text:
User talk:Dervish Tsaddik

--

Welcome

What are you talking about Willis? Toshiba 09:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Vandalism --saxet 09:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:France
You added to the talk page of France. You however did not provide any hint as to which parts of the article, according to you, lacked a "world view".

This tag is generally used for articles about general topics when these topics are treated from the specific point of view of a small number of countries or regions (ex: an article about a law concept discussing it only from the point of view of US law). David.Monniaux 19:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel
Why don't you tell us what your problem is with the article, and suggest alternatives, rather than just adding (inappropriate) tags to the Talk page? Adam 02:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The tag limitedgeographicscope is not inappropriate since the article presents a POV held by a narrow minority as if it was the (global) majority view. It's disgusting frankly. As a Jewish person I _know_ that what you are doing is a disservice to Jews even if you mean to do the opposite. By presenting (modern) extremist US-Israeli views on Israel and it's history as if it was factual you are turning a Wikipedia article into cheap propaganda.
 * Imagine if I would edit an article on homosexuality and would put in this sentence: 'Men and women has throughout the ages strived to become homosexuals and it is well known that every important historical person that has ever lived has been a homosexual', do you think a person reading that would say 'Interesting, I didn't know that' or do you think they would laugh and then not take the other (real, factual) claims that were in the article seriously?
 * If I was to edit an article about Israel I would probably slant it in a pro-Israeli way since I believe that we should have a homeland (and it's impossible to not be biased) but I wouldn't resort to writing a fairytale version of reality.
 * In the opening paragraph you have this sentence;
 * "In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens), but Israel is not a secular or multicultural state in the purest sense."
 * Who do you expect would believe that? The whole article is like that and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia, and to discredit us Jews that wants and needs to live in the real world.
 * I don't think it would be much use if I were to edit/suggest edits to the article as I believe they would get reverted, even if I submitted 100 references for every edit. That's not the way it should be. --saxet 05:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are not prepared to participate in editing the article you have no right to post tags on it.
 * I still don't know precisely what your objection to the article is. Which statements in the article are factually wrong? What relevant facts are omitted?
 * I wrote the sentence you quote. In what specific sense is it incorrect?

Antisemitism
If it is antisemitic to propose to reflect the long-standing and widely held perspective that Israel is not a legitimate state -- that's the reality, not my opinion -- what is it to remove any direct reference to Palestinians perhaps having rights to the lands they live on? Marsden 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments at Talk:Territories under Israeli control (which I've returned to the article's original name, Talk:Occupied Territories (Israeli), by the way, at least until Jayjg and SlimVirgin get back up to their old tricks. I've also submitted an RFC on it).  It is an unfortunate quality of Wikipedia's editing policy that a motivated minority -- even as few as a half-dozen people, I would guess -- can hijack an issue, unless an effort is made to stop them.  Jayjg and SlimVirgin are dirty players -- you should see some of the veiled threats they've hurled at relatively new users -- and I have been losing the battle to maintain even the vaguest reference to Israel being an occupier.  Again, thanks for your comments, and I'm sorry I had to threaten to ratchet up the dispute so much.  Marsden 12:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, "Zionist Entity" is the term used by Arab governments that don't recognize Israel when they need to refer to Israel. I don't think it is ever (or at least only in the most extreme nut-case examples) used to refer to all Jewish people.  It is, of course, not a popular term for Israelis, but -- as some have noted on other matters -- it is accurate that the State of Israel is by almost all reckonings both Zionist and an "entity."  I think it's silly, but in many parts of the world it is probably a lot more commonly used than "Disputed Territories" is used anywhere in the West. Marsden 15:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dervish, the title of the article is a separate issue from the contents. I strongly protest your reverting in Marsden's many POV additions to the article which have nothing to do with the topic of the article or it's title. You have even reverted in his modification of the arguments of the opponents of the term - how can you justify having them say things that they never actually said? I've cited explicit arguments, and yet Marsden feels they should have made different arguments - and you seem to support him! Again, as I said, the title of the article is one thing, but blind reverts of the entire contents are unacceptable in my view, as are your threats to have people blocked. Jayjg (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and methods
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 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)
 * Saxet, you absolutely never owed me an apology. You reacted honestly and naturally to what I had written, but you did not close your mind to seeing whether or not there was something to what I wrote.  That is the best response I could ask for.  I don't know your personal experiences with Polonius, but in my experience he is a straight shooter. Marsden 12:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A few things. First, are you calling me part of a "group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them)" or simply part of the "group mentality" with a bunch of other users that you have stated that you dislike in the past? I have no idea how you are getting any of this at all from my editing history or my discussions on any page you have been involved in, but you are welcome to believe whatever you want, and it is clear that this means that, for you, I am not to be taken seriously -- so be it, I tried. As I have stated, it is not my desire or my interest to work on issues about contemporary Israeli policy for a large number of reasons (such as these sorts of fights), but Marsden's threats against other, totally unrelated articles did draw my attention.  And the lack of apologies or promises from him to refrain from threatening again is definitely my concern, in that I find that to be the most destructive approach to editing possible, and could lead quite rightly to a ban or other action, which I don't want to see happen. The fact that Marsden seemed happy that it drew attention to his position, and therefore was the right thing to do, only made the matter more untenable for me.  I tried to resolve that situation and failed, but thought you might help. I then wrote a note to you to suggest that attacking, rather than helping calm, the situation was a bad idea, which you then cross-posted to Marsden's page as an apology to him, along with your note above accusing me above of being part of a cabal suppressing outside thought. I don't like being accused of things I have not done (when did I revert Marsden or any of the other stuff you are discussing?), and, while I am sympathetic to your POV, I am not at all to these methods, or your blanket accusations. Feel free to cross-post this wherever you want. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I assure you that it wasn't my intention to offend you when I cross-posted our exchange; I felt that since we both were discussing Marsden, it would only be appropriate to make the comments available for him to read. I apologize for not asking you first. I apologized to Marsden since I had accused him of having an anti-Semitic agenda (and also, I think, for speaking down to him).
 * It seems that you and I are in perfect agreement regarding Marsden's threat, it was beyond the pale. Completely unacceptable and, as I told him, I would fight such a proposal every step of the way. What I think you and I disagree on is that I don't find that what he did the "most destructive approach to editing possible". My reasoning here is that it was an empty threat, it didn't seem to be a calculated move, and it certainly wouldn't have been successful. The most destructive approach, in my opinion, is when editors that share a fringe POV collaborate in such a way so that a large number of Wikipedia articles (for months/years) remain inaccurate and dishonest. That is a bigger problem, because a lot of average readers actually believe what they read in Wikipedia.
 * I accused you of the group mentality thing, because I thought you made the wrong choice between two ethical principles (translated to Wiki language; POV vs. POINT). Also, I don't know if you remember this but on 02:42, 24 September 2005, you entered a minor edit war that was going on at Talk:Israel, I had provided numerous sources (CIA, Amnesty International, etc) to back up my claim that Israeli Arabs didn't "enjoy full political and civic rights". You then provided Steve Forbes' Freedom House as a countersource to my sources and the other editors thought that your source trumped all of my sources. Since you are intelligent and knowledgeable it was/is hard to fathom why you did that. If you really think that Palestinians enjoy full rights in Israel?
 * You are, most definitely, to be taken seriously. You will be here long after I'm gone and from your recent comments I sense that you're not a close-minded ideologue. But just like you I have principles, and my conscience demands that I follow them. If Wikipedia consensus is that I haven't been respectful enough in regard to long-time editors Jayjg & SlimVirgin, when I try to include terms that is used by 99.5% of the people in the 'real world' (including Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush), then I will take my leave. Sincere thanks for taking your time to talk to me. --saxet 07:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First, a factual issue, on the Talk:Israel page, you will notice on the page history that I was the first person to add sources, after your very first edit -- I never got involved in the revert war after this point. . You should know that while I am far from a rightwinger, I feel that your POV that "Israel is an apartheid state" is very incorrect -- not that the country doesn't have major issues of social and civil justice, of course -- and I felt that you were pushing that point very strongly. At the same time, I really don't want to get involved in a long-term debate over Israeli policy, especially since many people (not you) get involved in these arguments in bad faith, so I dropped out of the discussion.  As someone who has worked on Jewish history topics, I am always shocked at how many out-and-out honest-to-goodness anti-Semitic edits I see being made (Holocaust denial, people insisting the Protoccols of the Elders of Zion are real, or that Jews committed 9/11, or justifying Nazi Germany's attacks on Jews, etc.), and many of these aggressive POV editors start on the Israel pages.  That is why I generally try to give leeway to the few editors who make a stand and spend lots of time reverting these kinds of edits, which means new editors who want to improve Wikipedia and start with Israel need a bit of patience to be heard over the noise.  Given this, I find the speed at which you are reposting HistoryBuffER's claims that WP is "Zionpedia." a racist enterprise run by a pornographer unsettling, by the way. I take it that you are probably going to quit soon, since one probably does not want to waste their time around a "neocon" collection of "shovel-ware." --Goodoldpolonius2 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My POV is not that "Israel is an apartheid state", my POV is that Israeli Arabs doesn't have equal rights, and that comparisons can be drawn to apartheid era South Africa (the later years). And when that was inserted in the article, I cited a newspaper article where a person (Desmond Tutu) made that comparison. My POV is also that it's very dishonest to have an article present the POV that Palestinians are equal under the law as if it was factual, using a source like Steve Forbes' Freedom House.
 * And as you are far from a rightwinger, I'm far from a hippie. I don't get shocked when I encounter anti-Semitism, I've been in, quite a few, 'heated situations' with neonazis over the last nine years and I know what they are about. But I have also realized that sometimes we get this tunnel vision, we see what's happening to us but we fail to see what we are doing to others. I try to be (as little as possible) in the us/them frame of mind, and to be equally intolerant of intolerance.
 * If you would take the time and, for an hour or so, try to read articles relating to Islam with an empathic mindset you will notice, I think, the same kind of hatred that you get shocked by in your articles also exist on those pages. I replace "Muslim" with "Jew" when I read in such a way, and it is disturbing. I did the same thing when I read Guy Montag, explaining to Ramallite in a very calm and collected manner, why it was necessary to get rid of all Palestinians, I replaced "Palestinian" with "Jew", and it was as if Hitler had written it. Like Guy Montag was talking about animals.
 * There are things about Wikipedia I find very fascinating, and other things I find deplorable. Yes, I will most likely quit this project soon, if I don't get banned first of course. You say that "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else" . I don't necessarily agree with that. Anyways, Shalom Aleichem. --saxet 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Saxet, like many Wikipedia editors (including the other ones besides me above who you presume to lump into a monolithic group and disparage), I don't make it a habit of discussing my personal opinions about Middle East matters at Wikipedia, since my personal data is irrelevant as far as editing here. There are plenty of venues available on the internet for debating ideas and opinions, it's just not the focus here.  I also don't feel compelled or obligated to correct people's false assumptions regarding what they *think* my opinions are, or what my religion is, or even my ethnicity or gender.  For example, I've never even bothered to correct all the editors who regularly refer to me as a "he".  But for your benefit, since you seem to care very much about these irrelevant personal matters concerning editors like myself, let me fill you in on *my* particular viewpoint on the Middle East, which, btw, has nothing to do with how I edit at Wikipedia.  Here it is: I think that the whole conflict is complex, that it's a very difficult situation for the people involved on all sides, and that it's presumptuous for people who don't actually live there (like me, for example, I don't live there) to express strong opinions about what the people who live there should do about it.  There, that's my personal point of view.  I'm not sure if that places me in the category of editors who hold personal views you disagree with that you would perhaps like to see "cleansed" from Wikipedia, but at least I hope you will now refrain from spreading false assumptions about what you think I think.  Unfortunately, your focus on venting your personal feelings about what you suppose are other editors' personal beliefs has really caused needless disruption and diverts from the purpose of building an encyclopedia. -- M P er el ( talk 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Mperel, this is the first time I write something in response to you. One of the reasons that this hasn't happened earlier is that I sense that you don't really know why you argue for or against something - if you really agree with SlimVirgin (for example) and understand what her proposals entails or if you just feel that she is a nice person and that it's nice to have friends here on Wikipedia.
 * You say that the "Middle East conflict" is "complex" - I honestly do not know how to reply to that (although I'm in agreement with the sentiment course). If I argue that since Knesset passed two laws, the Civil Wrongs/Civil Torts (Liability of the State) Law and the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (which both are admittedly discriminatory against Palestinians), it is wrong to state in the Israel article that Palestinians enjoy equal political rights. Is that argument disruptive to the purpose of Wikipedia? Was that why editors opposed that argument?
 * You say it would be presumptuous for you to express strong opinions about the personal choices of people living in that region. What can I reply to that? Yes, I agree - you shouldn't judge a man until you have walked a couple of years in his shoes. Naivety is nice, but certain experiences washes that naivety away (and one starts to judge oneself). You seem to miss something here - I'm not arguing that the individual people who edit Wikipedia should conform to my opinions; I'm arguing that the article(s) shouldn't conform to a view held by less than a half percent of the world's population, a view held by less than 40% of Jewish people, and less than one tenth of a percentage of Arabs. And I can Cite Sources for every edit I've made.
 * Let's just say that there are some bad people out there; neonazis, Stormfronters, Al-Qaeda sympathizers, KKK, Kahane supporters, and so forth. Sure, if I had any power around here I wouldn't mind having those people cleansed from Wikipedia. An effective hate speech policy or something. I hope you're not under the impression that those groups aren't represented here on Wikipedia, and that all editors are doing this as a hobby.
 * I must also say that I didn't appreciate this lie about me.
 * Ok, I will from now on refrain from spreading false and/or true assumptions about what I think you think, and I hope you will do the same. --saxet 04:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Saxet, please note I’m not keen on your condescending statements and assumptions about my motives in why I choose to argue for or against something. Would you mind just sticking to the actual merits or lack thereof of my reasoning and arguments concerning edits, thank you?
 * Here is the thing. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a debate club or Wiki-editorial where we all get to hash out our beliefs and opinions.  Personal beliefs of editors are irrelevant--the only arguments we should be having should be about how to present article contents accurately and neutrally (which is why I’m not interested in debating with anyone on Wikipedia my *personal* opinions).  Let’s take your example about the statement, “Palestinians enjoy equal political rights.”  I don’t know the context of that statement without taking a closer look at the Israel article. However, the neutral way to approach that would be to consider whether a) it’s relevant to the article, and b) whether it is an undisputed and universally held statement.  If so, then it can be stated as such, though I would quibble with the word “enjoy” which sounds awfully subjective.  If the statement is not universally held, then it would be necessary to present who agrees with it and why, and who disagrees with it and why.  It should be indistinguishable to the reader which “side” Wikipedia takes, though it should be made clear which view is the “majority” view if one exists, without any judgment on which view is “correct”.  As editors, we’re just supposed to be dispassionate narrators of other people’s views.  In no case would it matter one iota whether you or I, as the editors, agreed or disagreed with the statement.  That’s what neutrality is about and how we’re supposed to approach writing this encyclopedia.
 * As for the “bad” people, it’s not the editors’ “offensive” beliefs that get them rejected and banned, it’s their offensive behavior and refusal to abide by policy. If neonazis et al could behave like reasonable editors (e.g., not engage in hate speech), there’s no reason they should be excluded from Wikipedia editing.  For some reason, there haven’t been too many of them successful in doing that.
 * One last thing, my hackles get raised when other good editors are maligned.  You made some highly presumptive and misinformed statements about several people, with your only explanation being that you were offended by the personal viewpoints expressed by one particular editor on a talk page that had nothing even to do with edits to any articles.  Rather than reacting by projecting all your anger about one person’s opinions onto a whole group of people and ranting about it, why don’t you discuss it personally with that particular editor, if he’s willing to discuss it with you?  Or better yet, if you see edits he or anyone makes to articles that represent POV information as being universal fact rather than from a particular POV, then nicely point it out and discuss it reasonably on the talk page of the relevant article.  Things don’t have to be so personal and escalated, and a lot more is accomplished when people treat each other with respect, even if they disagree.  By the way, all that said, I don’t hold grudges, and I would be perfectly amenable to trying to get off on a better foot with you.  Welcome to Wikipedia. -- M P er el ( talk 08:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you even read what I wrote? You're preaching your interpretations of Wikipedia policy, yet you simultaneously violate the essence of your gospels.
 * I have respect for Slim Virgin (the "good editor" that you in the spirit of "neutrality" pointed out that I had "maligned" with my "misinformed statements"), because although we might collide together when arguing a proposed edit, or an edit made, she knows that the quarrel over a sentence like "Palestinians enjoy equal political rights." never have and never will have anything to do with the usage of the word "enjoy".
 * I will not hold a grudge either, believe it or not, but I haven't been personally offended by anyone here. The world is far more complex than most people realize. Anyways, thanks for the welcome. --saxet 14:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you actually read what I wrote either. Maybe we're both wasting our time.  -- M P er el ( talk 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sad but (partly) true (it seems)
Welcome to Ziopedia (tm), a reverse Robin Hood venture (By HistoryBuffEr)

Before donating your time or money to this project consider these points:

This project has attracted many because anyone can contribute (but see some fine-print below.) However, a reference work written by "anyone" is a contradiction in terms.
 * You'd be wasting your time:

The owner of this outfit and the majority of his lieutenants (board, arbs and admins) are pro-Zionists.
 * You'd be helping promote a racist/imperial worldview:

In the last 3 months, four editors who tried to add the neutral-point-of view balance to Israel-related aticles were banned from Wikipedia (another one is expected to be banned soon.) In the same time-frame, four editors who were persistently biasing articles in favor of Israel were let go free (one has even had his previous sentence reduced.) Simply skim any of the articles related to Israel and draw your own conclusion.

Most non-science articles exhibit clear bias: neocon, right-wing, USA, Western.

Below the thin PR veneer of a community run public/non-profit org, this venture is actually owned and run by one person. Read that again.
 * You'd be merely enriching a private venture rather than some common good:

Prior to asking for public donations, the owner financed this project by selling titillating images of women's flesh. There is no indication that the owner's nature has since changed. On the contrary, he recently opposed posting a link for donations for tsunami victims on the home page.

This project was not created for the public benefit, but for the owner to some day cash in on the huge quantity of "stuff" created for free by others. Despite the questionable quality, he is likely to benefit: the sheer volume is at least worth something in terms of potential (low-Q) eyeballs for ads. The public, however, is unlikely to ever benefit from this shovel-ware collection of mostly random musings which often change without notice or discernible cause.

Worse yet, even if all of the above appeals to you because you are part of the cabal, you are still doomed because Ziopedia will never become a credible source of information. Period.

- - -

Required Reading: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

--saxet 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

- - -

And best of luck to those that fight the wikipropaganda - who tries to make the encyclopaedia a lot less Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan, and a little more Noam Chomsky/Nelson Mandela. --saxet 02:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please quit vandalizing my user page or you will be reported. Großhauptsturmführer 22:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Großhauptsturmführer is in violation of Username policies, he/it continues to remove the UsernameBlock template from his/its user page. --saxet 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Common-use argument
Saxet, I saw your exchange with Polonius. I feel you're going too far in describing anyone who opposes you as necessarily part of a group of "right-wing Israeli Jews and their sympathizers" (and Marsden has elsewhere accused me of being a nasty, evil, right-wing, bullying, nationalist proponent of ethnic cleansing!), all because I'm trying to do two things:

(1) I'm trying to find an acceptable neutral title for an article that will explain why many organizations and governments call the West Bank etc "occupied territories," but why the Israeli government and some of its supporters prefer "disputed territories." Because the article will discuss that controversy, I feel that the title should not beg the question by containing either word, but instead should use a third, neutral term. I'm not arguing for a Wikipedia-wide "ban" on the term "occupied territories," or censorship of the term from this particular article. The discussion concerns only the title. My wanting to discuss that issue does not mean I'm evil.

(2) The second thing I've been trying to do (and not just here with the word "occupied") is to explore what our NPOV policy means when it comes to using neutral phrases versus phrases that are in common use — the so-called common-use argument. Until quite recently, I supported the common-use argument; that is, I believed the word "terrorist" should be used to describe certain groups, if most people, or most Western governments, thought of them as such, and I supported the use of the phrase "occupied territories" for the reasons you've outlined. But then I became engaged in a protracted debate at Human about whether the introduction should include reference to human beings as having souls and being made in the image of God. I argued strongly against that, but was overruled on the grounds that most people in the world hold these beliefs, and that therefore NPOV dictates the inclusion of that view, not only in the article, but in the introduction, because of the common-use or majority-view argument. I found this so counter-intuitive that it got me thinking about how the common-use argument applies elsewhere. Most people in the world may think gays are evil, but do we want that in the introduction of Gay? Clearly not. So who exactly are we referring to when we rely on the common-use argument? Commonly used by intelligent people? People in the West? Governments, think tanks, academics, news organizations, other encyclopedias? If so, which ones? Only English-speaking ones?

When it's explored in this way, the common-use argument begins to fall apart at the seams, and I think is sometimes used as a way of bolstering our own POVs. I therefore stopped using the word "terrorist" and began to have my doubts about the phrase "occupied territories," and a few other phrases I won't bore you with. "Occupied" is a particularly interesting one, because we don't use it of Iraq. There are 147,000 U.S. soldiers there governing a puppet administration — clearly shown to be such by, for example, the recent arrest by Iraqi police of two plain-clothes British soldiers, which the British army allegedly responded to by knocking down the walls of the prison using six tanks, and freeing them. These are clearly the actions of an occupying power (though perhaps only in the loose, non-legal, common-use sense) and yet, because the UN and the U.S. announced that the occupation was over, Wikipedia changed the title Occupation of Iraq to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. So there's an example of the aggressor dictating the terms of the debate and Wikipedia rolling over and allowing it, solely on the grounds that the U.S. announcement was rubber-stamped by the UN. But does this mean we now follow whatever the UN says? That's not NPOV either.

With these difficult terms, and particularly in titles, I feel it's a test of our intelligence and integrity to fly in the face of the politicking (and common use) and use neutral terms. Not using the word "occupied" in relation to the territories is not to reject it, or to imply acceptance of the term "disputed." It is simply a recognition of the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, and also a recognition that the term is used inconsistently by lawyers, by governments, and within Wikipedia itself, and is therefore a term that is flawed, and arguably better avoided.

You may disagree with everything I've written, but please acknowledge that writing it doesn't make me evil, or a supporter of right-wing nationalism, or a proponent of ethnic cleansing, or a member of an "alien race ... that very much needs to be expunged forever from this planet," as an anon IP told me on Friday, with reference, I believe, to the same debate.

The only distinction I draw between editors is whether they're trying to be good editors or not. I don't care about race, ethnicity, religion, POV, right-wing, left-wing, and I strongly dislike it when other people concentrate on those issues, instead of on content. This is what Marsden has done, almost entirely, and it has turned those talk pages toxic. The only reason I'm writing this is that I see you as a reasonable person, which is why I want to explain myself to you. I hope that, no matter how much you disagree with me, you'll assume good faith from now on, and if I do something that makes you doubt it, drop a friendly note on my talk page or e-mail me, and I'll try to explain myself — though I'll try not to be so long-winded the next time. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and SlimVirgin
I have noticed that you, such as many of us, have encountered the problem that the SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon tag team poses to wikipedia. They are experienced users, and as such can manage to play the rules to push determined POV. Jayjg is specially skillful in upsetting others through namecalling as well which may cause you to focus on the attack instead of the facts.

You will often see that entire paragraphs will be removed if there is disagreement on it even when the removal of only a statement isjustified. Avoid falling into this trap by making three reverts within 24 hours. In my first encounter with SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon I fell into that trap. The standard they have for those who have a different opinion is much higher than for those who agree with their POVs. The addition of different opinions must be fully justified and sourced while those statements that fit their POV do not have to be. If you add enough justification and sources to your paragraph, then the paragraph may be removed or reduced to its minimum because "this is not an article about ...".

I assure you, however, that they are not considered authorities of wikipedia, even when they are consider admins. It is always pleasant to see new people attempting to level the POV that this group brings to wikipedia. Keep it up. --Vizcarra 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You may want to see this Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence --Vizcarra 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail
Saxet, would you mind e-mailing me, please, using the link on my user page? I just tried to send you one, but you haven't specified an address. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations aginst Jayjg
In this diff you maintain that Jayjg is being paid to edit Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim? Also, elsewhere you mentioned that, based on information provided by "two upper level admins," you have evidence suggesting User:John McW is a sockpuppet being employed by Jayjg (which would clearly be in violation of policy on his part). Could please make me privy to this evidence, as well? Thanks. El_C 19:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone that you say you admire once said; "There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, for a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory; just as any country's defeat is a defeat for all of us." --saxet 07:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

-- In a recent arbitration case, Yuber, the Committee adopted the following principle by five votes to nil:
 * Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.

It went further, passing the following remedy on one of its own number, Jayjg, by four votes to nil with one abstention:

 *  is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.

In that case, the Committee has chosen to ban one editor from a class of articles for one month, and to place another on probation, primarily for edit warring.

It is bad for Wikipedia when an editor engages in edit wars. When that editor is an administrator, it is also bad for administrator morale, it makes admimnistrators look like hypocrites, and when he is supported in his warring behavior it brings inevitable and quite justifiable accusations of cronyism. It is thus a very serious matter indeed.

You're unblocked
Hi, I've unblocked you. I don't think the block was at all justified. john k 14:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations against Jay
Hello Saxet, I'm responding to your comments here because I don't think it belongs on the already fractious talk page. I am well aware of what an ad hominem argument is, and I would agree with you that my post was not an ad hominem (although I was unnecessarily insulting at a few points). In terms of your claims about Jay, if you're going to repeat them, you need to provide some substantiation, rather than vague accusations. Either that, or you need to stop making the accusation. If Jay is using a sock puppet to make personal attacks, that is a very serious issue. Why would your "high level admin" not expose this publicly? Why would he tell this only to you, on the condition that you do not reveal who told it to you? If this were in fact being done, it would be grounds for arbitration against Jay. So why is it that the only evidence so far presented on this matter is your claim that a "high level admin" told you this? I'm sorry, but this simply isn't at all credible. So, if you want to keep bringing this up, you need to provide some evidence. john k 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I wont provide evidence so henceforth I won't bring up the issue any more. You have, of course, every right to your assessment that my claim isn't credible, but I nevertheless stand by what I've written. And as I said, if User:David Gerard comes to the conclusion that I'm wrong about this matter, I will accept his 'verdict' and he would be free to (once again) ban/block me.
 * Also, I kind of figured that you knew what an ad hominem argument is - my point was more that it is contra productive to 'roll over', to accept the current situation where 'well-regarded long-time editors' operate by a different set of rules and doesn't need to worry about consequences if they violate policies/guidelines. --saxet 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Saxet, I'm sorry to see that you're back and causing trouble again. Regarding your allegations, do I have your permission to forward to John a copy of the e-mail you sent me about that situation? I would also like your permission to summarize the contents of it on the article talk page. I wouldn't normally ask for this, but you've raised the issue again, and your e-mail would shed some light on the status of the claim. SlimVirgin (talk)  02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I'm asking permission to share only the part that directly pertains to this issue, not all of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I'm sorry you're sorry. I've enjoyed our e-mail exchange and I hope that we can continue it, but I will not give you permission to use/post/forward anything I've written (at least not for now). It's been quite a few e-mails and I'm afraid I don't really trust you to choose what paragraphs/sentences would accurately describe the reality of the situation. Maybe if all our e-mails are made available to the Wikipedia community in an unaltered state. I'll do this - I'll respond to your latest e-mail and maybe we can (via e-mail) come to some sort of agreement as to what material is relevant in this situation. I must say that I'm disappointed that you even referred to my e-mails on the talk page; I could easily 'retaliate' by 'quoting' from your e-mails, but I feel that's a line I'm not willing to cross. --saxet 06:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your request for an apology
Saxet, you left the following on my talk page:

 * SlimVirgin, you quoted (without my permission & out of context) from a private e-mail I sent you, on the Talk:Israeli-occupied territories page. I'm honoured to have made your acquaintance, but re this issue I only see two viable alternatives:

 * 1) You apologize on my user page for completely disregarding e-mail privacy.
 * 2) I set up a page, User talk:Dervish Tsaddik/Emails from SlimVirgin, where I copy/paste all nine e-mails in an unaltered state (except for crossing out your name of course). It would provide context to the paragraph you quoted from. Also; I think there might be a few Wikipedians who would find our e-mail exchange quite illuminating.

 * What do you think? Cheers. --saxet 09:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I didn't quote from a private e-mail you sent me. I referred to the fact that you had sent me one, and asked your permission to quote from it, because it directly contradicted a statement about another editor that you'd made on a talk page. You said you wouldn't give permission, so I didn't quote from it. See above.
 * Well, you dishonestly used information that I had sent you in a private e-mail in an attempt to discredit me.
 * I don't understand the purpose of this. You accused an editor of wrong-doing on a talk page. Shortly afterwards you e-mailed me some information that shed light on that allegation. I e-mailed you asking for an explanation. You didn't respond. I asked you on your talk page for permission to quote from the e-mail. You said no, and said you wished I hadn't even referred to it. I apologized. So what is this all about now? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, you seem to be trying to blackmail me, and that never works.
 * You personally, or Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - or is that a distinction that can't be made? It's not about blackmail, it's about a well-regarded long-time editor such as yourself taking responsibility when you've done something that just shouldn't have been done. Which you're well aware of since you apologized to me in two separate e-emails (Oct 19, Oct 21).

Third, you're trying to give the impression that there was something interesting about our e-mails. There wasn't.
 * That hurts. It's a matter of perspective though. I was mainly thinking about your prediction about how long the word "occupied" would remain in the title, and also how we good-heartedly critiqued our various strategies and such. But it was probably more interesting for me than it was for you (even though you sent me three times as many e-mails as I sent you).

 * I didn't mean of no interest to me. I enjoyed reading your e-mails. I meant of no interest to anyone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fourth, I'm sorry to see that these games continue, and fail to see the point of them, so please play on without me. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it's a game? I really don't see it that way, I see it as a 'When in Rome, do as the Romans' kind of strategy to counter the much more effective games that you (and the usual suspects) put into play. Then I hear: so why don't you just leave if you're not happy with how we do it. That "we" bothers me. When you use it; are you referring to yourself, your crowd, or every Wikipedian? --saxet 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a game to me. Looking at your contribs, you've made almost no edits to the encyclopedia. Coming to Wikipedia only to ask for apologies (or cause trouble) on talk pages seems like a waste of everyone's time.

 * You seem like such a nice person by e-mail. But talk pages have a bad effect on you, saxet. Talk pages are your full moon. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my delusions of grandeur really sets in when I see a talk page. ;-) Don't worry though, I wont trespass much longer since, as you already know, I'm not really a fan of Wales or the policies of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and I also see no point in becoming a talk page anti-Wikipedia activist. That contribs stuff was unfair though, look again and you'll see that I've probably contributed more to articles than MPerel and a few others put together.
 * You also seem like such a nice person; Edith Wharton said that: "There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it." :-) Looking forward to another e-mail. Respectfully. --saxet 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

POV battle
In case you're around: Israeli settlement Marsden 05:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in?
Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should create the category, "Nations with only one ski resort," so that this critically important information is more readily accessible. ;) I tend to think that Jay's intent with the ski resort nonsense is in fact to make it funny, so that people who read an article that he failed to impose his petulant POV upon will not take it seriously. Ah, well. I guess I should read up on the balance of ski resorts in the Middle East, a matter regarding which I have been inexcusably uninformed. Probably there should be clear distinctions made between resorts with full chair-lifts or even gondolas and those that only have rope lifts. Surely there has been a UN mission or two on the matter. Regards. Marsden 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Saxet, if you have a problem with my contribution, why don't you explain it on the article's talk page, rather than my talk page? Andjam 00:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I promised El C aka Nameless editor that I would take my leave from that article's talk page. It is a question of honour, integrity, and other such words. --saxet 01:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. Using the phrase "ret****d edit" on my talk page about an edit to that article might be viewed by some as not exactly honouring the spirit of the promise, though. Andjam 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I honoured the spirit of my promise, but maybe that's not for me to judge. The stated objective of Israel, PLO, and the world community is to have a Palestinian state coexist side-by-side with the State of Israel in peace and harmony. In the negotiations to achieve this goal there are several important issues the different parties has (or hopefully will) reach an agreement on. This includes everything from how terrorism is dealt with to natural resources. You had the opinion that such a crucial issue was a small ski resort in the Golan Heights, I honestly tried to find the most polite word (that was still accurate) when describing your insistence re the inclusion of the ski resort. Maybe I should have used the word "injudicious" instead of "retarded" to describe your actions. Please note though that it was not a personal attack. --saxet 11:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you wish to cite sources that Palestinians want control of the Golan Heights, as opposed to water rights? And you question my intelligence? Andjam 13:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What intelligence? --saxet 22:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it
You're opposing Ramallite as an "agent of influence"? I don't understand. He's a great editor, and brings a much-needed POV to those pages, in an intelligent way, and has a calming influence. What is your substantive objection? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he would bring "a much-needed POV to those pages". And there's not enough Wiki namespace participation. Must say though; it is not very palatable to be on the same side as Klonimus in this RfA; even if my reasoning was probably very different from his. --saxet 05:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But what's the agent of influence thing? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I was just going to ask you the same, and then I find that Slim has beat me to it. ;-) Anyway: I´ve had my differences (to put it diplomatically) with Slim and Jayjg in the past (and probably will have more in the future, if I stay on WP); ...but your vote here has greatly suprised me. I can agree with you that R. does´t have too much  Wiki namespace participation, but others have been elected (I belive) with as little. And, to be frank: I feel you are seriously belitteling R. if you believe he will be  anybodys "agent of influence". I think/believe  he is "his own man". As for feeling uncomfortable beeing on the same side as Klonimus; you should be even  more uncomfortable by being on the side of Zeq; I (like R.) have been struggeling with him, over in the "Israeli Arabs". A frustrating experience, to put it mildly. ..I notice that already  one person has changed his vote from Oppose to Support. It could be  two? ;-) Regards, Huldra 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * SlimVirgin is not only very smart, she's also fast. ;-) Yeah, being on the same side as Zeq feels like you're on a date with one of the Bush twins. Or at least I think the feeling would be similar. I've noticed various strategies/methods being used here on WP, and right now I feel that it would take a lot to surprise me. Hela projektet är aningen tvivelaktigt. I've seen your comments and edits though, and if you say Ramallite is ok, I'll trust you. Which means the blame will fall entirely on you when it turns out that he is in fact the uncle of Donald Rumsfeld's nephew. :-) Cheers. --saxet 01:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Tjenare, nabo! "In bed with the enemy", wasn´t that the name of a film (or a book)? Just remembered the name, for some reason ;-) and yes: you can blame me if Ramallite turns out to be the son of Ariel Sharons father...Regards, Huldra 01:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)PS: begynner å føle som deg om projektet ..men email meg! PPS Hey, don´t forget to change that vote..

 * A big THANKS! (and good-night..) Regards, Huldra 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No thanks neccessary närbo. Yeah, I think I've seen that movie. ;-) Skickar iväg ett till dig - also; good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. :-) Regards. --saxet 02:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I have just noticed this discussion, which shows (together with your answer to Palmiro) that you have no independent view point on this issue and your vote was tampered with. Zeq 08:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers
Hi Saxet - I consider being an admin as having some tools that help me do what I already do easier (revert faster, etc). I sometimes am on Wikipedia in between experiments (and sometimes in spite of them) but usually early morning before work (if I have time) and in the evenings and weekends. I probably will not be changing that pattern, but at the same time, I do not see an admin as having to devote more time to WP per se, but making good use of the time that person is online. I'm actually not sure there is a requirement for minimum time devoted in order to qualify. I hope you realize that my bio is completely fictional! I merely wrote that to illustrate the absurdity of the conflict (depends on how one looks at it of course); how people could get along better if there aren't such petty "cliche" historical positions taken. There never was an Avi/Abdulhakeem, it's all in good humor (or so I thought). Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RfA, I appreciate it :) I hope I've answered your questions adequately. Ramallite (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ramallite, I did realize that your bio was fictional, the reading was fun galore (Arabs on Ladders!!) and I even think I understood some of the subtext. Thing is; 92.4%, or 14.8% (depending on how you count) of all Wikipedians have a persona that is very different from their real life identity. So how does someone like me trust that you're not another Likud supporter; with a perfect background story - a 'cover' which would bring great moral credence to the debates. After all, you haven't been around very long, and you were nominated by SlimVirgin (and supported by Jayjg, et al). All very suspect for a world-weary, disillusioned person such as myself. I've realized it's not the best substantive arguments that 'wins' the debates, it's the number of 'friends' one has (and their importance) - I can only hope that once you become an admin you will not forget concepts like truth and integrity, no matter how much Champagne and blingbling you get offered. That is if you're not already corrupted, if you are you should of course take as much as you can. ;-) Regards. --saxet 01:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Historia universal de la infamia
I recently apologized to El C for (indirectly) calling him a coward. I guess I've posted a few comments these last couple of months that could be interpreted as personal attacks. Funny thing is; for my most egregious violation of WP:NPA, I wasn't blocked. I wasn't even reprimanded by anyone, and the comment wasn't removed. That attack was directed at Marsden. Ain't it ironic, ya think? I have contributed to content, in perfect accordance to guidelines and policies (paying my dues one could say). I've also, in my megalomaniacal delusion of grandeur, helped remove extremist POV stuff from a couple of articles. And I've made a few 'character assassinations'. Someone wrote to me in an e-mail that WP was about rising above a dysfunctional world. My feeling was that the people/entities behind the userids are the same who make our world so dysfunctional (or sometimes elysian). That someone wrote me it could work; "If we all believe it, it becomes true.". So it's a question of being willing to have faith, and believe that the ones who enforces the guidelines (that they themselves are constantly rewriting) are to be trusted with their version of reality. The reason I've lashed out against Ayn Rand (that can't even defend herself due to her deadness) is the influence she yields around here. That disturbed woman is to philosophy (and politics) what L. Ron Hubbard is to science, and like him she sadly enough has a cult following. Quite a few of my posts here was written in a Dan Brown-esque style, 'simplistic conspiracy theories' as some might say; but with a few hints thrown in as to who this J-character (i.e. Jimbo) really is, et cetera. During my time here I've only once been banned indefinitely. :-) And that for an offence I wasn't even guilty of. I guess I couldn't be banned for the stuff I was actually guilty of, as my methods weren't all that different from the methods employed by the people who wanted to have me banned (difference being: my methods was far less sophisticated). I dared Jayjg to start an arbitration against me, but he (unfortunately) didn't take the bait. I tried to heighten SlimVirgin's sense of omnipotence, while at the same time chipping away at her credibility. This all might sound "unproductive" and like "a waste of everyone's time", but I didn't do it just for the pleasure of screaming into mirrors, or painting my name in graffiti. I did it because, in my humble opinion, I think the time is right for an unbloody revolution. A small one while we wait for the great unbloody revolution of 2009; that begins at 4:10 PM on June the 24th. :-) Something like that. --saxet 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's pointless though. They are far more committed than you are and far less able to see that what they do is a long way from progressing towards the noble aims they share with you in emails. More's the pity. If their energies were directed towards the foundation aims of Wikipedia, it might have a chance of being what it dreams of.

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for changing your vote to support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! And not to worry, I am no Likkudnik! Thanks again! Ramallite (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew
I think some of the current text of this article may have been stolen from the (copyrighted?) Ku Klux Klan encyclopedia entry for "nigger lover." Have a look. 69.138.215.194 16:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Dutton Douglas
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael Dutton Douglas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dervish Tsaddik


text:
Talk:Charlotte High School (Michigan)

Untitled
This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Assessment
The article needs much expansion, including an infobox. At the present, any rating above Stub class could not be justified. The article displays no more than low importance. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Charlotte High School (Michigan)


text: Category:Anarcho-primitivism

title: Category:Anarcho-primitivism


text:
Talk:Fall of Suharto

Title
Wouldn't "1998 Indonesian Revolution" be a better title? Coffee 07:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's never called revolution in Indonesia. It's called Reformasi (reform).Aditthegrat

 * Agree!! Changed it to "Reformation". We never used the word "Revolution" in 1998. Kunderemp 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree but we don't know what word is used in western world. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this event held in Indonesia and Indonesian people called it "Reformasi", so i think we must follow that, and "Reformasi" in english (because this is english-wikipedia) means "Reformation", end of discussion, I think. Euller_007 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * International media at the time, including CNN, was referring to it as "Reformasi", so I'd agree we should stick with the Indonesian word for the title. I'd never heard this referred to as "Revolution" except in this Wikipedia article. Marine0352 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Riot - Who Did It?
This wikipedia entry (per 30 sep 2005) is biased and lack further info. This wikipedia entry gives impression that the student activists are the one commiting the riot in 1998. Based on Romo Sandyawan report, the riot is committed deliberately by the Indonesian military members (special task force) as way to intimidate people to suppress activism against government - and not malay muslim indonesians per se. Secondly, the wikipedia entry also gives impression that the victim of the riot is only chinese. It is not true. Non chinese are also victimised, a lot of them are burned trapped inside a burning shopping centre. Indonesians, both chinese and non chinese are victim in this riot.

Suggestions and Announcement on Category:History of Indonesia and Related Articles
After editing the articles Suharto and History of Indonesia and several others, I believe an effort needs to be made to refine existing articles on historical events in Indonesia, and to correct the omissions on English Wikipedia by creating new articles on major events/periods in Indonesian history (e.g. Pre-colonial, Colonial, Post-Independence, Confrontation, 65-66 Civil War etc.).

This would allow the article History of Indonesia be a more general summary-style page (for those who want a broad overview of the area's history), and allow those who wish for greater depth to examine the articles on historical eras/events. That is, those who wish to examine Indonesia under Sukarno could look at a Post-Independence Era page, without being burdened by having to navigate stuff on the Majapahit Empire.

I've started some work, creating an outline (as well as a template that can be applied to History of Indonesia related pages) that can be seen here: Template:History of Indonesia. For an idea of what I believe the target for quality and organization, please take a peek at History of Russia.

I understand this is a long task, and that no one person could be/should be in charge of all this. (Especially not me, since being born/raised in the United States, the sources I have tend to give the buleh view of things.) So I am posting this message on applicable Talk pages, and ask that folks think it over, and if possible offer any help. Especially appreciated would be any folks who could streamline the process by translating related Wikipedia Indonesia articles into English.

Please steer comments to Wikipedia_talk:Indonesia-related_topics_notice_board. --Daniel 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Change: 27th May 2006
I am changing the "Only four ethnic Chinese Students were killed" to "Four ethnic Chinese students were killed"

Financial Crisis?
I agree with User:Merbabu's deletion of an unreferenced, badly written section on the financial crisis, but shouldn't there be some discussion of it? Seems bizarre not to mention it at all in this article. --Dylanfly 14:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which section? Can you show a diff? thanks. As a general comment though, Indonesia articles are so badly referenced that now I just remove on-site any unreferenced additions. --Merbabu 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's your April 1st edit. Pretty sloppy, I agree, but there are economic issues to address in the 1998 revolution. --Dylanfly 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there are economic issues. But without WP:RS wikipedia is rubbish. And we all know no-one ever puts references in afterwards. A small amount of reliable info is better than lots of rubbish. :) --Merbabu 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Army role in riots
By the way, where is the reference you added here? Is it "Indonesia Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998"? If so, can you point out which section you used? cheers --Merbabu 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * There's a section which reads "The team found that elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked. It also verified 66 rapes of women, the majority of whom were Sino-Indonesian, as well as numerous other acts of violence against women. The armed forces publicly acknowledged several areas of past human rights violations and launched still ongoing investigations into some of the worst violations..." That's pretty modest stuff, compared to what the human rights groups allege.  I don't like to rely on the US State department, which has a bad history of lying and distortion.  For the US State dept. to even print stuff like this about a key ally suggests that the reality was far worse.  --Dylanfly 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, 'allies' come and go - particularly after the cold war. Anyway, I am not questioning the accuracy of the info, rather requesting WP:RS as I explained above. Next time, please either add citation or say you are using an existing citation. cheers --Merbabu 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Good points. Just added a bit more.  This article could indeed use a lot more professionalism and a lot less unreferenced stuff about "raping little Chinese girls." --Dylanfly 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs a lot of work. --Merbabu 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name...
The article's name Indonesian Revolution of 1998 is not quite right. Although it had elements of revolution - rioting, popular protests, fall of an authoritarian leader - it was not quite a revolution in that much of the status quo remained - many would say that even though Suharto resigned 10 years ago, the New Order or elements of it, remain. Further, who else calls it the Indonesian Revolution? I suggest it's a "wikipedia'ism."

We need to find a new name that is more accurate but not point of view - what suggestions? I suggest it takes into account all leading to the resignation of Suharto. ie, July 1996 - or even the early 1990s events, the krismon, thru to Suharto's resignation and the fresh elections.

Some suggestions already discussed amongst a few editors:
 * Downfall of Suharto or Fall of Suharto - covers everything, but is is a bit too dramatic/tabloidy for a wikipedia article?
 * Resignation of Suharto - better than above from a POV perspective, but is a bit narrow - it implies the events of 1998 only.

Other thoughts? Let's discuss before we make a change - if a change is indeed needed. --Merbabu (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Fall of the New Order? Or perhaps Indonesian crisis of 1998. Both have problems of course; elements of the New Order remain, and the events weren't confined to 1998. Of the ones Merbabu has suggested, Fall of Suharto sounds best to me. In any case, a title can't cover everything, only hint at the content. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fall of Suharto
It seems that "Fall of Suharto" is the most favoured from the above discussion, and also previous discussion here. I will change it over if there is no further response within, say, 2 days. I presume that is OK?? regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd agree that Fall of Suharto would be a much more fitting name for this event. I was right in downtown Jakarta when this all went down, and "Revolution" seems a bit dramatic considering no one took up arms to fight the establishment. "Reformasi" also works, but I feel it more incorporates the period that included the fall of Suharto, and included the three presidents that followed him. Marine0352 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian crisis of 1997–1998
Looking forward to defining the scope of this article a bit, I am proposing the name of this article be changed (among others) to Indonesian crisis of 1997–1998. This allows us to cover economic, social, and political implications of the time period. Economic crisis involves "Krisis Moneter"; social crisis can involve the spike in food prices in 1997; and political crisis involves everything around Suharto. My other recommendation is that the "Dissent" section be limited to only the 20th century and merged with the 1996 PDI incident into a section called "Precursor" or something of that equivalent. Arsonal (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Riots of May 13-14
The "Riots of May 13-14" section seems to exaggerate the reality of the situation on May 13-14, 1998 in Jakarta. While certain areas of Jakarta including Mangga Dua and Glodok were reported to have a notable lack of a military presence, other areas were so well guarded by heavily armed military and police units that it was still considered relatively safe to go to the mall during the riots. Pondok Indah was one such place guarded by armor units of the Indonesian military, and emerged unscathed. Various media video and photos (several archived on CNN) will support the presence of military and riot police.

The notable lack of military and police presence mainly was centered around heavily Chinese populated areas of Jakarta. This was the fuel that fed the conspiracy fire asserting the government were using the Chinese as scapegoats to shift blame for the tough economic conditions that helped lead to Indonesia's upheaval. Marine0352 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fall of Suharto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041220213335/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit50/riots.htm to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit50/riots.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222100651/https://fas.org/irp/world/indonesia/indonesia-1998.htm to https://fas.org/irp/world/indonesia/indonesia-1998.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.serve.com/inside/digest/dig86.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513154339/http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2003statement/87/ to http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2003statement/87/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207170911/http://ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-IndonesiaKalimantan.html to http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-IndonesiaKalimantan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324143522/http://www.akademidayak.com/2008/06/relationship-between-dayak-and-madura.html to http://www.akademidayak.com/2008/06/relationship-between-dayak-and-madura.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fall of Suharto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050112195809/http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit53/kingsb.htm to http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit53/kingsb.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051004081606/http://www.indonesia-house.org/archive/mei98/The%20Riot%20Pattern%20in%20Jakarta%20and%20Surroundings%20-%20Beberapa%20Pola%20dalam%20Kerusuhan%20Massa.htm to http://www.indonesia-house.org/archive/mei98/The%20Riot%20Pattern%20in%20Jakarta%20and%20Surroundings%20-%20Beberapa%20Pola%20dalam%20Kerusuhan%20Massa.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fall of Suharto


text: Category:Civilization

title: Category:Civilization


text:
Hermit warbler

The hermit warbler (Setophaga occidentalis) is a small perching bird. It is a species of New World warbler or wood-warbler. They are a migratory bird, the breeding range spanning the majority of the west coast of the United States. Their winter range includes parts of Mexico and Central America as well as parts of the southern California coast.

Description
Hermit warblers are dark gray in coloration on top, and white below, and their flanks are streaked with black. The wings have two diagonal white wing bars. The majority of the hermit warbler's head is yellow, and males have a dark black throat, while females have much less black on their throat bib and immature birds have no black throat. Both males and females measure 5.5 in in length, 0.3 to 0.5 oz in weight, and 7.9 in in wingspan.

Diet
Like most warblers the hermit warbler eats a strict diet of insects and spiders, and can often be found hanging upside-down from the ends of conifer branches, like a chickadee, probing for food.

Reproduction
Nests are neat and cup-shaped, constructed from stems, grass, twigs, and pine needles positioned near the tip of a branch high in a conifer tree. The female will lay between three and five eggs, which are white in color and heavily spotted with brown and lilac speckles. Other incubation habits are mostly unknown.

Habitat
Hermit warblers are common, but incredibly shy, birds that dwell in open coniferous forests. They are also found in wetter habitats for nesting, and in various mountain habitats. Their summer breeding range is the majority of the west coast of the United States up to Washington. They will sometimes winter in south-west California, but they are migratory and will winter in Central America as far south as Panama. Other nesting habits are mostly unknown. During migration they can be found in both coniferous and deciduous habitats as well as water lined wooded areas, desert oases, and in suburban areas. You can usually find these birds in Tall Coniferous forest, Douglas fir, Pine, Redwood, and in the mountain like areas.

Effects of climate change
The range of the hermit warbler is expected to change as the climate warms, the breeding range expected to expand north and east but lose much of the current range in Northern California as well as some range in parts of Oregon, Washington, and Canada. Extreme warming will put them at risk of heat waves as well as flooding during the nesting season.

Books

 * Pearson, S. F. 1997. Hermit Warbler (Dendroica occidentalis). In The Birds of North America, No. 303 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Thesis

 * Marcot BG. Ph.D. (1985). HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS OF BIRDS AND YOUNG-GROWTH DOUGLAS-FIR IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA (SILVICULTURE, DIVERSITY, COMMUNITY, CLEARCUTTING, AVIAN). Oregon State University, United States, Oregon.
 * Pearson SF. Ph.D. (1997). Behavioral and ecological tests of four models explaining narrow hybrid zones between hermit and Townsend's warblers. University of Washington, United States, Washington.

Articles

 * Airola DA & Barrett RH. (1985). Foraging and Habitat Relationships of Insect-Gleaning Birds in a Sierra-Nevada USA Mixed-Conifer Forest. Condor. vol 87, no 2. pp. 205–216.
 * Anthony RG, Green GA, Forsman ED & Nelson SK. (1996). Avian abundance in riparian zones of three forest types in the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Wilson Bulletin. vol 108, no 2. pp. 280–291.
 * Buskirk WH. (1973). 4 New Migrants for Costa-Rica. Condor. vol 75, no 3. pp. 363–364.
 * Easterla DA. (1970). Hermit Warbler in Missouri. Wilson Bulletin. vol 82, no 4.
 * Eckert KR. (1982). The Spring Migration March 1-May 31 1982 Western Great Lakes Region USA. American Birds. vol 36, no 5. pp. 854–857.
 * Erickson RA & Wurster TE. (1998). Confirmation of nesting in Mexico for four bird species from the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California. Wilson Bulletin. vol 110, no 1. pp. 118–120.
 * Gilbert FF & Allwine R. (1991). Spring Bird Communities in the Oregon Cascade Range USA. U S Forest Service General Technical Report PNW. vol 285, pp. 145–159.
 * Granlund J. (1994). Winter Season: Western Great Lakes Region. National Audubon Society Field Notes. vol 48, no 3. pp. 299–302.
 * Greenberg R, Gonzales CE, Bichier P & Reitsma R. (2001). Nonbreeding habitat selection and foraging behavior of the Black-throated Green Warbler complex in Southeastern Mexico. Condor. vol 103, no 1. pp. 31–37.
 * Greenberg R, Keeler-Wolf T & Keeler-Wolf V. (1974). Wood Warbler Populations in the Yolla-Bolly Mountains of California. Western Birds. vol 5, no 3. pp. 81–90.
 * Hagar JC. (1999). Influence of riparian buffer width on bird assemblages in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. vol 63, no 2. pp. 484–496.
 * Huff MH & Raley CM. (1990). Classification of Breeding Bird Communities in Young Mature and Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests of Washington and Oregon USA. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. vol 71, no 2 SUPPL.
 * Jackson WM, Wood CS & Rohwer S. (1992). Age-Specific Plumage Characters and Annual Molt Schedules of Hermit Warblers and Townsend's Warblers. Condor. vol 94, no 2. pp. 490–501.
 * Janes SW & Ryker L. (2006). Singing of Hermit Warblers: Dialects of type I songs. Condor. vol 108, no 2. pp. 336–347.
 * Lovette IJ, Bermingham E, Rohwer S & Wood C. (1999). Mitochondrial restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and sequence variation among closely related avian species and the genetic characterization of hybrid Dendroica warblers. Molecular Ecology. vol 8, no 9. pp. 1431–1441.
 * Manuwal DA & Huff MH. (1987). Spring and Winter Bird Populations in a Douglas-Fir Forest Sere. Journal of Wildlife Management. vol 51, no 3. pp. 586–595.
 * Morrison ML. (1982). The Structure of Western Warbler Assemblages Eco Morphological Analysis of the Black-Throated Gray Warblers Dendroica-Nigrescens and Hermit Warblers Dendroica-Occidentalis. Auk. vol 99, no 3. pp. 503–513.
 * Morrison ML. (1984). Influence of Sample Size and Sampling Design on Analysis of Avian Foraging Behavior. Condor. vol 86, no 2. pp. 146–150.
 * Munson CR & Adams LW. (1984). A Record of Ground Nesting by the Hermit Warbler Dendroica-Occidentalis. Wilson Bulletin. vol 96, no 2.
 * Owen-Ashley NT & Butler LK. (2004). Androgens, interspecific competition and species replacement in hybridizing warblers. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B. p. 6) S498-S500, December 497, 2004.
 * Owen-Ashley NT, Butler LK, Rohwer S & Wingfield JC. (2001). The role of testosterone in a moving avian hybrid zone. American Zoologist. vol 41, no 6.
 * Pearson SF. (1997). Competition and reproductive success in a narrow, moving hybrid zone. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. vol 78, no 4 SUPPL.
 * Pearson SF. (2000). Behavioral asymmetries in a moving hybrid zone. Behavioral Ecology. vol 11, no 1. pp. 84–92.
 * Pearson SF & Manuwal DA. (2000). Influence of niche overlap and territoriality on hybridization between Hermit Warblers and Townsend's Warblers. Auk. vol 117, no 1. pp. 175–183.
 * Pearson SF & Rohwer S. (1998). Determining clutch size and laying dates using ovarian follicles. Journal of Field Ornithology. vol 69, no 4. pp. 587–594.
 * Pearson SF & Rohwer S. (1998). Influence of breeding phenology and clutch size on hybridization between hermit and Townsend's warblers. Auk. vol 115, no 3. pp. 739–745.
 * Pearson SF & Rohwer S. (2000). Asymmetries in male aggression across an avian hybrid zone. Behavioral Ecology. vol 11, no 1. pp. 93–101.
 * Ralph CJ, Paton PWC & Taylor CA. (1991). Habitat Association Patterns of Breeding Birds and Small Mammals in Douglas-Fir-Hardwood Stands in Northwestern California and Southwestern Oregon. U S Forest Service General Technical Report PNW. vol 285, pp. 379–393.
 * Rappole JH, King DI & Barrow WC Jr. (1999). Winter ecology of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler. Condor. vol 101, no 4. pp. 762–770.
 * Ratti JT. (1984). Selected Avian Systematic Problems in the Northwest the 1983 American Ornithologists Union Checklist. Northwest Science. vol 58, no 3. pp. 237–242.
 * Rising JD. (1988). Phenetic Relationships among the Warblers in the Dendroica-Virens Complex and a Record of Dendroica-Virens from Sonora Mexico. Wilson Bulletin. vol 100, no 2. pp. 312–316.
 * Rohwer S. (2004). Using age ratios to infer survival and despotic breeding dispersal in hybridizing warblers. Ecology. vol 85, no 2. pp. 423–431.
 * Rohwer S, Bermingham E & Wood C. (2001). Plumage and mitochondrial DNA haplotype variation across a moving hybrid zone. Evolution. vol 55, no 2. pp. 405–422.
 * Rohwer S & Wood C. (1998). Three hybrid zones between Hermit and Townsend's Warblers in Washington and Oregon. Auk. vol 115, no 2. pp. 284–310.
 * Rohwer S, Wood C & Bermingham E. (2000). A new hybrid warbler (Dendroica nigrescens x D-occidentalis) and diagnosis of similar D-townsendi x D-occidentalis recombinants. Condor. vol 102, no 3. pp. 713–718.
 * Smith CE & Rohwer S. (2000). A phenotypic test of Haldane's rule in an avian hybrid zone. Auk. vol 117, no 3. pp. 578–585.
 * Yocom CF. (1968). Status of the Hermit Warbler in North Western California USA. Murrelet. vol 49, no 2. pp. 27–28.

-->

title: Hermit warbler


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect 2

 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Koadic's Endless Intellect 2nd nom

 * This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied & pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion.

I nominated this something like a year ago. I think it got about one keep vote, yet here it is. My reasoning for deletion still stands, you can read about it at Votes for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect. -R. fiend 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Dlyons493 08:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, a spell from a videogame. --TheMidnighters 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also the copy and paste version. --TheMidnighters 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete non-notable Sliggy 10:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * As the article contains no assertion/evidence of notability, a quick speedy delete to them all, before they have any more offspring! Sliggy 18:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * In light of later comments, and to be utterly explicit: my vote is a delete for Koadic's Endless Intellect and Spells of Everquest on the grounds of non-notability Sliggy 12:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Both ("Both" added Alf 11:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) Spells of Everquest was deleted (I assume), so Enchanter (character class), (don't smirk, I read the article and took the link), would be the only other place to put it, but I don't give that much either. Alf 11:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Spells of Everquest was never created in the first place. Uncle G 12:00:41, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, doesn't assert notability. Martg76 13:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both cruft. Martg76 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, per above. Dottore So 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Spells of Everquest. Trollderella 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The VfD notice says, please do not blank, merge, or move this article. Since you've already performed a merge despite a rapidly-forming consensus to delete, we'll have to keep Koadic's Endless Intellect as a redirect unless Spells of Everquest is also deleted. As such, I vote to Delete both. android  79  16:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Chill out. I was trying to form an article where stubs on the spells can rest, like the many similar ones. Your eagerness to delete the material at all costs seems at odds with trying to create an acceptable article. Trollderella 22:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He is not trying to "delete ...material at all costs." He is following the rules. You were not.— Encephalon | ζ  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's even good, but that should be done on a /Temp subpage or in userspace or something. Otherwise, the merge overrides the VfD debate which is why the tag requests that such not be done during the debate. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Chill out"? I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Regardless of your intent, it should now be apparent why merging during an ongoing VfD discussion is a bad idea. My "eagerness to delete the material at all costs" extends to my single vote. I will abide by the consensus here. android  79  03:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merging is a bad idea, because it causes GFDL problems.  didn't perform a merge, though.  Xe simply did a copy&paste move into a new article, creating a duplicate.  And copy&paste moves are evil, of course.  Such duplicates created mid-discussion are best brought under the umbrella of the existing discussion, as this one has been.  See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Archive. Uncle G 06:21:05, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Delete... *sigh* ... Alex.tan 18:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and the other one per Android79. -Splash 00:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Both - Spells of Everquest is junk. What about a Fatalities of Mortal Kombat article, or a Scrolls of Morrowind article?  Retarded - Hahnchen 03:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N; really, Alex.tan's reason is as good as any. Incidentally, please do not place a speedy tag on this. The first two sentences can easily be "interpreted" as assertions of notability, by folks who specialize in seeing such where there are none.— Encephalon | ζ  03:41:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Comment. The notice at the top of this subpage (This nomination also covers Spells of Everquest, where the article content was copied & pasted by User:Trollderella during the VFD discussion) was introduced after the vote was under way. Can the editor who initiated this VfD please contact all editors who voted before the notice was put up and get them to confim that their vote is for both articles? If it is not clear that people are voting for both, it can be argued that there are grounds for dismissing the VfD. Regards— Encephalon  | ζ  05:40:32, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --*drew 07:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Android79. Xoloz 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per drew. Nandesuka 23:20, 20 August 2005 (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.


text:
User talk:Emgman~enwiki

EMG are initials for Edwin Mauricio Guzman, conceived as a nickname to be used around the internet as username on most popular websites.

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 Emgman. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Emgman~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 23:43, 19 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) 12:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emgman~enwiki


text:
Talk:The Black Keys

Proper Spelling (3 Capitalized words or 4? ) of Band referenced here: {T}he Six Parts Seven.
It appears to me that the full name of the band is: "The Six Parts Seven", not "Six Parts Seven" nor "the Six Parts Seven".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six_Parts_Seven Michael V Gold (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 * "The" does not get capitalized mid-sentence. See MOS:THEMUSIC Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Black Keys