Anthere writes about Danny and Jimbo:
I still have not really understood why he left. I can't help to think that it *can't* be just because of Jimbo's comments.
Your sarcasm towards Jimbo does not make Wikipedia a better place. Please desist.
Danny has made it clear why he left. There are over 100,000 articles on Wikipedia, and he made sure that he had to get his way on every one that he edited. The first time he was rebuffed on *one* article, he deleted his account and ran away. Now some other user is running away as well, all because some people would rather blatantly censor information than jointly edit articles.
In contrast, I have seen a few regular users on this very list get strongly rebuffed, and most of their edits rebuffed on some articles (not just one.) Yet they don't leave the project in a huff; most people here understand that this is a group effort that strives to incorporate multiple points of view.
Those people that cannot stand the sight of points of view other than their own will eventually burn out. It is up to you which kind of user you would like to be.
It is not just me who feels this way: Others agree that discussion is superior to politically motivated censorship:
From the article's talk page.
"I just stumbled onto this article (I usually try to steer clear of things like this). But it would be wrong to remain silent on this one, Danny. This is nothing whatsoever wrong or innacurate with the last sentence of the material you have censored (it is factually accurate, just read the textbooks; if you don't like the adjectives then change those, but they are actually understated!), nor with the bulk of the quotations. The material is entirely relevant to the subject at hand. It is shameful of you to have played the silly game of expunging the material time and again. I don't intend to play that game or get involved in this any further, but I do hope that others with not only add back the material but make sure that Danny agrees to no more censorship based on his obviously extreme political biases. This is a real test for Wikipedia."
This person is correct.
By the way, Martin and Viajero are again *lying* about the content of the article and are deleting vas chunks of it. They are putting words into the mouth og Yassir Arafat and others, makign them out to be saying the opposite of what they actually are saying.
I understand that both of these people have a hatred of Israel, but that does not give them the right to falsify information and censor material. Sadly, this "edit war" is not over.
I also am having problems with Martin, as AGAIN he is treating me absuively on my own home page. I have already made clear that this person is forbidden to do so; I will not have people with pro-CI beliefs continually harass me.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Cher RK,
Robert a écrit:
Anthere writes about Danny and Jimbo:
I still have not really understood why he left. I can't help to think that it *can't* be just because of Jimbo's comments.
Your sarcasm towards Jimbo does not make Wikipedia a better place. Please desist.
You may choose to see it as sarcasm RK. It was not. You needed not to interprete in a negative way by default. I am essentially worried for Danny, and am even more worried for the impact on us all. You included. And Jimbo included.
Danny has made it clear why he left. There are over 100,000 articles on Wikipedia, and he made sure that he had to get his way on every one that he edited. The first time he was rebuffed on *one* article, he deleted his account and ran away. Now some other user is running away as well, all because some people would rather blatantly censor information than jointly edit articles.
I do not see any blatant censorship. I just see pain and difficulty to realize we are different and will always be different. We will always have different opinions, and sometimes we will not even realize that others think different, till we are brutally confronted to the tructh. And when something is near our heart, it is seriously difficult to admit other opinions. Some take it more easily than others, because it is their nature to be less easily upset. Give time. We have plenty of time :-)
In contrast, I have seen a few regular users on this very list get strongly rebuffed, and most of their edits rebuffed on some articles (not just one.) Yet they don't leave the project in a huff; most people here understand that this is a group effort that strives to incorporate multiple points of view.
All people here are commited to the group effort. Being commited does not mean we all do it right and perfect from the first try. It is not perfection that is most valuable, it is constant improvement.
Those people that cannot stand the sight of points of view other than their own will eventually burn out. It is up to you which kind of user you would like to be.
It is not the sight of the other points of view that is unbearable sometimes, to the point of leaving the project.
It is the fact that sometimes we can't work all together with civility.
All of us have a topic that can be burning, even genitalia. Is that a reason not to stay civil ? Many important things can be said without offending others. And actually, it often works better to stay polite. And not only is it best for both parties to stay polite, but it is best to assume politeness in case of a doubt. It is more confortable for the spirit. If temper is lost at some point, it works wonders to apology or at least to adopt a more friendly behavior after the crisis is resolved.
In a crisis situation, some will scream hell, some will stay cold and attack the other, some will silently avoid the area for a while, some will quit entirely. All attitudes are ok. Anyone can adopt one of this attitude depending on his personality. It is respectful to accept all attitudes. As long as the group recovers from the crisis and go on respecting each member. Human capital is too precious for us.
It is not just me who feels this way: Others agree that discussion is superior to politically motivated censorship:
From the article's talk page.
"I just stumbled onto this article (I usually try to steer clear of things like this). But it would be wrong to remain silent on this one, Danny. This is nothing whatsoever wrong or innacurate with the last sentence of the material you have censored (it is factually accurate, just read the textbooks; if you don't like the adjectives then change those, but they are actually understated!), nor with the bulk of the quotations. The material is entirely relevant to the subject at hand. It is shameful of you to have played the silly game of expunging the material time and again. I don't intend to play that game or get involved in this any further, but I do hope that others with not only add back the material but make sure that Danny agrees to no more censorship based on his obviously extreme political biases. This is a real test for Wikipedia."
This person is correct.
By the way, Martin and Viajero are again *lying* about the content of the article and are deleting vas chunks of it. They are putting words into the mouth og Yassir Arafat and others, makign them out to be saying the opposite of what they actually are saying.
I understand that both of these people have a hatred of Israel, but that does not give them the right to falsify information and censor material. Sadly, this "edit war" is not over.
I also am having problems with Martin, as AGAIN he is treating me absuively on my own home page. I have already made clear that this person is forbidden to do so; I will not have people with pro-CI beliefs continually harass me.
Robert
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Robert wrote:
Danny has made it clear why he left. There are over 100,000 articles on Wikipedia, and he made sure that he had to get his way on every one that he edited.
No, I think the reason he threatened to leave was that I was personally rude to him in a way that's totally out of character for me, and not becoming my position around here. My actions threatened a public loss of face for him that he didn't deserve, and I deeply regret it.
I do not agree with the deletion of the content in question, but my treatment of Danny was unacceptable, and I'm doing what I can to take it back and rectify the situation.
This is really a proper issue for arbitration, not for me, and I should have stepped back and let the process work.
--Jimbo
Robert wrote:
In contrast, I have seen a few regular users on this very list get strongly rebuffed, and most of their edits rebuffed on some articles (not just one.) Yet they don't leave the project in a huff; most people here understand that this is a group effort that strives to incorporate multiple points of view.
As I recall, you called us all "Nazis" and left this project in a huff over a previous edit war, so you might not be the best person to give us all advice on that particular point.
-Mark