User talk:N-HH/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"no consensus" game

The "no consensus" can be a nice game to play: continually object to any change providing any rationales; and no change will be done because we don't have consensus. Nice game. Imad marie (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said it's like a veto system. Thousands and thousands of people edit here - but the average AfD or merge debate attracts about 10-15 people and if around 2-3 of them voice an objection, nothing will happen on the basis that there's no "consensus" in "the community" for the change. But that's the way it works, and nothing you or I can do will alter that. I still pop back occasionally to try and (hopefully) make the fork article less bad than it is and in a bid to see if I can persuade people that it is a fork article. But then I remember what a futile job it is ... --Nickhh (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Self-gagged, I did drop a note of thanks on my page when I noticed, rather late, that you'd dug up the evidence Ynhockey asked for re Chomsky. Now I'm back I just thought I should thank you here for the legwork. If it isn't already plunked down on the Deir Yassin page, I'll get round presently, thanks to you, to putting it there. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

al-murabitun

hi. i noticed your edits at the al-Murabitun article. The 'current situation' passage has been a mess for quite some time now, the party split in two, and both groups claim to be the 'real' al-Murabitun (one using http://www.almourabitoun.com and one using http://www.al-mourabitoun.com). The edit warring is done by, seemingly, followers of the two different groups, making the confusion total. I would be good if some 3rd party could settle the actual situation today. --Soman (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did try to do a bit of my own research to clarify the situation, but couldn't actually find anything authoratitive on the point. If there's a genuine split in the group, I guess the article needs to say exactly that. --Nickhh (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:Terrorist

The WP article makes suggestions, but also clearly defines what a terrorist does. There people were not "shot", they were killed/murdered. The targets were not members of the military. They were civilians, and in all but one case, children. Terrorist has a negative connotation, and what they did deserves negative connotation. I understand that in these cases, the people executed lived in parts of Israel under dispute, but targeting women and children is terrorism, plain and simple.

As for reverting several of your changes, I reverted one additional one, in the same ilk. I did look at many of your edits, and found that one to be in the same exact category, and that is the only thing I am interested in. I have no desire to wade into all of the Israeli/Palestinian morass, because there is enough wrong to go around on both sides. I am sure I disagree with more things that you have written than agree with, but most of the edits you do, make an attempt to find a middle ground.

But, calling terrorists gunmen who "shot" people, is a complete fabrication and gives no due to innocents killed. These people are terrorists. So is the IRA, Hamas, Al Quaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Irgun, for example (or the para-military parts of the organizations anyway). I do not go trolling in these articles. I was reading about Koby Mandell once, and came across the Wiki piece then. I would argue that any article about terrorists acts committed by any of the above (and others) should be listed as such.Sposer (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you've kind of proved my point, and shown why the word "terrorist" is avoided here. Plenty of people consider the IRA to have been involved in a legitimate armed conflict; many people see Hezbollah as a legitimate armed resistance group, that fought against an invading army; many people view the Irgun as having been a national liberation movement etc. On occasion they have all targeted and killed civilians, as have national armies and state-backed militias. All of the relevant pages for those groups will set out, as per the guidelines, which significant sources have described each particular one as "terrorist", but will not make an explicit editorial judgement itself. If they did, the next thing you know editors with another POV will be including words to the effect that the IDF is a "terroristic occupying army", and claiming that this is the "truth .. plain and simple" - from their perspective, it may well be. In any event, as I said, I'm really not sure what the word adds to anything, especially in the two articles here where most people can draw their own conclusions from the facts. --Nickhh (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware what many people would say about these groups, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. Each of these groups probably have also legitimate and positive things they have done, which is why I do not feel it necessary to label them as such in the articles about them, but when referring to specific terrorist acts, there is no reason, outside of POV, to not call them terrorists, because in that case, they are acting as terrorists, even if the aim itself is legitimate. Being a national liberation movement or a freedom fighter does not change whether you are a terrorist or not. Irgun were terrorists. FALN, Hamas, IRA and the rest are the same, for the arms of those groups involved in such activities. Sposer (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

By what right do you claim that your interpretation happens to be "the truth"? I am very tired of editors here who say they're just writing up what's "true" or "telling it like it is", and use the daft "if it walks like a duck .." argument to shoehorn their preferred terminologies and descriptive phrasings into articles. As soon as I see any of those on a talk page or edit summary, I know we're entering the world of soapboxing and propaganda. Fine, I'm off to insert "war criminal" as a description into the George W Bush and Ariel Sharon articles. It's the truth you know. I'll leave someone else to revert you on these two. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no POV here, nor propaganda desire, although you obviously desire to make murderers sound like peace loving people that accidentally bludgeon and execute families. I am no fan of either President Bush or former Prime Minister Sharon. Bush started a war without understanding the consequences and with no end game. He removed an horrific leader, but had no idea what came next. For that reason, it was a bad idea, and the misplanning and lack of understanding or caring about those impacted led to millions of deaths, albeit mostly at the hands of fellow Iraquis. As far as Sharon, he was a terrorist, if you are speaking of his time pre-establishment of the State of Israel. His riling people up was stupid, in the lead-up to the second Intifada. However, Bush, much as I cannot stand him, I don't think, is a war criminal. He has not executed innocent people. The U.S. military does not execute people. They do make horrific mistakes, but they actually care about human lives. The terrorists always ridicule the U.S. and Israel for caring, making them "weak". So while the terrorists clearly state they don't care about human lives, whether it be their enemy, their own, or the innocent people they put at risk, legitimate militaries at least attempt to protect civilians. Could Israel do a better job of that? Possibly, though I am not sure how when your opponent does not care. As far as reverting Bush and Sharon, I would not. I will let others, since I am only interested in reverting clearly POV word-smything that hurts innocent people. Sharon and Bush are certainly not innocent, even if one doesn't consider them to be war criminals.Sposer (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you, despite my explaining it five times? It's not about your views on world affairs (which you have explained in great detail above), or what I think (and where did I ever tell you what I think about the underlying issues? And I certainly did not say that Hatuel or Mandell's killers were "peace-loving people" so you can cut that out. In fact I repeatedly referred to the murders as horrific, which they obviously were). It's about writing articles in this encyclopedia based on the policies in place here, and using plain, factual language that does not make any explicit judgement about events one way or the other. I'm sorry but I really don't want to discuss this anymore, here or anywhere else since you keep missing the point and I obviously can't persuade you. --Nickhh (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you thought I was implying that you did not think the atrocities were horrific. I was trying to be sarcastic, but I did not mean to imply you didn't think these acts were horrific. My take is that an opinion is being stated by not calling the people and acts as terrorists and murder, making Wiki non-neutral by just saying that people were "shot" and not "murdered". Calling them gunmen can imply that they were not there to kill the people, but maybe just to steal something. Calling it murder and terrorism leaves no doubt as to their intent, which is their desire anyway. Your point is well taken and I understand why you believe I am wrong. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Sposer (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

This was not particularly helpful.[1] The page is already a powder-keg, please try to keep communications especially civil there, thanks. Elonka 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful to this encyclopedia for people to suggest, yet again, that we pander to conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere and the loopier end of right wing commentary, and insinuate - without any evidence from any reliable source - that a child who was shot and killed is not in fact dead. Nor is it helpful when administrators facilitate that by unilaterally imposing bans on reverts. --Nickhh (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, my restrictions are backed up by ArbCom for now, and one of the conditions on the page is civility. So, no more sarcasm please? If you continue with unhelpful commentary, either on the page or in edit summaries, I will place you under ArbCom restrictions per the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case. Please consider this your last warning. However, in the meantime, you are welcome to participate in a civil manner, and even to edit the page to change things which you find problematic. As long as you avoid direct reverts, I encourage you to make good faith changes. --Elonka 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

If you don't self-revert on Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I will be posting a 3RR violation.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware I have breached 3RR, and even if I had, I'd rather be held up for it than revert the following wording back into this or any other article! There are about 10 errors of grammar, punctuation and English phrasing here. The version I put in its place is hardly a controversial rewrite of the basic content.

The Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks have been noted around the world with the majority of the world leaders, political and religious representatives as well as the international media responding to it in various ways.

The attacks drew great condemnation by multiple leaders and many memorials and services were appearing. Many governments who are traditionally considered hostile to the United States also expressed condemnation although several supporting votes and also celebrations of the attacks have also occured.

In the aftermath of the attacks, multiple numerous countries introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having connections with al-Qaeda and it's leader, Osama Bin-Laden, the believed perpetrators of the attacks.

With respect, --Nickhh (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of scaling back and proper disupte resolution I've decided to put a hold on my last warning for a little while and request of you to reconsider.

To explain the problem, my concerns were that you've gone beyond mere rephrasing of grammar and you've essentially edit-warred to re-add material which was removed following proper concerns. Edit warring and bad faith suggestions are a clear violation of recent Arbcom dispute resolution rulings and it would be best if you reconsider your handling of the grammar related issue.

I would suggest that you self revert, and post your grammar notes on the talk page and I assure you that I will give your concerns proper consideration and there won't be a need for any bad faith suggestions.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on article comments

Nickhh, I feel it is unfair for you to use the term "racist" to describe Jaakobou. As I hope you realize, we do not issue personal attacks here. You may or may not have intended it as one, but people are entitled to have their own feelings and sensibilites when comments are about them personally. In this case, you are unfairly labeling Jaakobou's actions and motives, when he is making legitimate comments about article contents. I will ask you use a little more care. As you know, discussions here can proceed positively, even on the most contentious issues, as long as we all try to show some respect. I appreciate if you could please try to give this some more thought. Some quotes:

• simply wrong-headed and borderline racist to keep on claiming that Palestinians are somehow all war criminals Nickhh, 23:12, 14 July 2008
• Jaakobou's comments appear - pretty explicitly - to go beyond that and cast doubt on whether those recorded by official accounts as having been civilians rather than gunmen, were in fact civilians, seemingly on the basis of some sort of collective guilt which brands all Palestinians as terrorists, even elderly men in wheelchairs. This is not the first time such comments have been made, on this talk page and elsewhere. Nickhh 08:58, 16 July 2008

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't of course describe him as a racist, I said making assertions of collective guilt was an "unpleasant game" and also said that for him to continue insisting - as he had appeared to do - that Palestinians were all war criminals was "borderline racist". You might see that as semantics, but in turn I saw his words as being pretty clear in suggesting that no Palestinian who was killed in Jenin was a civilian, or a genuine victim, or uninvolved in war crimes somehow - ie that they were all guilty of something by virtue of being Palestinian and having homes in Jenin. And nor do I know what those kind of rants have to do with improving the article to be honest. (Still not meant to be here ...) --Nickhh (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate you replying. I understand your point. However, I still see a problem here. I do hope you'll try to keep these concerns in mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your concern is, as they say, noted. I still see a problem though with the talk page soapboxing that was going on, something he has been blocked for before. Editors generally seem to get away with broad generalisations about Palestinians on talk pages here for which they would be rightly censured and even banned were those words directed against any other ethnic or national group. --Nickhh (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll note your points as well, and try to keep them in mind. thanks for replying, and for discussing this. feel free to add anything else if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Per consenus comment

This is what I'm talking about. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know - but that was a different edit from the one at issue. --Nickhh (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Jenin feedback

Yes, it's easy to get sucked in... Thanks for your perspective. I find it difficult not to get outraged with, not only the extremely racist comments of certain editors, but their inability to see the facts represented in terms of the debate around the term massacre. They want to disappear the debate completely! This says to me they come from a weaker position than they present. Thanks for dropping by the page, and please continue to do so, if not to the point of misery ;) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

Nick, I'd appreciate a second opinion on an issue that has been raised concerning Muhammad al-Durrah - please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

Dear Nickhh,
Perhaps we've had one too many clashes and I'd wish to de-escalate the situation. To be frank, I can't see how calling my notes to another editor "ridiculous as well as unethical"[2] seems like something which helps the project and it would be best if you refrain from similar commentary in the future.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The comments you picked up and then wrote about on their talk page simply did not, by any definition, constitute "taunting" or a breach of WP:CIV. That's why I used the word ridiculous, and also took the opportunity to back LamaLoLeshLa's broader assertion that some of talk page activity bordered on the unethical. The problem is that edits on I-P pages often attract some fairly unpleasant talk page debate. As I know well, when an editor first appears on a talk page and makes what they think is a fairly harmless observation, or query some part of an article content, they often find themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of hostile comments from various nationalist Israeli or pro-Israeli editors, accusing them of bias, excusing terrorism, wanting to twist history and - on occasion, as happened to Nishidani - anti-semitism. They are also often accused of breaches of WP policy, eg of "soapboxing" or making "personal attacks" when they are doing no such thing. I'd happily avoid further clashes, and despite the accusations you and Kyaa have made, I do not stalk you to pages and never have. Unsurprisingly however we do occasionally end up on the same pages. Let's hope that when that does happen in the future, it doesn't end up in a spat. --Nickhh (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that which I noted you about and it would be best if you refrain from similar commentary in the future. I do, however, agree that editors who excuse terrorism and try to twist history are an aggravation, but adhering to WP:CIV and WP:NPA are core policies.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC) clarify. 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, and noted what you said. I make no promises about what I will say in the future on any talk page, other than that I will never make any genuinely offensive or irrelevant comment. However if someone makes a ridiculous accusation against a good-faith editor, I may well point out that the accusation is ridiculous. Please stop lecturing me. --Nickhh (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by

Hi there Nickhh, I hope all is well with you! Thanks so much for taking the time to turn up at my talkpage! Sticking your neck out for people is a laudable act and I hope you don't experience too much fallout due to your comment. Jaakabou has actually not recently taken an uncivil tone with me like the others I listed off above, but after two weeks of nasty comments from others, including a friend of Jaakabou's, I have lost my patience for having to explain/defend myself, whether to the same people, or new ones popping their heads in. Thanks so much for your support- a little goes a long way!!! Take good care, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, see reply above for some of my thoughts on the situation generally. The problem is of course that it's easy enough to get into slightly heated disputes on I-P pages, even without the editors who seem to fly off the handle quicker than others. Some of them also really need to take a step back from their own viewpoint and opinions, and try to think more objectively and neutrally about what they are trying to do here, and not take offence because they interpret article content or a talk page observation as being insulting to their country, their political viewpoint or even to them personally. --Nickhh (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Nickhh, I wanted to offer some archiving assistance? I noticed that your talkpage is starting to get a bit long. Just FYI, anytime a page gets over about 32K or so, some browsers start having trouble with it. Your page is currently over twice that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to set up an archiving bot for you? That would automatically check your page on a regular schedule, and auto-archive any threads that had been inactive for a certain amount of time. You would still be able to access them in archive, but it would help reduce the load of the "live" page. Thanks, and let me know, --Elonka 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just repeating my offer? The page is currently around 100K. I could setup an archive bot for you very rapidly if you'd like. This would not delete any threads, it would simply move the inactive ones off to a subpage, which would help keep the "live" page more manageable. You could choose whatever time cutoff you like. From a quick glance, I'd recommend a one-month cutoff, but this could be easily configured if you want something different. --Elonka 04:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks - I kind of forgot about this for a while. I actually remembered only yesterday and had a quick look through how to do it myself, only to get confused and give up. Any help would be appreciated, one month would be about right I guess as I don't get that much traffic here. --Nickhh (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) I seeded it with the 2007 threads, and it'll kick in sometime in the next 24 hours to archive the rest. That'll be anything that's been inactive for at least 30 days. If things get quiet, it'll only "harvest" down to a minimum of five threads, so don't worry, it won't ever blank the entire page.  :) Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail address

Tried to e-mail you but couldn't - could you possibly drop me a line using my email form so that I can talk to you off-wiki? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris - I may be being thick, but I can't see how to do that (I'm not very good with the more technical stuff here, even though I'm not an IT idiot at all). And actually I'm kind of against off-wiki conversations as a rule - I don't like it when it's clear that others have done it, so would feel a bit odd doing it myself. Plus I prefer to limit my involvement here to those times when I'm actually, well, here if you see what I mean (and I've been on site more often than I'd like recently anyway). Happy to have an open discussion of course though, if that would work--Nickhh (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/ChrisO - you just need to go there and type whatever you want in the form before hitting the "send" button. For future reference, the "email this user" link in the toolbox on the lower left hand side of the page is what you need to look for. I generally agree about open discussions, but this concerns an administrative issue - it's not appropriate for an open discussion at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was looking on the main part of the page. The thing is I never registered my email here when I set up the account, and as above I'm not sure I want to and to start using it for Wikipedia related stuff. I'll keep an eye on things when I'm logged in here though if that helps. Cheers, Nick. --Nickhh (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

Hi Nickhh! Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you did here to Operation Defensive Shield. I trust that you are well familiar with the dispute resolution process, especiall the sentence Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. In other words, if an issue is raised on talk and you oppose it, make your claims on the talk page and not in the article itself. I hope you understand and this notice creates better cooperation between the two sides. Good day, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're referring to the edit itself or the edit summary - the edit was fair enough, as material had been removed without consensus and I merely restored it, as any editor has the right to do. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I was just putting back some detail which made the box more balanced. And I did of course explain why on the talk page before making the edits (you seem to be suggesting I did not?). I do accept though that I could have phrased the second edit summary better - I was just trying to rather clumsily and pithily explain the point about balance, since in my view it read like some kind of IDF/MFA victory press release as phrased. Having said all that, as I've now also said on the talk page, I think Nudve's subsequent version is more or less the right way to go. --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New section

Nick -- I meant it as a joke about protection my ego (so my comment could be seen). I tried to then make a blank edit with an explanatory edit summary, but it didn't take for some reason. Hope you didn't take offense. HG | Talk 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, not at all. I understood exactly and was trying to be funny in response, but deleted the emoticon wink I had originally put in because, well, I don't do that sort of thing --Nickhh (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Gilad Shalit Case

I've closed the case as there was no will to continue. Thank you for your participation. Sunray (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress

Hi Nick!

A while ago I started an article on Palestinian prisoners and have been working on it only sporadically due to a high work-load in real life. I recently commented on it on User:Sunray's talk page and a few hours later, our mutual acquaintance Jack had already slapped some POV-tags on it and tried to massage some wording.

I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with this on a full-time basis and move the article forward at the same time, which is why I'm asking you if you could have a look at it and maybe help expand it?

Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 10.09.2008 07:41

OK, I see for example he's asking for more "context", which in the past would have been code for shovelling in about 20 paragraphs of why the arrests are necessary and justified, according to the IDF & Israeli government position. Having said that you may have noticed that he's kind of recast himself recently as a site moderator and helpful Wiki veteran (I'm guessing partly with a view to making a bid for adminship in the near future), so you may well find it easier to make progress than in the past. I'll see if I can do an odd bit here and there, but I'm hoping to scale back my time here due to a) real world things to do, and b) the fact that as ever I seem to spend more time on talk pages debating with difficult individuals rather than being able to make occasional improvements to anything here which actually stick. --Nickhh (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's doing his best to make a mess of it, probably to request it for deletion later? So far no context but a lot of WP:WEASEL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fortunately, Tiamut also has an eye on it, so not too much can go wrong... I hope :)

Cheers and have a nice day! pedrito - talk - 11.09.2008 07:58

Well removing info sourced to the Guardian for example is an old trick of course, and some of the English is a bit off-beam. Having said that, I think some of his points are actually valid - one area for expansion might be to clarify the fact that some of the high profile prisoners such as Bargouti were actually convicted of serious crimes, rather than just being caught up in some security sweep. Of course there's a whole separate issue of how fair the trials were, and their underlying political purpose, but nonetheless it's a recorded fact. As I say though, I'm a bit side-tracked here and elsewhere at the moment. You too. --Nickhh (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nick

I really wish people would activate their e-mail, it sometimes operates to bring very interesting information to light. There is nothing secret about this link but it does add color and interest to ongoing situations. I'd also like you to see this. PR^talk 09:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think my comment covers some different areas, and I wanted to respond directly to Canadian Monkey, who seems to have developed a habit of following me around and dumping abuse on me, despite my best efforts to find the middle ground most of the time (obviously it's usually better not to feed trolls as they say, but there you go). As for email I like to stay away from the site when I'm not actually logged in I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem remarkably sanguine about a smear on you regarding a BLP violation, when it was nothing of the kind. I'm glad you spotted it and set the record straight. PR^talk 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I take back what I said. Although I'm pretty sure you've been badly treated, the discussion on Elonka's page concerns quite important article related matters and the personal accusations (which I've received too, along with threats of sanctions) are very much a side-show. It would improve the operation of the project if you moved that statement somewhere else out of the way. PR^talk 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as before I'm replying to direct accusations against me and asking for an admin familiar with the situation, on their talk page - where the accusations are as it happens also being made - to clarify that the accusations are misleading. I appreciate that it is something of a sideshow, but it's a sideshow that I'm taking a personal battering in on account of one editor's apparent vendetta. And the second part of the post refers directly to the underlying substantive issue of the alleged BLP concerns, which that same admin is looking at. This is the second time you've asked me to remove or strike comments as if they are somehow "in the way" or cover similar ground, when they happen to have been posted alongside your own. I don't quite understand why - where we are making similar points, I would have thought you would be grateful for the support; where we are making different points or discussing different aspects of an issue, are you suggesting that I shouldn't be commenting? --Nickhh (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Worse things happen at sea - I'm here to write (or mostly, it seems, try to correct) articles. I did manage to create an article and remove a red-link yesterday. PR^talk 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

As Elonka already warned you[3], articles in the relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, are under a ruling of discretionary sanctions.

Your recent edit warring over Nahum Shahaf is unacceptable, and you have persisted despite numerous warnings and expressed BLP concerns. Given that you no longer attempt to resolve the dispute through the talk page, you are hereby banned from editing the Nahum Shahaf article entirely for a period of 60 days (not including the associated talk page).

Please note that further disruption, including persisting with incivil edit summaries or more edit warring, will lead to stronger sanctions up to and including complete topic ban and blocks of increasing duration. — Coren ^(talk) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"I have persisted despite numerous warnings"? What are you on about? Since Elonka posted a warning in relation to civility in edit summaries on my talk page, I made two edits to the article, here and here, while at the same time being engaged (as I had been for a long time) on the talk page about the broad issues involved. Both were reverts to restore sourced, albeit critical, information which other editors then removed. I have not attempted to restore it since. You do realise, do you not, that it takes two (or more in this case) to edit war, and that I in fact backed away from continuing that edit war, while other editors did not? You don't seem to have contacted or barred any of the others involved.

Having said all that I'm not going to contest the ban as I had already decided to return to my original position in respect of this page, which was not to edit it anyway, as per here. It's a waste of time when the usual bunch of nationalist North American and Israeli editors will just weigh in to make sure that any related article reflects their favoured narrative of Israeli-Palestinian issues, while ignoring or excluding the conclusions of any reliable sources that question that view. It's too exasperating, as my edit summaries (very) occasionally give away. And I have better things to do. --Nickhh (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nickhh, I was doing a spot-check, and am very pleased to see that you're back in the swing of things on other articles: Nickhh (talk · contribs). Thanks for all the great work! Accordingly, if you'd like, I'd be happy to lift the ban and restore your editing privileges on Nahum Shahaf? I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want that, but did want to check with you first. So, any preference either way? --Elonka 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered either way to be honest, especially when it comes with slightly patronising comments suggesting that I'm somehow back on the correct path after a naughty deviation, or that editing here is a "privilege" of some sort, to be conferred on people from on high. As I've said I'm happy to leave that article as the plaything of those who have a political agenda here, and equally to continue doing what I've always done here - which is making occasional small edits to amend obvious errors or problems in articles I come across where I have a degree of interest and/or knowledge (which in reality of course is all I was attempting to do with the Nahum Shahaf page as well). --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, up to you. If you change your mind, let me know.  :) --Elonka 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition and the United States

Today you wrote: "I am not going to discuss anything else with you on this page. Do not take this as tacit consensus that the arguments you've made above (and will no doubt continue to make here) hold any water. In fact assume that I would probably rebut every single point you have made on the talk page, with specific arguments and examples, if I had the time. Also do not take this to mean that you have the right to continue to muck about with the main content. Where this will leave the article, who knows. Hopefully other editors may take on some of the challenge. --Nickhh (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not agree to post our dispute, and ask have one (or both) of us banned from the article? We could amicably agree to this, and then the article could be improved more than with more pointless debate? If you are correct they will ban me and everything will be fine. What could be more fair? (Even if will be a total waste of time).

You could just drop yourself, and save everyone a lot of energy (including yourself). It would be better if you can work on the article, but if not, then bye bye.

I would prefer that you decide to engage in normal editorial discussions and attempt to refrain from insults. We are not primary school children, and can be expected to find some way to work productively together. So Nickhh, what do you say to just working on this article to bring it into compliance with WP policy? Why waste other peoples time because we can't work together? Raggz (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not insulted you. I have merely pointed out that you do not seem to understand the WP policies you throw around and order others to read, and that you do not understand most of the subject areas you have chosen to edit in. To take two specific and fairly egregious examples - you have recently claimed the European Parliament is not directly elected, and have confused "extradition" with "extraordinary rendition" when the two are more or less the direct opposites. Yet you drag others into endless talk page debates about non-points and assume the right to delete huge amounts of well sourced, relevant material from articles claiming that this will "assist the reader" or that the material is in breach of the latest WP policy you've stumbled across and taken a cursory glance at. I don't want to have either of us banned, I just want you to edit sensibly within the limits of your expertise. I do not dive in and start making major edits or removing parts of science articles, because I am pretty ignorant about scientific issues. Please could you extend the same courtesy to articles about international law and politics? --Nickhh (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, you just edited the article without using Talk. There is an ongoing discussion on these sections which you are ignoring. Please engage in the discussion. Raggz (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not an ongoing "discussion", there is simply you posting reams of non-sequiters, logical fallacies and misinterpreations of WP policy on the talk page. You then delete lots of material, on the basis of those essays. I have engaged on the talk page up until now, but you are impervious to rational debate and continue to butcher the article regardless. --Nickhh (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to drop out of the editing discussions on Talk, and then continue to edit. Do you claim that you can do this? Which will it be? Raggz (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do get to do that (as does any other editor) if I am merely reverting the wholesale blanking - on utterly spurious grounds - of entire paragraphs and sections together with the sources contained within them. These mass deletions are borderline vandalism on your part. All editors are free of course to take out individual pieces of information which are demonstrably false, and to amend or add material where they think existing content could be corrected or improved (assuming there is consensus for that) - but you cannot continue as you are. Now please leave my talk page. --Nickhh (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi i've talked to Raggz and i've negotiated a "cease fire", then it seems from his answer and his posts on the articles' talk page that the most important point from his POV is the scope of this article, starting with what is ER. So i'm going to start a section on talk about that as it has come up before. I'd like you to join in this discussion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this - I'll set out where I stand on the article talk page. I'm really not going to do too much beyond that. The problem is (I'm genuinely trying to be factual here, not rude!) that he has difficulty taking fairly simple points on board, will always find another bizarre angle from which to attack anything he wants to attack and also simply doesn't read or understand sources properly a lot of the time. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the re-write of the lead to increase clarity. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

are you serious?

you don't think that:

a) one of hezbollah's primary goals is to wipe israel off the map? b) that this fact should not be included in the fist paragraph?

I can provide ample proof if you don't accept this basic fact about the organization.

--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please go away and read

1) What I said on the article talk page, both about your edit and about people trying to write this article from one perspective.

2) Policies WP:OR & WP:SYNTH

3) The rest of the lead, where it both sets out what the organisations three main goals supposedly are in their own words (none of which refer to the destruction of Israel) and also covers the ground you are trying to repeat, but in a more sober, accurate and encyclopedic fashion.

4) The sources you have cited in support of your claim, none of which actually make this claim themselves (this should be quite a simple process, no?)

Please also understand that it makes no difference what you or I think about anything (although as it happens I disagree with you on both of your points). WP is based on proper, sourced, verifiable information in serious reliable sources, not on the whims and random opinions of its editors, even if they can find one or two things somewhere on the web which appear to back them up (and you haven't even managed to do that yet). Articles also need to be written so they are not repetitive or contradictory. Whenever editors start justifying subjective viewpoints and arguable interpretation with claims like "it's a basic fact" or "an undisputed truth", I know I am dealing with someone who is certainly not serious about contributing here in a neutral way. --Nickhh (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The UK's position on terrorist designation has not changed...It is still only the external security organisation...that is what is on the Homeoffice web page...The whole of hizb'allah military wing is not considered as a terrorist organisation...the change in the UK gov position has been on the emphasis....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry yesterday morning it was the Hizb'allah ESO today it is the Hizb'allah military wing...yes I did check just prior to you putting the site address for the Homeoffice (which I already knew as I was the person that put it up on the Hizb'allah page)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the above and it sounds waspish....That was not the intent...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem .. --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I also want accurate and reliable information on wiki....If we only put one POV then you loose readers...as soon as they start looking up the "facts" for themselves it becomes apparent if there is only one POV. I looked at wiki about 3 years ago and very quickly stopped using it for that very reason. I only started editing to try and get a balanced view into wiki...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most I-P articles are off the scale in terms of bias, and half the time I think there's little point in trying to do anything about it. Any editor who suggests that those pages are biased against Israel in some way needs to stand back and do a quick count respectively of a) the number of Israeli and North American editors active here, and b) the number of Palestinian and other Arab editors active here. I know it's a pretty simplistic game (not least because not all Israeli and American editors subscribe to the narrow right-wing nationalist ideology expressed by some of them), but it's a starting point. The problem is that a lot of editors who make the complaint of anti-Israel bias, will, with a straight face, claim that CAMERA and HonestReporting etc are neutral organisations. I mean, you can agree with what they say and do or not, but it's flying in the face of reality to suggest that they are not partisan groups. Equally I have seen editors claim at times that Haaretz, The Guardian and the BBC are not reliable sources because they are "anti-Israel" (whatever that means), even though they are mainstream news organisations. Admittedly the first two are of a fairly open left-liberal persuasion, and that affects their reporting and comment pages up to a point - but it doesn't mean that they simply make up news stories, or that they are partisan propaganda sheets.

Having said that, when I do occasionally get involved, I don't see editing as a struggle between opposing points-of-view, which will somehow then lead to overall neutrality - that way the main articles just end up a battleground, and the talk pages as particularly vicious message boards or forums. And of course the numbers are stacked anyway. Instead the ideal scenario is everyone putting their individual views to one side, and just trying to contribute as neutrally as they can on the basis of verifiable fact, while avoiding loaded terminology and/or excessive analysis or interpretation (which will inevitably favour one side or the other). That way the more aggressive nationalists stand out more and reveal themselves for what they are. There's no such thing as truly neutral of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that I have a bias, this is why I stick it in my pocket when editing, but it does lead me to identify very quickly where there is the "opposing" bias... most aggressive nationalists seem to want to scream their POV out, while not realising that that method only turns reader off (another good reason for keeping POV out)....unfortunately I've never learnt the art of diplomacy thus I make comments on the talk pages that can appear as a bit..........I'm in too much of a hurry, I want the POV gone and I want it gone Now....I will always endeavour for a neutral article with as much information from RS as possible. My aim has always been for 1 RS ref for each sentence....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Hi, did you check your name here? They even quoted you, funny. Imad marie (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I knew they'd listed my name, but I didn't know they'd actually quoted something I'd said. I'm at a loss of course to understand what exactly is "anti-Israel" about asking people to use normal, factual terminology for things. But there you go, they're a weird lot. I mean they post "tribute" videos of men toting guns and balaclavas, as if that all rubs off on them by association. Kind of childish and pathetic really ... --Nickhh (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, so childish. Unfortunately some of their members are active here.Imad marie (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to take this to arbitration...Why are you higher on the list than me????...:)..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They did say it was "in no particular order" I think, so I'm sure they mean nothing by it ... --Nickhh (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Arb case

Hi, I was going to respond to a previous comment of yours,[4] but it's been deleted already, so I'm just starting a new thread. In regards the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, despite the name of the case, it is still applicable here. When the ArbCom handed down their decision, they said, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)" So though the case may have just been about conspiracy theories, the arbs used it as a vehicle to authorize sanctions in a much wider topic area. They've done similar things in other areas too. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is used to authorize sanctions on any articles in the Eastern European topic area, and so forth. Just wanted to clear that up, --Elonka 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't read the whole case page, just scanned what the original filing party said, which kicked off with this phrase: "This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks". Anyway, it's not going to be a problem, as I really don't do much on most Sept 11th articles, and I don't of course spend my time here waiting for the opportunity to be offensive, disruptive or whatever. In fact in my view I'm far too accomodating most of the time to people who do act in that way, and generally indulge them by debating points with them until everyone is going round in circles. In reality I'd happily ignore most of the more contentious articles here, but sometimes I just see what I think is seriously awful content in them and try to deal with it occasionally. The problem often is that a lot of them are dominated by people with a pretty fixed world view one way or the other, rather than people who are at least trying to edit with some element of objective detachment. What should be simple common sense edits then become the cause of voluminous talk page debate, which very occasionally becomes a little fractious. As I've said I can only think of two comments on my part that were even approaching being out of line in all the time I've been here (and I very definitely do not include the one at issue here). Furthermore I never go running to an administrator each time I feel I've taken a knock from someone else, which happens far more often. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: I'm really not being smug at all (honest!) but I am pleased to note that my insistence that the al-Durrah conditions could be removed without a descent into chaos has more than been vindicated.

Yes, I too am very pleased that that article has stabilized.  :) --Elonka 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza

I don't know if you've had a chance yet to review Ariobarza's latest response on the Battle of the Tigris AfD, but it seems to be yet another personal attack against myself and other editors (including you, I guess) who have !voted to delete the article. This seems to be a habit of his. Having reviewed his edits systematically, I believe there are significant concerns about him that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll pop something in - not sure it will add much to what I've said already at the AFD. --Nickhh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh please read my message on the ANI page, and reframe from make more absurd and escalating comments on my ANI page, my personal attack was not against you in the first place, and I hope that you see all ChrisO wants is to gain support for blocking me, and eventually banning me. Ever since he has come here, disputes have begun. Please do not make things worse by involving yourself in this HYPOCRITICAL ANI (meaning Chriso has been here more than 3 times more than me, and has done what he is acccusing me of doing, plus he had gotten banned once), I am getting really tired of this.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

I did read your message (and managed to understand most of it). In turn please read what I have said on the ANI & other pages - your personal attacks, such as they are, are the least of the problems with what you get up to here. Your mainspace contributions here are mostly, to be quite honest, shoddy and incompetent. You insist on boring people with your extensive amateur analysis on talk pages, with the effect of diverting good editors from doing anything constructive with their time. You have also ignored all the helpful and generous advice you have received in your eight months of extensive editing, and even now show no intention of acknowledging any of the utterly legitimate issues people are raising. I and others are simply pointing out what the problems are. Your slightly bizarre rants, here and elsewhere, won't change the fact that those problems exist, or stop people from continuing to highlight them. --Nickhh (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, hi, I'm taking a look at Ariobarza's actions. In the meantime, could I ask you to please consider what you're saying, in an effort towards de-escalating the dispute? Accusing someone of fraud is a very serious statement, and per WP:NLT, you might want to consider refactoring your comment. Thanks, --Elonka 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that removing content from someone else's post, on two separate occasions, so that anyone who goes to the current version of the page cannot see it, is fraud as simply defined, one would assume? I'd be more than pleased to hear an explanation as to why this might not be the case. --Nickhh (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I've just gone to and actually read WP:NLT. Posting that on my talk page seems a little OTT, surely. --Nickhh (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend what Ariobarza is doing, but please, could you find other terms to use than "Fraud"? It's such a strong word, and I am not seeing any indication that that's what's going on here. More likely it's the case that Ariobarza is not a native English speaker, and the language difficulty is causing further difficulty with understanding of Wikipedia procedures. Which still may not be acceptable for Wikipedia, but it's a long way away from outright fraud. --Elonka 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraud as broadly construed simply suggests deceit for some form of advantage. Removing details from a case which is being made against you, especially in such a way that the removal would not be immediately obvious to a third party subsequently reviewing that case, seems to me to fit that description. This is a general observation, nothing to do with any WP procedures or any unique rules relating to ANI. I can change it to "tampering with the evidence" if you'd prefer .. --Nickhh (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, why continue to make it sound legalistic? There's no need to make it sound worse than it actually is, so why not just state what happened, "inappropriate tampering with other editors' posts". --Elonka 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fraud" is not exclusively a legal term. The point I was trying to make above of course - after you raised the allegation -was that my language could have been even more legalistic, given the circumstances. --Nickhh (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance.

I've already had a quick scan, but will look again. I'll add any comments or whatever if they come to me .. not sure how helpful I'll be, as i) it takes a while for the amateur reviewer and/or part-time editor to spot some of the problems - which of course is why it's all so insidious; plus ii) I'm a little exhausted by all the BS above (enough to put you off from doing anything much really). But, if everyone does their little bit, we may get there eventually .... --Nickhh (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility

The first half of this comment was pretty good, but starting from the word "fraudulent" and going onward, it went downhill fast.[5] Would you please consider re-factoring it, to keep the good parts, and get rid of the incivility and comments about other editors? Remember, discuss content, not the contributors. I know we've talked about this before, but I really have to insist. Civility is policy, and is especially important when dealing with controversial topic areas, such as the Israel/Palestine articles. I don't want to have to place other ARBPIA restrictions on your editing, so please, can you just try to be a bit more polite in your posts? Thanks, --Elonka 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well ... I was aiming the words "fraudulent and dishonest" at the article, not at any editor. I stand by that observation, just as I would if I had used it in respect of the page about Mickey Mouse, were that page to say "Mickey Mouse, also known as Barry Mouse". The only comment I made about any other editor was the one doubting that User:Jayjg was stupid, which is kind of a compliment really. I also stand by the other points I made, eg that the debate is fatuous (it is, and has wasted hours of contributors' time, Jayjg's included), and that WP as a whole is blighted by nationalist POV-pushing and propaganda, sometimes blatant or inept, but frequently camouflaged with sophistry. The more egregious examples sometimes annoy me enough to make me want to comment on them. In my view that's a far lesser sin than the behaviour of those editors who run around inserting them into actual articles in the first place. And my patience really slips away when every attempt I make to suggest or edit compromise wording is ignored and/or blindly reverted. --Nickhh (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the frustration in those cases. However, when you resort to incivility, it makes your other comments almost completely ineffective. So I'd recommend focusing on what it is that you really want to achieve? Do you just want to vent at other editors so that you can feel better? Or do you want to get the article improved? If the latter, stay civil. If the former, you're not going to have any effect on the article, and will probably just end up blocked or banned. Is it really that hard to stay polite? I find a useful technique when I'm angry about something on the internet, is to open up Notepad, and "let it out". Write out everything that I really want to say to the other person, swear words and all. Then, after the rush of adrenaline is gone, I go and write the real post, that abides with the rules of civility. Or if I'm so worked up that I still feel my mastodon post is the better one, I'll either save it so that I can look at it again the next day, or I'll try to track down someone I trust via IMs or email, and ask them to review my words before I hit send. Are you ever on IMs? If so, I'm happy to act as that kind of a buffer for you if you'd like. But the main thing is, once you're written something, re-read it before sending it. If it's uncivil, just close the window. Step away from the computer, walk around the block, have some ice cream, do whatever you've got to do to calm down. Speaking in a calm tone will reap dividends, I assure you. --Elonka 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you always hope you can reason with people and that simple but accurate & neutral edits will stick, but each time you try you end up only confirming what you really know already - that it is futile when you are dealing with people who feel so involved in the question at issue (and, despite my occasional forays into I-P articles, I do not consider that to apply to me - I'm a total outsider when it comes to the real world conflict there). And it's not "anger" as much as intellectual disappointment. Oh and what I posted on this occasion was the cleaned-up version ... --Nickhh (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving your comments at AN, and apology

Hi, Nick. Since your comments at the administrators' noticeboard were an expansion on ChrisO's, and not a reply to Guy's, I took the liberty of moving them. Please, feel free to revert the move if you wish, or ask me to do it myself. :-)

Let me size the opportunity to apolgize for not informing you that I had referred there to comments you made elsewhere. I often write text & replies offwiki and then copy-&-paste all at the same time... but somehow I forgot to do the copy-&-pasting in this case. I only noticed now, when searching "the section I wrote" in this very talk page, and not finding it. - Again, my apologies. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries on both counts. I was 50-50 where to place my note at AN (I tend to follow chronological order, even if my comments actually refer more specifically to an earlier comment); plus I have no problem with being quoted as an apparent source of wisdom elsewhere in that thread. Oh and it's actually pleasant to receive a friendly note on my talk page. When the orange bar popped up I was expecting another strange complaint! I seem to have become a bit of a drama magnet over the past few weeks, for reasons which still escape me ... --Nickhh (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

You wrote in an edit summery: "No, what you mean is "as I have *claimed* on the talk page".

I do not expect you to agree with me, but try to get your accusations straight. I did not claim anything about you, nor have I used the word "claimed" in an edit summery. Maybe I misunderstand what you intended to say (not much room in an edit summery), and if so I would appreciate an explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary here justified your revert - your third identical revert in a matter of hours as it happens - by saying "as .. explained on talk". I was pointing out that you have not "explained" anything - you have merely "claimed" something (as a basis for why the material should be removed), and nearly every other editor there has disputed that claim. Your use of the word "explain" pre-supposes that you are right, and hence can revert against consensus - I was merely remarking on this. I never suggested, or intended to suggest, that you were making claims about me personally or about anyone else. --Nickhh (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you reverted my revert. I have no complaint about that. But you said I had "claimed" something, apparently, it seemed, about you. When I write that I have "explained" something, that means that I have explained my position on the talk page. I consider my explanations reasonable, but I do not consider my views infallible; and I certainly understand that other editors can disagree in good faith. I appreciate it when others extend the same courtesy of assuming good faith to me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I never said that you had "claimed" anything "about me". And have already pointed that out to you in my response above. Let's try again - my edit summary was simply saying that your edit summary should have used the word "claimed" rather than "explained". Over and out. --Nickhh (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in making "claims." I think it sounds too authoritarian. Reasoned explanations count. But why should anyone care what I claim? There are fringe theory advocates who make claims, but that is of no help.

Anyhow, I was just trying to figure out what your edit summery intended. Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed on WP:AN

Please check here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikihounding_by_User:Nickhh. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification (it's a seriously silly complaint by the way). I'm not sure whether I wish to waste any time responding to it point by point - it doesn't appear that anyone else has yet. --Nickhh (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32

OK. I've slipped out of semi-retirement to drop a couple of paragraphs in. I suspect it'll be shunted off to another forum by the look of it as things stand now, but at least the flag has been raised as it were. Maybe we can still get something in place on naming conventions which will stick (and which should probably cover other related issues, eg "settlement" vs "city", "occupuied" vs "disputed" etc). Hopefully we - and this "encyclopedia" - will get more out of that process than yet more aggravation and obfuscation, which then ends up with a false compromise where every term, however obscure, POV or flat-out inaccurate is given equivalence and prominence. Here's hoping ... --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, not sure yet if I will add anything to my original comments, I've spent enough time bogged down in this one and getting hacked off occasionally as it is. Hopefully though this will help lead to a way forward that will deal with the edit warring - from all sides - and aggravation that is being caused; and at the same time maintain a (genuinely) neutral pov and the standard terminology, while noting, where appropriate and in the right place, the existence of secondary terms. --Nickhh (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nickhh,

sorry for putting off replying to this until now. I intended to buy a round of wiki-beer when this dispute was over and done with, which indeed seemed within reach in early January, but the weeks went by. Now, I have a good feeling about this ArbCom case — the source evaluation part is an open-and-shut case, and as to the behavior issue, our opponents are almost all too eager to provide lucid illustrations, in real time. Wonder what Jayjg is up to, and just how willing his mighty friends are to shelter him this time. It's beginning to heat up for him. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: More editors than I were shocked when you went redlinked all of a sudden. It was a great relief to see you back.

Cheers. My intention is still to keep a distance from I-P and other contentious articles, since as we all know trying to make even minor corrections so that they read properly and accurately, as an objective and neutral record of the facts and the international consensus, is enough to get you into 20,000 word talk page debates, edit wars and accusations of stalking, being part of a "pro-Palestinian crowd" etc. In real life as well as here I'm kind of placid and patient most of the time, and willing to argue through points ad nauseam, in a perhaps naive bid to show others how wrong they are getting something - but only up to a point, and I think I briefly reached my limit recently. However I'm willing to try and help see this one through to some kind of conclusion, and then go back to occasionally tidying up the worst of any bad writing, bad content or flat out random editorialising that I spot in pages here (across any topic that happens to interest me). I have to say I'm slightly wary of the risk of turning this into a "get Jayjg" exercise, but at the same time I hope it will at least highlight the stonewalling, selective quoting of our lovely guidelines and system-gaming that goes on in a bid to defend the indefensible, however trivial and relatively minor the point in question might seem, while at the same time resolving the underlying issue. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, gentlemen, you're optimists. Nothing there so far documents what most of us would acknowledge as the truth, that Jayjg wages wars of attrition on a number of these pages, against the bulk of evidence, by wikilawyering. That is obvious to any reader of the relevant threads. But threads are rarely read. Diffs are examined for violations of WP:Civil, WP:AGF, etc. Though he never seems to assume good faith (i.e., assume that when several editors oppose you with substantial work on documentation, there may be a bushel of light under their arses), you cannot document it. Like it or not, he will not be touched by this, and indeed is sufficiently (and justifiably) confident simply to ignore the case, which will perhaps end in a few warnings to MM, G-Dett. Personally, I don't care to 'get' Jayjg. I just wish someone with a creative temperament could come forth with some ruling that would enable us to edit I/P pages without this collective catenaccio stonewalling, led of course by Jayjg. But that is improbable. In the meantime, we have lost very good, book-reading editors, User:Eleland, User:Ashley kennedy3, User:Tiamut, while some of them have been elected to administration. That's the lie of the land.Don't be discouraged by the negative result.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)