 2003.

As WPRF, the station's slogan was "New Orleans' Inspiration Station." The Program Director was Jojo Walker, whose experience included Morning Show Producer of the K.D. Bowe Morning Show at the Sheridan Gospel Network. He also held morning and afternoon drive time jobs at 98.5 WYLD-FM in New Orleans, and positions at Mix 96 WBTP and 1380 WTMP in Tampa and 1080 WUFO in Buffalo, New York.

On October 3, 2012, WPRF changed call letters to WGUO. On November 10, 2012, WGUO changed its format to classic country, branded as "Gumbo 94.9". The programming is aimed at both the New Orleans and Houma - Thibodaux radio markets.

title: WGUO


text:
User talk:Hadrianoliver~enwiki

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Hadrianoliver. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hadrianoliver~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hadrianoliver~enwiki


text:
Old Wave

Old Wave is the ninth studio album by English rock musician Ringo Starr. It was originally released in June 1983, on the label Bellaphon, and is the two-year follow-up to his 1981 album Stop and Smell the Roses. The title is a play on new wave music.

Background and recording
After John Lennon's murder in December 1980, Starr returned home to England to live at Tittenhurst Park, which Starr had purchased from Lennon in 1973. In early 1982, Starr was eager to move on to his next solo project. Deciding that he needed more consistency this time around, he would work with only one producer, Joe Walsh, a former member of the recently disbanded Eagles. Walsh and Starr had known each other since the mid-1970s, having met and befriended each other in Los Angeles. Walsh immediately agreed to work with Starr and they met at Tittenhurst in February to begin writing material. Recording began shortly afterwards and instrumental backing tracks for seven songs were recorded at Startling Studios, after Starr had previously converted Lennon's recording studio. Engineering duties were handled by Jim Nipor. These sessions were mainly done with a team consisting of Starr on drums and percussion, Walsh on guitar and backing vocals, Mo Foster on bass and both Gary Brooker and Chris Stainton on keyboards.

Sessions came to a halt when Walsh and Nipor went to California on 19 March. Sessions recommenced on 6 April for a few days until 16 April. On 15 April, Rolling Stone broke the news that Starr was "in London working on a new album with Joe Walsh acting as the producer." Lead vocals were laid down from 19 to 23 April. Sometime in May, Starr requested permission from the Windsor and Maidenhead District Council to build a new building on his Tittenhurst Park land, which he would use for video and recording purposes. Sessions resumed from 31 May until 10 June; the next day, taking the masters recorded up to that point with him, Starr and his wife Barbara Bach flew from London to Los Angeles, and returned on 14 June. The album was finished with a third batch of sessions from 24 June into early July.

"Everybody's in a Hurry But Me" came about from a jam session between the Who bassist John Entwistle, drummer and percussionist Ray Cooper and Eric Clapton. "As Far as We Can Go" was originally recorded at Sweet Silence Studios in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 23 July 1978. From that original rendition, only the vocal was used. Walsh re-recorded an entirely new track utilizing one of the latest technology synthesizers.

Release and aftermath
The album was originally titled It Beats Sleep. The portrait on the album cover was shot in a booth in northern England, taken before Starr had joined the Beatles. As Starr's RCA contract had been cancelled, he needed to find a new label for Old Wave. Although it was just over a decade after the Beatles' dissolution, no major UK or US record company was interested in signing him. Starr would not accept that and was determined to have Old Wave released any way he could. The album was due to be released on the Boardwalk label, but never appeared, due to the death of the label's head, Neil Bogart. RCA Canada ended up distributing the album in June 1983 in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands, Mexico, and Brazil; while in Germany, the album and lone single pulled from it, both released on 16 June, appeared on Bellaphon but used leftover Boardwalk labels. The Canadian release of the album occurred on 24 June. However, Old Wave failed to achieve success in any of these territories, and would be Starr's last studio album until 1992's Time Takes Time. Two singles were pulled from the album: one in Germany, "In My Car", backed with "As Far as We Can Go", and the other in Mexico ("I Keep Forgettin'" b/w "She's About a Mover").

Walsh's 1987 album Got Any Gum? included a cover of "In My Car", which was released as a single and became a moderate hit. Four tracks from the album appeared on Starr's US compilation Starr Struck: Best of Ringo Starr, Vol. 2 in 1989. The album was reissued on CD in the US by The Right Stuff on 22 August 1994, the same day as Stop and Smell the Roses (1981). Both CD and cassette deluxe editions, included a bonus track, the original 1978 version of "As Far as We Can Go". On 1 November 1994, Right Stuff re-released "In My Car", this time on yellow vinyl, with "She's About a Mover" as the B-side. A promotional CD was released in 1994 by Capitol, featuring three songs from both Old Wave and Stop and Smell the Roses. The album was rereleased on brown smoke colored vinyl for Record Store Day in 2022 along with Ringo the 4th. The rerelease included "As Far as We Can Go (Original Version)", which was not included on any previous vinyl issues.

Track listing

 * Bonus track on the 1994 re-issue

Personnel
Track numbering refers to CD and digital releases of the album.

 * Ringo Starr – lead vocals (all tracks), drums (1–4, 7, 9, 10) , percussion (1–4, 6, 7, 10) , backing vocals (10)
 * Joe Walsh – guitar (all tracks), backing vocals (1–8, 10) , synthesizer (8) , harmonica (10)
 * Waddy Wachtel – guitar (7, 10), harmonica (10)
 * Eric Clapton – guitar (9)
 * Kal David – guitar (5)
 * Sherwood Ball – guitar (5)
 * Chris Stainton – keyboards (1–4, 6, 7, 9, 10)
 * Gary Brooker – keyboards (1–4, 6, 7, 10), backing vocals (10)
 * Joe Vitale – piano (8), backing vocals (8)
 * Bruce MacPherson – Hammond organ (5)
 * Mo Foster – bass guitar (1–4, 6–8, 10), backing vocals (10)
 * Freebo – tuba (5), bass guitar (5)
 * John Entwistle – bass guitar (9)

 * Kenny Edwards – bass guitar (10)
 * Peter Bunetta – drums (5)
 * Russ Kunkel – drums (6)
 * Ray Cooper – percussion (6, 9)
 * Sam Clayton – percussion (5)
 * Joe Lala – percussion (5)
 * Jocko Marcellino – percussion (5)
 * David Wooford – saxophone (5)
 * Lee Thornburg – trumpet (5)
 * Garrett Adkins – trombone (5)
 * Mark Easterling – backing vocals (1, 7)
 * Steve Hess – backing vocals (1, 7)
 * Patrick Maroshek – backing vocals (1, 7)
 * Barbara Bach – backing vocals (10)

title: Old Wave


text:
Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark

Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (Ειρήνη; born 11 May 1942) is the youngest child and second daughter of King Paul of the Hellenes and his wife, Queen Frederica. She is the younger sister of Queen Sofía of Spain and King Constantine II of the Hellenes. She is also the great-granddaughter of Wilhelm II, German Emperor, who was the first grandson of Queen Victoria.

Biography
Irene was born in Cape Town, South Africa, where her parents were living in exile, on 11 May 1942. She was christened at her parents' Claremont home by the Metropolitan of the Holy Archdiocese of Good Hope. She had ten godparents, including General Jan Smuts, Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark (her paternal aunt), King George II of the Hellenes (her paternal uncle), Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, and the Duchess of Kent (her paternal first cousin once removed). She was a pupil of concert pianist Gina Bachauer and, for a while, she was a professional concert pianist herself.

Irene was courted by Prince Michel of Orléans, Count of Évreux, a younger son of the Orléanist pretender Henri, Count of Paris, until he met French noblewoman Béatrice Marie Pasquier de Franclieu, whom he married in 1967.

Between her father’s death and her brother having his first child, she had the title “Crown Princess of Greece”.

After her brother was dethroned, Irene moved to India with her mother. Since her mother's death in 1981, she has lived in Spain in an apartment at the Zarzuela Palace in Madrid, the residence of her sister and brother-in-law, Queen Sofía and King Juan Carlos.

Irene was the founder and president of the organisation World in Harmony (Mundo en Armonía) from 1986 to 2023. On 16 March 2018, Princess Irene obtained Spanish nationality and renounced her Greek nationality.

Notable published works

 * En Decelia: fragmentos cerámicos de Decelia y miscelánea arqueológica. Athens, (1959–1960). Edited in Spanish in Spain, 2013. ISBN 9788494103308

Titles and styles

 * 11 May 1942 – 6 March 1964: Her Royal Highness Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark
 * 6 March 1964 - 10 July 1965: Her Royal Highness The Crown Princess of Greece
 * 10 July 1965 - Present: Her Royal Highness Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark

Honours

 * 🇩🇰 Denmark: Knight of the Order of the Elephant (R.E., 11 September 1964).
 * Flag of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (1738).svg House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies: Dame Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (1962).
 * 🇮🇹 Italy: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (27 November 1962).
 * 🇹🇭 Thailand: Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Chula Chom Klao.

title: Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark


text:
User talk:Deus777

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

Minor edits
I notice that you've characterized almost all your edits as "minor". For purposes of checking the "minor edit" box, the change has to be really minor. See Minor edit. If you're making any change to the substance of the article, even a single word, don't check that box. What I sometimes do, if I'm improving the wording of a passage, is to leave the box unchecked but write something like "minor copyedits" in the edit summary. This is a kind of in-between category. People who've marked their preferences to ignore minor edits will still see it on their watchlists, but they'll know that I consider it minor (although not minor enough to check the box). JamesMLane 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deus777


text:
User talk:Djinn it

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

title: User talk:Djinn it


text:
User talk:Marsden/Archive1

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

Divided attention
Many edits (such as vandalism reversion) take only seconds. Use of many tabs on a tabbed browser also distorts the picture. But thanks for your concern. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Assume good faith. As for the Occupied territories issue, I recommend you revert yourself - it's a bad idea to link to POV forks that will be merged, and your description is POV. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It is rather bizarre for you to take all sorts of unilateral actions, then complain about others not working things out in discussion or reaching consensus. Instead of reverting, how about you try Talk:? It actually worked for you on the Zionism page, when you were patient enough, and the final result was vastly better than your original proposal. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It's like this, Marsden: If you work calmly and pleasantly with other editors on the page, then you'll generally achieve reasonable compromises. If you continue on the path you seem to be heading down, which involves aggressive and belligerent talk comments, combined with reverting to your POV, you will rapidly find positions hardening against you, and further progress impossible. That's the way human nature is. You have a choice here, a "fork in the road", so to speak. Which path will you take? Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you really think trying to ally yourself with one-note editors who have been blocked from editing for persistent trolling is the way to go? Instead I suggest you work with those with whom you disagree, on the Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the story of what happened to your new buddy Amin123; he made such a nuisance of himself on a particular article, reverting time and again to his own version and refusing any discussion or compromise, that eventually 1/2 dozen other editors got sick and tired of him and simply reverted him regardless of what he edited. I've seen it happen to other editors as well. I think you're smarter than that though; you've proved you're able to get consensus throught discussion, but this blind reverting will only get you hardened attitudes. I implore you to re-consider the path you are following. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it from your needlessly personal comments that you are uninterested in reconciliation, or in working collegially? You prefer the revert war approach? Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So you weren't able to work out any compromise on Zionism, then? And here I thought things had gone quite well for the most part, aside from one disputed link. Of course, your insistence on revert warring has lost you ground even on that. In any event, I see from your continuing needlessly antagonistic personal comments that you really have no intention of trying to work with me. A shame. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Thanks for uploading Image:Klipspringer Kruger.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, bluemask (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
I'm sorry about the revert, Marsden; you're right, it's not a good way to be introduced, so hello. ;-) The reason I reverted is that I'm very confused about this profileration of pages. There's Occupied territories, Occupied Territories (Israeli), and then Occupation of the Palestinian territories that the second one might be merged with. Could you explain why you created the second one? Also, I think this discussion started on Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, so perhaps we could continue it there? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moves
Marsden, your editing is now becoming disruptive. You've created a new article (what I call a POV fork), because you didn't like the contents of the two existing articles it could have gone into. You've engaged in an aggressive revert war to keep it there, calling on editors with less than brilliant reputations, and no knowledge of the subject, to help you revert. You're now moving pages and causing edit conflicts and confusion for editors trying to edit them. No matter how right you may be about the substantive points, your behavior is undermining your position. Please stick to the arguments. You argue well. I'm quite enjoying debating it with you. (You made reference to there being no private language: do you have a background in philosophy?) I honestly feel we misuse the word "occupation" when it comes to Israel and that, as much as the Israelis appear to be militarily the stronger party of the two "sides," when it comes to propaganda, they're not. I think this is one example of where their POV is perhaps unfairly blotted out of Wikipedia, or mentioned in such a secondary fashion that it may as well be blotted out. I really think we should do some research into how widespread Gold's position is, and that may take a few days. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marsden. Thanks for the thanks. Sadly, Jay is a member of the establishment here. Draw your own conclusions. You can see from the above that editors in very good standing, such as SlimVirgin, who I personally have a lot of time for, are practically blind to their own bias on this issue. (She thinks we "misuse" the word occupation, which is a bit odd, because we are supposed to be simply reporting what others say. It's their "misuse" of words that counts, not ours.) Unfortunately, they have been empowered. The combination of genuinely feeling that they are not acting in a biased way and having the power to back up their views makes it impossible to make headway on that particular area of Wikipedia. There's a bit of a pattern with new editors, I'm afraid. The new editor, perhaps with sympathies towards the Palestinian cause, is quite surprised by how slanted our articles on the occupation and similar issues are. They try to edit them towards at least a middle ground and face fierce resistance from the pro-Israeli editors. The latter form a spectrum, just as any set of editors will, with some that are mildly supportive of Israel, through some quite fierce Israeli nationalists to some that are borderline anti-Muslim at best. "Our side" has a similar spectrum, I suppose, although you must expect Jay to treat you as though you are an extremist if you take even a moderately anti-Zionist line. Personally, I only rarely bother editing these pages because they are so closely patrolled by editors who outnumber and outgun any grouping that wants to see anything resembling balance. Grace Note 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due
I give you high credit for honesty. - Tεx  τ  urε  15:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I like that. Well, I am selfish for honest reasons.  I try to support those who try to do the right thing.

 * Can I ask why you want this enforced against Jayjg? It seems out of spite since he is the most vocal on talk but he seems to be reverting you no more than at least two other users on the same articles.  What do you hope will be the outcome of this request?  Do you feel he is violating the spirit and should be punished in hope of better responses in the future?

 * Do you feel that even though many other users are reverting your changes that you will still be able to make a valid argument against Jayjg? Won't the others reverting your change support his view that you have not substantiated your claim?

 * Why follow a revert war on these two articles for days and days? If it is you against many wouldn't it be best to drop the "brute-force" reverts and instead sway people or develop a compromise on talk? -  Tεx  τ  urε  15:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I do notice one supporter on one article but you are revert warring with at least four other users. Perhaps you should request page protection until the issue is resolved? -  Tεx  τ  urε  15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Response on my talk page - Tεx  τ  urε  16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Stochastic integral
Hi. I noticed that you blanked your article, Stochastic integral. Please don't blank an article you create if you decide it should not remain. Instead contact an administrator to delete it if you were the only contributor. If it was expanded by another user you would need to post it on Articles for Deletion.

Since you are the only contributor for Stochastic integral would you like me to delete it? - Tεx  τ  urε  16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok. I need to revert the blanking until then.  (Deleted is ok and your article is ok but blank is not.) Let me know what you decide. -  Tεx  τ  urε  17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the article at your request. I'm sorry things aren't resolving well. - Tεx  τ  urε  18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom decision
Aside from the fact that re-directing a POV fork back to its original page is not "removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles", the Arbitration Committee ruling also only applied to me for the period of my editing restrictions, which was 0 days. The Committee has clarified this, see Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. I regret that you have personalized this conflict to me, and that you feel that your role is to recruit allies in an attempt to war with others or punish me in some way, rather than focussing on resolving conflict on the Talk: page. I feel you have rejected my many honest overtures and requests that you try a more collegial path to dispute resolution. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I receieved your request to block Jayjg. However, first, as Jayjg stated above, you have misinterpreted the ArbCom ruling, there were not |editing restrictions imposed against him. Furthermore, please try to work this dispute out with Jayjg, rather than try to get him punished. As Texture said, you also were involved in the edit warring, and do not recieve my sympathy. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment on my "HOWS MY DRIVING" RfC page, I just wanted to make note that the votes in the proposed arbitration decision count: it is how they come to their final decision. Of course, if you look at the "editing restrictions", you'll see that the Editing restrictions against you and Jayjg did not pass;  only the editing restrictions with respect to you passed.  Thanks.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you can see, that ruling does not apply to Jay because the arbitrators, some of them his personal friends and adherents of his POV, voted it down. He was not considered culpable in that edit war, and I'm afraid he won't be in this one, no matter what he does. You'll note that because you have reverted a lot, you are marked as a "bad user". Because Jay is a "good user", he's allowed to revert without being considered an edit-warrior. I don't see the point of pursuing a dispute resolution against a member of the establishment. You have absolutely no hope of a just outcome and the time spent in providing evidence would be entirely wasted. The attitude of Texture will be reflected by the other empowered users here. You are "working against community consensus" because you take a minority view at the page. All the editors you oppose need to do is email a few friends, make sure you are outnumbered, and you are working "against consensus". That only a handful of editors involved escapes the likes of Texture. Their view of "consensus" is not that we should reach an accord but that everyone should agree with the gang or be silent, sometimes even silenced if you will not acquiesce. If you were to draw the conclusion that a POV that is not strongly pro-Israel is considered a priori "anti-consensus", you probably wouldn't be far from the truth. Your motivations will be questioned, I'm afraid; his never will. Jay is absolutely out of reach of justice and you have to live with that. -- Grace Note

I'm glad you've decided to stay. Take care. Grace Note 22:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering bailing
Yes, I have. Sometimes I just steer clear of the pages I know are tainted, and work for a while on other stuff that interests me. I try to pretend that Wikipedia just doesn't have a bunch of hasbara propaganda masquerading as pages about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It's not a focal interest of mine, to be honest, because I come from the POV that all oppressive regimes are wrong, and that Israel is not specifically bad but just one more bad place in a bad world. I know that the increasing popularity of WP brings the risk that people will start more and more recommending it as a source of information. That scares me because it is so flawed in so many places. It's not written by experts in the main and there's no real review process. You'd like to believe that the wiki would work towards improvement, but I've often seen the opposite happen. Anyone who's been here long enough can point to a dozen things that are plain wrong. Actually, be here long enough and you'll know of something you know from personal experience is wrong.

You cannot win against Jay, however right you are. You ought to know that by now. This is a guy who keeps a page of "NPOV edits" so that when he is brought before the arbcom again, he can "prove" he is neutral because look, he's done all these neutral edits. This is the level of consideration a case against him will receive. He can't be a POV pusher because on the 17 July he reverted some right-wing nonsense. It's like telling your girlfriend you can't have fucked her sister because look, you have some flowers for her. When you read the case against HistoryBuffEr, you will have noted one of the arbitrators saying "Jay knows the right thing to do". Presumably, reverting every edit other editors make, refusing to compromise and sneering at other contributors are all the "right thing", so long as you are one of the guys.

You have to let them have the Israel pages. It's worthwhile from time to time to have another go just to remind them that they didn't convince you and that there is opposition but you can't hope to make real change happen and you'll break your heart over it if you try. You know that though.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk any more, and to let me know your new ID if you are banished. If you don't bail, that's the likely outcome for you, and it would be a pity not to know who the owner of an interesting and thoughtful voice is. Grace Note 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't leave without getting in touch. Maybe if we talk privately, I can talk you out of it? Grace Note 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

3rr
I only count 2 reverts by you... Unless you were that anon IP.. but explain why the other editor is wrong first before I revert or anything.  Sasquatch  t|c 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalking and personal attacks
Marsden, you've admitted you're stalking an editor, and you're engaging in personal attacks (saying that editors are working for Dore Gold, are Stalinists, making an ass of themselves etc). If your aim is to make life unpleasant for some people, you're being singularly successful, but you'll find it'll backfire on you, because good editors won't support that behavior, whether or not they agree with your POV. I've tried to be civil to you, and I've tried to engage you in debate, and in fact don't see what else I could have done to avoid the attacks, except to capitulate and agree with you. Please try to find a less disruptive way of interacting with people who hold another POV. None of us can claim to have a monopoly on truth, you included. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * But some of us are much better equipped for ensuring that Wikipedia reflects our notion of the "truth".

 * My question for today, Marsden, is what is the difference between violent methods of interrogation and torture? Do only badboy Muslims do the latter? Grace Note 11:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look
at the the page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economy_of_Israel Your thoughts about this would be apreciated. Thanks. Regards, Huldra 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

over the top
don't you think your "Jews are evil" user page is a little over the top? User:131.89.192.110

You made quite clear your prejudice. User:131.89.192.110

 * Good. I'd hate for it to be unclear that I think ethnic cleansing is wrong.  How about you?  Marsden 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What you made clear is that it's easier for you to demonize "them" by projecting monstrous motives on "them". Why obviously "they" want to murder everyone, therefore you are clearly a moral giant and quite justified in your prejudice.

Barnstar
You deserve one. I'd be glad to reword it. Larsoner 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

sourced quotes
FYI, this diff should address the POV tag team of SlimVirgin and Jayjg. Policy says to use sourced quotes, i.e. to quote a source verbatim, rather than allow an editor to paraphrase in their own POV way. Obviously, the URL on this diff uses the phrase "Occupied Territories", and it is straight from the mouth of the URL, therefore the article should use that phrase. FuelWagon 23:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Reason? Don't count on it. Just be sure not to violate any policies while they're editing the article. They'll push POV like the most partisan warrior, but if you break 3RR (for example), they'll nail you for it. It's harder to prove POV pushing, and easy to prove 3RR violations. Just to let you know how these folks operate. keep your nose clean if you want an accurate article. FuelWagon 23:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neutral" titles
When they claim that it's "neutral" to retitle articles to fit their POV, I suggest you invite them to consider Sea of Japan or Liancourt Rocks. The practice in Wikipedia is to use the commonly used names for things, and not the names preferred by small minorities for their own narrow, political reasons. The "neutral" names, in Wikipedia's terms, are those most readily sourced and most widely used, because it is believed that wide use implies wide acceptance, and I think this is fairly reasonable. Wider acceptance implies more "neutrality" for the obvious reasons. Grace Note 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Its HULDRA (not Hulda!)
And please email me. But don´t expect an answer at once; I´m logging out of all Wikipedia-related stuff for 2 days: I have another life which desperately demand my attention. Regards.Huldra 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (PS: Huldra is from Scandinavia mythology.) PPS: and check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine. Read it! All!

Israel = POV?!?!?
Don't you think it's a little over the top to call "Israel" a POV term? You're being a tad radical with that proposal... Are you sure it's best way to put a point across?

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What I've read from your response is this. "I am frustrated against jayjg and co, therefore I will make their lives miserable by making edits that I know they will try and revert". All the politic diatribe made no sense to me, and if that's your REAL reason behind the edits, then you have a problem... Wikipedia is not a place for politics, and knowingly generate edit wars is not only unadvisable but, IMHO, stupid.

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move
Marsden, could you explain exactly what you did with the article and the talk page. The page history has gotten lost in the process, either because of what you did, or because of something I did when I tried to correct it. I'd like to retrace what happened so I can undo it, so please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's okay. Jayjg has fixed it. Please do not move this page again, and never do cut-and-paste moves. You're being highly disruptive, and if it continues, you're likely to find yourself blocked. Please either contribute constructively, or leave Wikipedia alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism

 * Well, I first took your proposal at face value, and I regard any attempt to lump Jews together as a Zionist entity as being antisemitic (or when Jews do it; retarded). If you would have used "the Israeli/Palestinian Entity" instead of "the Zionist Entity" when making your point I wouldn't have been as upset (although I still wouldn't have agreed).
 * That said; yes it is racism at work when these articles have been edited to exclude any references to Palestinian' lands, culture or claims (despite reference from United Nations, CIA, Amnesty International, etc). It is beyond any reasonable doubt that editors like Jayjg and SlimVirgin are using Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda, that there is a group of maybe 7-10 (?) editors who have been successful in their effort to present a very narrow minority view as if it was the majority view, and who have managed to take advantage of the loopholes in the Wikipedia rulebook. I can't for a second even begin to understand why they're allowed to be administrators.
 * However, in my opinion, it's not a good idea to counter racist propaganda with racist propaganda - it alienates Jews like me and it gives the hardliners a moral high ground they do not deserve. --saxet 14:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Saxet, please stop assuming you can get inside editors' minds. Neither Jayjg nor I are "using Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic [sic] propaganda." Or any other type of propaganda. It's you and Marsden who are the new, more or less single-issue, accounts. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely." — Jorge Luis Borges. I like that quote, Borges is (have always been) my favourite author. SlimVirgin, if you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get the point of the Borges quote, and in what way am I not assuming good faith? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it obvious Slim? By assuming that Dervish/Marsden is acting in bad faith by misrepresenting you as an ethnic cleanser whose only motive is to use Wikipedia as a platform to spread Nationalistic propaganda...it's really YOU who is acting in bad faith. Get it?  -- M P er el ( talk 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Recruiting
Of course you can recruit me,for the sake of NPOV. It seems like the "politics" on wikipedia are played this way. Let me know when you need support by leaving a note on my page. --Vizcarra 17:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

CC: Dialogue between me and Goodoldpolonius2
Saxet, I think you, like Marsden, are a potentially valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, but I would like to echo the suggestions that I made to him on the whole "Occupied Territories" talk page. You are attacking two well-regarded, long-time editors rather strongly (and others in passing) -- which does not mean that your points are necessarily wrong, but rather that that your approach might be, especially given that you are relatively new to the WP community. It also makes it hard to intervene on your behalf in settling the dispute. The kind of chaos that is occuring on the Talk:Territories under Israeli control page is not usual for Wikipedia, and it might be worth trying to calm it down a notch instead of inflaming it. For example, you could help me in reaching out to Marsden to get him to agree to be less combative, and, even if you are feeling provoked by Jay and Slimvirgin, don't shoot back, instead concentrate on the debate. This will serve you much better in arguing your points, and will help establish a reputation for constructive edits, which is the best asset on WP. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, my girlfriend is a long-time member of the Wikipedia community and is the one responsible for bringing me onboard.
 * I have, on at least three different occasions, let Marsden know that I have found his approach to have been 'less than constructive'. I do, however, feel slightly uneasy about reprimanding him once more - I did accuse him of being an anti-Semite (which he probably isn't) and I've been unnecessarily harsh when communicating with him. Right now I feel that maybe I owe him an apology rather than another scolding. I agree that the actual debate is more important than mudslinging and disruptive behaviour and that the situation on the discussion page is out of control. Since I'm a part of that I share responsibility for the unpleasant atmosphere. But I strongly object to any notion that me and/or Marsden are the ones who should be blamed for the havoc, even if Jayjg and SlimVirgin are long-time editors. I think this would be obvious to anyone who read Talk:Territories under Israeli control, Talk:Israel and the respective user pages. It is frustrating when different standards are applied, that rules/guidelines can be broken if you 'know the right people'. It is frustrating that sources like CIA, U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc, are so easily dismissed while the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is viewed as credible. It is frustrating that people like you don't want to argue the points of the debate because of the behaviour of one of the editors, and also that you give leeway to the equally bad behaviour of other editors. I feel this give readers an impression that Marsden (and probably me?) are lose cannons while Jayjg and SlimVirgin are acting in an honest and responsible way.
 * I have disclosed my personal POV, I did it because I wanted other Jews here on Wikipedia to take notice of what I perceived to be a group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them), who have succeeded in having their narrow minority view presented as a factual NPOV majority view in a number of Israeli/Palestinian pages. I had a, sort of, not-in-my-name reaction, and I was hoping that others (non-Jews also of course) would feel the same. I believe there is an unhealthy groupmentality thing going on right now where changes/edits made by 'outsiders' are opposed and/or reverted on sight. I believe you're part of that (note; this doesn't mean that I believe you're involved in bad faith editing). I also believe that Jayjg |the%20Committee's%20final%20decision and SlimVirgin are part of this 'group'. As is MPerel, Klonimus, Guy Montag, and Humus sapiens. I think that this is a serious problem for Wikipedia, not just in this case but also as a meta-issue; if I get 50 friends to start edit Ariel Sharon, we could coordinate efforts to have the article say that Sharon had Muslim parents. This kind of 'loyalty' between editors damages the credibility of Wikipedia.
 * I will try to be more civil and constructive, and I ask you to reflect upon if any of my criticisms ring true. --saxet 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Indefensible?
Hello Marsden,

I've had plenty of experience with Jay and Slim in the past, so I doubt I'll be surprised in the future. Both of them tend to take positions on article disputes related to Israel that I disagree with, and sometimes I find their arguments quite frustrating, as I've obviously made clear in both this instance and the Daniel Pipes article. But they both also are good contributors, and make a lot of positive contributions to wikipedia.

If nothing else, your behavior is indefensible because it only makes it less likely you will get what you want. Making personal attacks on other contributors, especially established and generally well-respected contributors, is not a good way to get others to come around to your way of viewing things. If you look at the discussion, your actions have caused a significant number of people to be unwilling to take sides in the dispute, even though they basically agree with you and me that "occupied territories" should be used. All you are doing is increasing the rancor of the discussion page, without actually advancing your substantive cause at all. Beyond this, the threat to disrupt wikipedia to make a point is always entirely indefensible. john k 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

While Jay and Slim certainly seem to have considerable sympathy with Israel, I have yet to see any evidence that either of them is an advocate of ethnic cleansing. john k 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government does not use the term "occupation," and does not advocate ethnic cleansing (certainly the mass removal of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank is not an official policy, which is what I take it you mean by "ethnic cleansing.") Just because somebody thinks that we should give deference to the official Israeli position does not mean that they are advocating ethnic cleansing and greater Israel. I say this as someone who does not think we should give deference to the official Israeli position. john k 23:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not winning me over, here. While the Likud Party certainly has among its constituencies a fairly large number of people who would probably like to clear out the Palestinians and annex the West Bank, and while I would suspect that the "disputed territories" flim-flammery is partly designed as a way to satisfy these groups, it also seems to be part of a bargaining position. Basically, calling them the disputed territories means they are disputed, which would allow annexation of some of the West Bank settlements. I suppose one could say that the settlement program as a whole is a kind of slow motion ethnic cleansing, but it is not what people normally mean when they talk about "ethnic cleansing" in this context. john k 23:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not particularly interested in discussing this with you, and I don't see what this issue has to do with what we were talking about before. You are clearly constantly violating Assume good faith - you are quite clearly, in fact, assuming the bad faith of anyone who disagrees with you about how Israel/Palestine issues should be discussed in wikipedia. This ought to be avoided. john k 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Morrocan Wall
It wasn't an anonymous editor, I was accidentally logged out. Wikipedia keeps logging me out. Anyway, you removed sourced information I put in. I did read the site you gave, but it basically said that there was surprise that Algeria supported one of the proposals, but that it was only because they knew the other side wouldn't go along with it and that it was merely a strategic move. Anyway simply stating that Algeria supports a negotiated settelement seems to misrepresent what the source you gave really says about it. -- M P er el ( talk 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok Marsden, change it to what you think best for now, I'll be offline for the remainder of the week probably, and will take a closer look when I get back. We can battle it out (cordially hopefully) then.  My only concern is to make sure all perspectives of what is happening there is presented accurately.  Have a good week.  -- M P er el ( talk 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You should rephrase
In your "Accusations against Jayjg" comment on saxet's talk page, you wrote:

 * In this diff you maintain that Jayjg is being paid to edit Wikipedia.

Saxet's actual words in the linked item are:

 * So you say that there is no conflict of interest (or a violation of Wikipedia policy) if Jayjg, as an administrator, is getting paid to edit pages relating to Arab-Israeli conflicts and/or issues regarding the occupied territories? And that there isn't an issue if you use your employer's website as a source?

As you should be able to see, saxet was not maintaining anything; he asked two questions citing a possible situation. You might note the two appearances of the word "if." Your accusation against him, in this account, is inaccurate, and you should rephrase it or withdraw it.

I now see that SlimVirgin has noted that saxet has been blocked for "sockpuppetry." If you are responsible for that, I also suggest that you unblock him to avoid the appearance that a conflict of interest was behind this action.

Marsden 21:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Suggestion noted, but I stand by my comment. El_C 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

your: "Why They Are Evil" on your user-page
Marsden; I think we agree about many things regarding the bias on editing in articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Wikipedia etc., but ''THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY YOUR WORDS ON YOUR USER-PAGE!!  (Yes, it makes me feel like screaming; ok?) Yes, I greatly object to the double-standards etc, etc  ....but Marsden: I feel that your words (on you user-page) are a  huge insult to people who are the victims of  real'' evil in this world. And that includes quite a few in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My point is this: nothing, and I mean nothing, that takes place on Wikipedia can be called with such a strong a word as  "evil". Nothing! Wikipedia is a place you log onto, or log out of.....-just as you like. Nobody  has to deal with Wikipedia if they don´t want to. You have a choice. Now, do you think people who are the victims of real evil have a choice; just to "log out"?? I feel like screaming: Get real! Marsden; I just feel that you (with you user-page) are  seriously belitteling people who are the victims of  real evil. I feel very strongly about this: trust me, I`m trying to say this in a diplomatic manner....(!) And I have waited for several days to "cool down" enough to be able to write anything to you, ok? Now, if you had used any other word, (I was going to suggest some, but I better not...); I´m not saying I would agree with everything you write then, but at least you would´t make me feel like screaming at you... Using the word "evil" about Wikipedia-matters does. Regards, Huldra 12:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your reply. First: as for your words: "From your comments, I take it that you see "evil" as some distant and exotic, terrible thing, of which we should all be aware yet never expect actually to see." How on earth you can draw such a conclusion! I actually thought the opposite was rather obvious: it is exactly because I have observed/seen what I (and others!) without hesitation would term "evil" at far too close a quarter that I react so immensly strongly to your "casual" (yes! casual, IMO) use of the word. I will not go into details (& you don´t want to know...) ..but I consider it pure luck/chance that I´m alive today. That´s what I (& others who do know the details) call evil. Things that were done on purpose -by other human beeing(s). I had one feeling (besides anger) when I read your user-page, and that was that this must be written by a very young person indeed, who had not seen much of life (?) ..or perhaps just by a very "lucky" person (who had not seen much of life..).  I repeat: you cannot just choose to "log out" when you encounter real evil, and I actually hope you never, never learn that the hard way (like I did).
 * Now to another of your points (as I understand it): wording "matters" (to put it very simply). I agree. And yes, I have noted that e.g. people behind "Radio Rwanda" (as I think it was popularly known) were found guilty of genocide. (And quite correctly too, IMO). Because of their words -broadcasted. Only "words". So of course words here matter...besides wich some of the real double-standard and nastiness is quite..well, I out of words for the moment. But Marsden: Wiikipedia isn´t Radio Rwanda!!! (Not yet, anyway...:-)) (Actually, some places in Africa that is the biggest insult imaginable: calling a newspaper/tv/radio/media-outlet for "Radio Rwanda"...)
 * Finally, You say that you are "happy to indulge in any amount of extremism if doing so can help in even the smallest way to prevent something that even you might recognize as "real evil."" (Sure. "Indulge"(!))  But that is the point; what do you think you are achieving?? I think Saxet said something of the same: now you only provoke and alienate people you could "potentially" work with. That is the only thing you achieve. You certainly do not win anybody over to your side with your words. (I nearly didn´t vote on the Talk:Territories_under_Israeli_control due to it! Yes, I know that was a very, very, very silly and stupid reaction from me...but that was my "gut reaction". ) Now, I feel you are using such "extremist" words for your own good. Only. It feels good to write it, right? Think about it. Seriously. You achieve nothing pos. with it. Regards, Huldra
 * PS: Also your "hints" that some are payed to write here: it might be true, it might not be true. But remember that some of us, (including yours truly!) do not need a wage income and spend their whole day (and sometimes night!) working for NGOs and/or projects like Wikipedia.... (I really have to log out now, don´t expect me back the next 24 hours.) Take care, and take a look over at Talk:Jewish_Defense_League ..its "Deja vu all over again"! LOL!...should we warn poor "Stone"?...nah...heck, does Wikipedia need a Chinese speaker.....(?)
 * Again; thank you for your comments. Well, I hope I have made myself very clear on this matter, but as of now it seems as the most we can do is to agree to (strongly!) disagree about the use of words. But I cannot hide that I´m quite disapointed with you.  Just a few final comments: you say "the opinion of someone who would change it out of spite isn't worth anything anyway." -I´m not sure of who or what you refer to here; my comment was that people who on the  issues agree with you will simply withdraw from whatever debate you are involved in (...there is no lack of alternative work to do here on Wikipedia!). And yes, sure, it is important that these issues (titles of articles, & "naming" the facts etc..) are debated, however, I´m quite appaled at the energy and stubborness it takes to change anything one mm on issues where the involved soldiers, eh, wikipedians, have been in their trenches since the "beginning of time" (a.k.a. 2002, 2003 or 2004). (See the ref. I gave you 28th Sept.)  For all that is written under "Talk:Territories under Israeli control": do you think it has changed the opinion of  anybody?? Anybody at all?? Which brings me to my last point: it is said that the best way to tell a lie is to tell only one (small) part of the truth -I seem to see a lot of that here -you can call it "systemic bias" or whatever. Time can be used a lot more productivly here by telling unquestionable truths -truths that people with what I think you would call a "Hasbara agenda" never cared to tell. Anyway: as for me: I have decided to stay until Christmas -and see how the elections and personal appointments (if any) to the ArbCom goes. If people who can write something like this   because somebody made a (perfect NPOV!) edit.. and not be censored, but be rewarded...ah well; then wikipedia is not for me. (Btw: I see that nobody protest when CNN is called "left-wing"..amazing: in my part of the world it is considered quite right-wing! ) Anyway, see you around, but NOT on your terrlble User-page.....Regards,  Huldra 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

DT/TD might be restored
Thanks, but I (and gf) will not, due to lack of time, continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Best Regards. --DTemail 01:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Marsden, could you please consider checking my talkpage every once in a while to see that it's not vandalized or anything, it would be much appreciated. If you don't have the time I would be grateful if you could relay this message to User:Vizcarra, or someone else. Keep up the struggle! --saxet 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

4th revert ?
Go ahead. but read discussion first Zeq 13:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers/Trivia:
Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers/Trivia on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 04:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for perfect ref.! Just wish I had time to work more at that subject; presently I´m kept occupied by clean-up operations after Zeq over in Israeli Arab. Regards, Huldra 04:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

if you have some time
Users SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and El_C, among others, have started an RfC against me.

feel free to add anything you might think applies. FuelWagon 21:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli settlements
I'm a bit reluctant to move back, on the basis that the criticism of "Israeli settlement" as too vague makes some sense. Do you think Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories would be more acceptable? john k 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Territories

 * I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone (usually jayg) insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Complaints
The ski resort stuff is at least as relevant as the water stuff - if you file a complaint, make sure it includes your insertion of that water stuff again and again. Oh, and include all the personal attacks you've been making as well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget to include your admission of wiki-stalking me (and indeed, editing Wikipedia) solely for the purpose of reverting me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You two are so intelligent and make such valuable contributions, please call a truce, both of you. You can be so productive when you work together.  Getting worked up doesn't do anyone (not to mention Wikipedia) any good.  -- M P er el ( talk 08:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Skiing is as important as water? Clearly, Jay doesn't live in an arid place.

Minor edit
Out of curiosity, what counts as a minor edit for you? Andjam 12:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I also consider it a personal attack to call one of my contributions "cr**". Thanks, Andjam 12:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Amongst other things, you called my work "cr**" again. This is your last warning. Cease all personal attacks against me at once! Andjam 12:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Would you consider weighing in?
Maybe, I'm not sure if my presence would be appreciated by the group. Funny thing this, in my real life (Europe), I'm more often than not on the pro-Israeli side in arguments, but around here it is like a Through the Looking-Glass experience. Ski resort???? That's very funny and very sad at the same time. Good luck. --saxet 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although Jayjg and Andjam might have a point; all this political turmoil we read about in the newspapers just might be about the (secret) ancient feud between cross country skiers and downhill skiers. :-) Yeah, the strategy now seem to be to drown the article with nonsense, when that has been done someone will (correctly then) note that the article is nonsense, maybe to be merged into better articles. I could have sworn they were going to go after the title, claiming that the unpleasant atmosphere and that 'impulsive' move by El C would be grounds for a reconsideration, and while we all were reconsidering we should (temporarily of course) let the article have a more 'neutral' title like; Disputed areas in and around Israel. Regards. --saxet 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll await, though it looks like someone trying to make a point, which should be done in talk pages, not in articles. Cybbe 18:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You look to be holding your own right now - will add it to my watch list Unbehagen 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and I think he knows that perfectly well. If he and Andjam keep at it I'll have a word with them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried for a compromise version. Sure include the fact. But let's give it a lot less promenance - because it's clearly WP:POINT.. Unbehagen 14:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, as you know, I generally agree more with you than I do with Jay on issues relating to how wikipedia should discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I think you really need to take a step back and think about the best way to get your ideas across and work constructively here. I don't hold to Jay and Slim's expansive view that any criticism of the conduct of an individual user constitutes a personal attack. But that doesn't mean that criticizing individual users for their conduct is something which ought to be engaged in except as a last resort. To an extent, at least, you seem to delight in calling out Jay and in making the argument one about Jay's conduct, rather than about the article content. I think this is usually the worst way to go about things in wikipedia. It is almost always more productive to listen to the complaints of your opponent and see if consensus can be reached by constructive edits to the article to try to address reasonable objections. I thought we did this fairly well in terms of the article opening, and it is always more pleasant to come to some kind of consensus than it is to win a bloody slugfest. It also usually results in a better article. Anyway, I hope you'll consider this in the future. (Note: these comments are not meant to suggest that you are the only one guilty of this) john k 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

At some point I will work on the Israeli-occupied territories article again, but right now for personal reasons my time available to work on Wikipedia is extremely limited. In general, I think the better approach (more likely to be successful) is to make a strong argument on the discussion page, as John Kenny did on the title issue, rather than going after Jayjg directly. I haven't kept up on the talk, but someone should point out, as a start, that the UN resolutions on occupation mention water resources, but say nothing about skiing. Brian Tvedt 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate insinuations and beyond(?)
My move wasn't  (or as paranoically suggested, its insidious opposite). I announced my intention to do so days in advance, there was no convincing or appreciable opposition, so I did it. Obviously the article needed to have the word Occupied in it after being re-named to the inexplicable Territories under Israeli control. And the word occupied shall remain in it for as long as Palestine remains occupied, if I have anything to say about it (providing I'm around; undountedly, some here wish otherwise). All this assumptiveness does nothing but defeat from the work ahead; and same goes with all the unecessary acrimony & related spliovers. Of course the water issue outweighs the skiing one, both (and others) should be mentioned with all due emphases vis.a.vis (vital) national interests, but in order to get to the point of setting up such a framework (sections and/or subarticle designations and so on — what the debate right now should be on, it is currently ahead of itself), we need relative editorial peace, which is soarly lacking (unless things somehow changed in the last few days). I'm glad we got to the point where we have an accurate title, and I'm not just saying it because I was the one who came up with it (or borrowed it from EB, rather) & did the renaming; your OT(I) gave me the association of territories being occupied from Israel, and in that sense, not much more clear than OT(P) (!). Anyway, lot can change for the better with gestures of good-will, and such a process will greatly help to distinguish those who aim at positive improvements from the perpetually disruptive (if there are those in these debates; and of course, a debate is not at all the same as an entire talk page participation, I note as an aside, since there seems to be some confusion). I'm not saying this will happen immediately, I myself am not prepared to deal with that (or anything) for some time and am only writing this now, before this whole discussion becomes history. The Arab-Israeli & Palestinian issues suffer from systemic bias that favour pro-Israel views. I'v said that since day one of joining, and I say that now. Because it reflects the bias in Western imperialist culture, its propaganda, and therefore editorial composition and predisposition in its own leanings. Anyway, the record is clear that my orientation throughout has been much more so on the side of Zero and Mustafaa rather than Jay and Slim. But just because I think the latter two are deeply misguided on these (and also other) areas (as I also find you and most others on Wikipedia, in general; I'm sure the feeling is mutual and we need not and should not get into that), does not mean I think they are in favour of oppressing Palestinians. Nor should this disagreement prevent me from collaborating professionally as well as collegially with them and others whom I disagree with (with notable exceptions that go far beyond the scope of this), and I do. Nor does it automatically imply wrongdoing on their part, esp. in areas unrelated to the A-I/I-P conflict. As for me, obviously I take strong exception to and am protesting the insinuation made here alleging I conspire with them and others to maintain pro-Israeli bias, as it is so clearly divorced from the facts (which any editor who has been with those articles for at least a few months would vouch), the opposite is true. For the most part, we do not see eye to eye on these issues and avoid debating these outside of respective articles simply because it's unpleasent and unproductive. But, the bottom line, it's nearly-impossible to operate with all this negative energy that never seems to dissipate. And as a result, an intellectually honest and unbiased presentation suffers, because some are unable to emotionally restrain themselves from repeatedly resorting to personal attacks, simplistic schemes (as well as simplistic conspiracies alleging these, as expanded on above), which then ultimately prove self-defeating and work to perpeturate the bias, by expending so much needless energy in trying to defeat it. But to suggest that I would make ideological comrpomises for petty politics, friendship or any reason, has to be among the most insulting things I have yet to endure here (not the worse, though, by any stretch). I just read it now, hence the length and convolusion of this one-paragraph note. Thanks in advance for reading closely & critically. El_C 14:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You make me feel like I'm Public Enemy No. 1. :-) I read through your tangled (yet very poetic) paragraph and what I extracted is this:
 * Fighting systemic bias only perpetuates it.
 * Talking about systemic bias only amounts to unpleasantness.
 * Being specific about what/where is nothing but simplistic conspiracy theories.
 * You have been treated unfairly, and not with the respect someone as brilliant as you deserve.
 * And you, someone who knows what's good for the masses, was insulted by some lowly revolutionary.
 * You have always known that the word occupied belongs but didn't want to disturb the editorial peace by arguing about it.
 * The reason why you felt insulted by the suggestion that you have made ideological compromises was because it was so obviously wrong, which everyone knows (without a shadow of a doubt).
 * Thing is, I believe you could be a truly great voice here on WP, if you could only forget about the poetry and your reputation for a second and dared to be bold; you know that there is no field beyond right and wrong.  You'll be rid of me any day now so I'm not the problem - you are. Regards. --saxet 06:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Fighting systemic bias  only   perpetuate it.
 * Talking about systemic bias  only amounts to unpleasantness.
 * Being specific about what/where is  nothing but simplistic conspiracy theories
 * You have been treated unfairly, and not with the respect someone as brilliant as you deserve.
 * And you, someone who knows what's good for  the masses, was insulted by some  lowly revolutionary.
 * The reason why ou felt insulted by the suggestion that you have made ideological compromises was because it was so obviously wrong , which everyone knows (without a shadow of a doubt).
 * You have always known that the word occupied belongs but didn't want to disturb the editorial peace by arguing about it. ,

In no particular order, but opting for point form: 1. I guess renaming the article wasn't bold enough, I still fail to see how I could be more bold. And how is it that I wasn't involved in the discussions? I was involved, in fact (do I need to cite diffs?). 2. I don't do poetry, I cite it and I am inspired by it. I aim for clear and concrete and precise communication, that I often fail, with it coming across as (bad) poetry is inadvertant and can be attributed to a veriety of factors. 3. My concern with my reputation as alleged co/conspirator (even in an institutional sense, forget the curde simplicities of your so-called 'impulsiveness') is understandable. I'm not going to confront systemic bias in a way that will consume me, as they did Comrade Shorne. I will try to approach it in a way that would enable me to do as much as I can with the time I have. I'm not about to enter into a polemic with Jimmy Wales et al. about objectivism being un-objective or his "strong pro-Israel views," whatever that means. You may find that to be a productive use of my time, I beg to differ. More generally, with these articles, I'm also fighting bias on two fronts, against the overemphasis on the I-P conflict in the mainstream media and pedia. I realize it's important, but ~5 million people died on the DRC in the last few years. I see a lot less attention on my watchlist placed on that conflict, for example. So that is a part of the struggle for me also. One cannot adhere to a revolutionary stance without such an internationalist basis (I did not and would not say emphasis, but still, as a fundamental basis of solidarity). 4 I don't aspire to be a great voice, because in order to get to that point I would have to make ideological compromises. I do aspire to be a progressive one. 6. I'm trying my best under rather perilous conditions, actually, I find. You think I'm the problem, but I challenge that you have not fairly reviewed my work, am prone to kneejerk assumptions and hasty conclusions. I'm not going to offer any apologies for not involving myself with battles I know I'm going to lose. I'm against waste. 7. I'm not going to enter into moral philosophy because I have no use for moral philosopy. Human potential concretly, not teleology and deontology in the abstract poetic field. 8. As for getting rid of you, I'm not going to become involved in any measures or discussions relating to your conduct if these arise, anywhere, to anyone. You can choose to believe me, or not. 9. I would appreciate some benefit of the doubt, seeking clarifications which aim at a deeper analysis, prior to accusations and incivilities. 10. I could say that I might have been making positive contributions which, from what it sounds like, you would approve of, had it not been for the energy you've drained me of in these and other exchanges, but that's not actually the case. I have endured much worse recently, personally as well as on Wikipedia. And, as for the latter, at least I'm speaking to you. I don't believe in an eye-for-an-eye, so if there has been one major flaw with my responses to you following your initial assuming-the-worse answer, is that I did end up approaching it that way. I'm far from without character flaws (understatement), but all my broader points stand nonetheless. I urge you to try being more thoughtful (if not diversified) about your own struggle to combat bias on Wikipedia, with an emphasis on practical results. By failing to do this, you are, in fact, proving to be the problem, in this sense (far from limited to little ol' maglomaniac moi). Please reconsider your attitude, overall tone and overtones. If you have any specific concerns about the role you think I play, all you have to do is ask. Without acrimony, sarcastic and acerbic innuendo, accusations: straight-forward and to the point. I think that's a reasonable proposition, but the effort needs to be reciprocal, and on that note and with all that said, I hope you will reread not only this comment but my prior one also, in light of those explanations. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you! This was what I was looking for earlier. You'll be rid of me soon because my real life situation require that I don't spend time on WP (or any other sites). I agree with you that A-I/I-P is only one area out of many that needs attention; there are multiple reasons why I chose this issue, the reason I didn't get involved in the others was lack of time. Like you, I don't aspire to be a great voice - as much as I admire people like Hammarskjöld, Allende, and also Giovanni Falcone I don't have their courage and patience (or intellectual qualities). From your user page et cetera I thought that our viewpoints weren't all that different (main difference being that I'm a somewhat revolutionary social Democrat, and not a Marxist) - that's why I was surprised by some (not all) of your edits. You don't approve of my conduct, and I think I understand how you're reasoning - I could say AGF, but it's just words anyway. The reason I wanted to scratch the Rolls-Royce with my key was to make a tiny crack in the wall (LC poetry: "that’s how the light gets in"). I'm sure I could have conducted myself in ways that would have been more beneficial to the purpose of WP, but I'm not really sure I agree with the purpose, etc.  However, it seems like I have made some wrongful assumptions regarding your philosophy and I sincerely apologize for that. --saxet 18:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * And you continue to make wrongful assumptions, philosophically. ;) An extremely potent remedy is Jack London's literary masterpieceThe Iron Heel. Read it from beginning to end and you shall earn much (much) credit from myself as the ultimate assumption and expression of goodfaith; and you will realize the true context of how we should Remember Allende (at least he died with a rifle in his hands; naive but sincere and true to the masses). I'll try to revist your last comment on, again, a 10-lines per sentence hopefuly soon to better expand on what I mean as per my first sentence (even on some פרות קדושות, i.e. "the system is very strong," but so is the volatile nature of its underlining contradictions). But for now, I'll just say: your apology is accepted, gladly. El_C 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

zionist terrorism
The usual suspect are now trying to raise an RfC against me on zionist terrorism - would you care to take a look? Unbehagen 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote
Marsden, I saw this and thought your input would be valuable: Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote. I haven't looked at it closely enough to involve myself there yet, but thought I'd bring it to your attention. -- M P er el ( talk 05:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Yes, I appreciate Vizcarra's efforts there. Notice that none of my edits were reverts. I took a look at the conflict happening and saw that neither version listed direct quotes, and my edits were intended to rectify that. I think there's a better format for presenting the POV and counter-POV instead of adding the commentary to the passages, but I'm not necessarily completely opposed to the way Vizcarra is doing it.

The better way, imo however, is to list the quotes directly without context, because the point is not to convince the reader to consider whether these passages actually are or aren't antisemitic; the point is to present which passages are seen to be anti-semitic from the POV of those who think they are. And it's often the case that people who interpret passages a certain way don't consider the context, indeed it may even be that many come to hasty conclusions about it precisely *because* they don't consider the context. This is why I think that presenting the context as part of the presentation of the POV describing which verses are seen as antisemitic is actually an obstacle, too much qualifying. We're not trying to present the "real meaning" of the verses, but rather the perception of people who interpret them negatively, which as I pointed out, doesn't necessarily take context into account. Where context should come in (I believe) is in the followup presentation of the POV that counters that these passages are not antisemitic (context in this case is part of the counter-POV argument). In summary, it should be presented this way: POV1 finds the passages x, y, z to be antisemitic; POV2 counters that these passages are not antisemitic because ...(1) context, (2) other reasons, etc. An analogous situation would be with Talmud quotes. Many nonJews take offense by certain verses in the Talmud (and similarly, many nonMuslims take offense by certain passages in the Koran). If I were to neutrally present this, I would use the same formula I gave above. Any contextualizing would happen in the counter POV, because people offended may not be (and in fact are likely not) considering the context, just basing perceptions on the direct text. -- M P er el ( talk 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marsden/Archive1


text: User talk:71.115.133.166

title: User talk:71.115.133.166


text:
User talk:Charmedslayer89

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

title: User talk:Charmedslayer89


text: User talk:68.127.238.116

title: User talk:68.127.238.116


text: User talk:80.1.224.5

title: User talk:80.1.224.5


text:
User talk:Svennex

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

Peace dollar
Do you have a reference for your addition to the Peace Dollar article, stating that this is the kind of coin used by Two-Face? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The original coin looks alot like a peace dollar in Detective Comics #66(1942). Brian Bolland later made a detailed picture of the classic two-face where the coin is clearly a 1922 peace dollar. I should probably mention that the design of the coin has been changed over the years.

Image:Jakobframe.jpg
I would be pleased if you could move this image to Wikipedia commons so I can use in the corresponding article about Volvo ÖV4 on the Swedish Wikipedia. Thanks. Lidingo SWE 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a copy of the image and placed it on Wiki commons. Now 2 images exists but the one on en:wiki can be substituded by the new uploaded if you wish. Then the textstring 'subst:ncd' should the be inserted somwhere but I don´t know where. Lidingo SWE 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hokuto Shinken
Hokuto Shinken, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Hokuto Shinken satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Hokuto Shinken and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Hokuto Shinken during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pilotbob 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:B2170s.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:B2170s.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

{subst:proposed deletion notify|MACK (Swedish company)|concern=The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.}} Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Percy tårar

The article Percy tårar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2012"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donald D23  talk to me  13:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Clover (toy company) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clover (toy company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Clover (toy company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Svennex


text: User talk:84.175.9.239

title: User talk:84.175.9.239