Martin (MyRedDice) and Viajero are still engaged in
censorship of the article on "Palestinian views of the
peace process". While Danny deleted the entire article at
once, Martin and Viajero started a series of over a dozen
edits, removing each quote one at a time. They think that
no one will notice, perhaps?
The result is the same. They are deleting most of the
_content_ of the article, resulting in the same censorship
that a small but growing consensus here has condemned.
Their justifications on the Talk page contain no
references, no facts and no sources. They just have added
dozens of paragraphs of personal opinion, and are using
their own personal interpretations as grounds to delete all
this material. That is not acceptable.
If it is wrong when person X does it, it is wrong when
anyone does it. Thus, I am reverting their mass deletions.
The article, of course, does need some work. For instance,
it would be a good idea to include a wider array of
Palestinian views. The views of the average Palestinian are
not given by the Palestinian Authority alone. A great many
Palestinians sympathise with, and are members of, Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They have their own views of the
Peace Process with Israel, and these views should be
reported. (Many members in these groups think that no such
peace process should exist; they think Israel should be
removed sooner rather than later.)
We can also add more views of Palestinians in the pro-peace
camp. Ironically, none of the pro-Arab people here have
done anything of the sort. They just delete material. The
only person who has added any well-referenced quotes at all
showing this was *me*. So much for the false claims that
people keep hurling at me.
Also, we should add views of the Peace process by the
European Union, Russia, the USA and Israel.
What we must NOT do, however, is delete material that
pro-Arab apologists find uncomfortable. That is not
scholarship; that is just anti-Israeli propaganda. The
censorship is POV. The only way to keep NPOV is give a wide
array of Palestinian views, with quotes and sources, and
allow readers to make up their own mind.
On a related note, I also am disturbed that Martin is still
making non-stop personal attacks on me on my own home page.
As you all have seen, I was not discussing anything at all
with him...he just came at me full throttle when this issue
came up. He knows that such harassment is not acceptable.
Stick to editing in an NPOV fashion, and stop trying to
create a flame war. We have an encyclopedia to build.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Almost every day I look to the Wikipedia Website to add information, or
perhaps -- even better -- to read some articles about something I
didn't know much about. And outside of an occasional email to this
list as the result of some navel-gazing, I tend to stay out of most
of the disagreements over policy. In other words, I don't go looking
to find a new reason for banning people.
But I have found one today, thanks to Wik.
As many of us have seen, Wik enters into more than his share of edit
wars. I don't know his reasoning: is he just pig-headed? Does he enjoy
pointless arguments? I don't know, & I really don't care. But it seems
to me that when someone enters into an edit war over certain pages
on Wikipedia, it should be grounds for some kind of serious reprimand,
such as a ban for 1 to 3 days.
One of those pages would be [[Wikipedia:Conflicts between users]]. Others
could include VfD, [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]], [[Wikipedia:Village Pump]],
[[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]] -- in short any page where
discussion is important, & repeated reversions impedes that discussion.
If there is a meeting, & someone acts in an obnoxious manner which
prevents the meeting from continuing, that person can be ejected. That
is what I'm arguing we do here: these pages are where members of Wikipedia
conduct business, & must needs be kept free of reversions.
What say everyone? Shall we accept this as a precedent & ban Wik, or
is there a better solution?
Geoff
Fred Bauder wrote:
> People make mistakes, usually on both sides of any disputed issue. Usually,
> over time upon taking thought these mistakes can be corrected. A major
> project like Wikipedia with a bright future deserves handling with some
> perspective. One bad editor, RK, and one misjudgment, Jimbo's, do not
> somehow make an entire project worthless.
> Regarding Jimbo: I think it is important that you create an account under
> some persona, edit some articles, get into an edit war or two, and in
> general get grounded in the realities of this project.
About edit wars and especially RK: It is difficult to imagine what it
is like to deal with RK and his ilk if you are not involved. One year
ago we had one of many discussions about banning RK. I argued against
banning him, probably because at that point of time I did not make my
own experience of being constantly insulted, accused and reverted. Now
I did not have trouble with RK, since he apparently edits other topics
than me, but there are others like him who prefer reverting and
discrediting the opponent rather than discussing. So I think I know
what it was like for Danny, and he has my respect for nonetheless
bearing with RK. I also understand his reaction of leaving Wikipedia.
RK has now a feeling of having something like an official backing for
his annoying behaviour, just have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=RK.
Therefore it will now be even more difficult to bring neutrality into
the topics which are frequented by RK. We need more editors like
Danny, not less. I hope that someone around here knows him good enough
to persuade him to return.
Mirko (Baldhur)
Viajero writes:
> Sorry Robert, I won't let you get away the defaming
> these two contributors behind their backs; Danny appears
> to have left us and Zero doesn't subscribe to this list.
First off, Zero is probably Danny. Secondly, I have re-read
my initial letter and I can find no defamation or personal
attacks at all. I only described his own stated political
philosophy. (Which is also clear from dozens of public
statements and edits he has made.)
Unlike you, I really tried to work with Danny, and I had a
real relationship with him off of Wikipedia as well (i.e.
in the real world) for several months. He repeatedly made
it clear that he was anti-Zionist...yet we still got along
for some time. I have no reason to believe that he was
lying about his own beliefs.
> Smearing them as "anti-Zionists" is a ludicrous
> charge; it is as meaningless a term as calling
> them "anti-American" and simply demonstrates nothing
> more than the poverty of your argument.
Please stop your baseless slander of me. Your words only
show your ignorance of the topic, and prove to others that
you cannot be taken seriously.
In reality, Danny, Adam Carr and I all cooperated on the
new Wikipedia anti-Zionism article, and we all came to an
agreement. All of us agreed that the term anti-Zionist is
NOT a hate term, it is not slander, and that it does not
carry the specific meaning that _you_ assign to it. Heck,
some of my own family members are anti-Zionist, and I don't
hate them. I just understand that they have a very
different view of the world than I do.
So please stop being hysterical.
The problem with Danny is that he was very emotional in his
anti-Zionism, and started to push his views. When he found
out that he could not force Wikipedia to promote his
private political views in one article, he deleted his
homne page and quit forever. That was unfortunate, and a
bit surprising. I was expecting more mature behaviour.
If you had taken the time to read the Wikipedia
anti-Zionism article, or just peruse its edit history, you
would know all this, but it seems that you are no longer
here to help. You just have personal animosity towards me.
> You think perhaps Danny and Zero wish for the
> destruction of Israel???
Does it make you feel better to put words in my mouth, and
then attack me for things I never said or implied? That
kind of behavior is out of line. If I did this to you,
people would be calling for me to be banned.
In sadness at your behaviour,
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
A while ago, [[Palestinian views of the peace process]] was placed on Votes
for deletion and deleted. RK has insisted on keeping the material, so he placed
it into [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]. It has been removed repeatedly by
Zero and myself for NPOV violations--the same violations that caused it to be
deleted as an independent article in the first place. I am saying this because
I would ask that someone look at RK's edit history last night. Zero and I are
listed in Vandalism in progress and RK is making ad hominem attacks against
us. It is tiresome. It is also a statement that if you scream loud enough and
bully enough people, you will get your way. I wonder whether this is the message
that we want to get across to cranks.
Danny
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>I estimate that, of 3,000,000,000 available penises in the world,
>only around 650,000,000 are circumcised, while 2,350,000,000
>are not.
LOL! /Only/ 650,000,000. What an insanely small number!
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
>And as already has been stated, United States != world.
>[[Curcumcision]] says that a sixth of penises worldwide are
>circumcised. I would argue that that is not a large enough
>number in the current context.
Wrong. A sixth of the entire male population of the world is a huge number.
But that is a moot issue since the article is in English and written for an
English speaking audience. I would venture to guess that among male English
speakers the percentage is even higher.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Anthere wrote:
>A circumsized penis is not the natural state of a penis. It is pov to
>label a regular penis by describing him not being a non-natural state of
>a penis
It seems that you are most offended by the label so then label the circumsized
one as circumsized and the other one as intact.
>Wikipedia is not a source of information for America only. And the rest
>of the world does not necessarily want to hear about America only.
Within the bounds of NPOV, the English Wikipedia is first and foremost by and
for the English speaking world (with an emphasis on the needs of native
speakers - other languages have their own 'pedias, so this is only fair). It
has already been noted that a large part of that world has very significant
percentages of their male population with circumsized penises. So to not
include a photo of circumsized penis while including one of an obviously
intact penis is POV.
But I see you moved both photos to [[circumcision]] while retaining the photo
of an erect penis (which is, of course, more difficult to tell if it is
circumcised or not). While not ideal, I can live with that since the
comparison is more relevant to that article.
>American men are far from being the majority of men on planet.
So they should be ignored then? Since when has Wikipedia been a place where
only majority views are expressed?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Anthere wrote:
>I think the picture of the circumsized penis has nothing to do in that
>article and should be moved to the article about circumsision (a
>difficult word to spell).
>
>If no one does it, I will (open threat :-))
Leave the photo of the circumsized penis at [[penis]]. Nothing wrong with it
being there as a compare/contrast photo set with uncircumcised penis. You
also allude to a very important point - a great many men (perhaps most) in
the U.S. are circumsized and it has nothing to do with religion.
-- mav
Dear Robert.
I don't take lessons in Netiquette from Robert "fuck you sick Nazi
bastards" Kaiser. You made your bed. Lie in it.
Incidentally, I see you still don't know the difference between a talk
page and a home page.
-Martin