here is the issue. Watch carefully what the issue, and watch the typical response.
Issue: I am just trying to restore the large amounts of material that keep disappearing. We Wikipedians can't edit it or improve it unless it is there to be edited. The problem is that there is no discussion, no editing, no alternatives given. People are not offering sources or facts; they are just using their personal opinions, and anger at Israel, to remove verified and important historical facts.
I also have repeatedly stated that Danny is a very smart man, and that he has been a great contributor in the past, and can be again. Check out the Talk pages and Talk archives for articles that both Danny and I have worked together on. There are dozens of such explicit and positive statements from me in the past few months. (Danny has not reciprocated, and seems to get angrier each time I say something positive about him.) In recent days I had to call Danny on his vandalism, but he seems calmer now, and has stated that he is willing to work on editing. I am certainly willing to take him at his word.
This issue needs to be resolved by people sticking to facts, and not be censorship to push a pro-Arab agenda.
Yet few people are responding to the above argument. Instead, this list is filled with ad homenin remarks, like the below one from Stan:
"Not only have you yourself made the ugliest and most hateful personal attacks that I've yet seen on Wikipedia, you then have the unmitigated gall to pretend that you haven't done anything. It doesn't say much for Wikipedia governance that you haven't been banned forever for your unacceptable actions."
This is sort of Sad. Stan continually hurls ugly personal attacks, while I am only asking that we follow our usual NPOV editing procedures. This is called projection, and it is neither helpful nor reasonable.
I can only ask people to _try_ to stick the specific points that both Jimbo and I have repeatedly raised, the points that anonymous people have made (they are afraid to use their real names, due to the way that Wiki-En users gang up on people.) If you stick to the issues, and stop the non-stop personal attacks, we can get work done.
If you continue the personal attacks, it only shows who is causing the real problem.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Robert wrote:
Yet few people are responding to the above argument. Instead, this list is filled with ad homenin remarks, like the below one from Stan:
"Not only have you yourself made the ugliest and most hateful personal attacks that I've yet seen on Wikipedia, you then have the unmitigated gall to pretend that you haven't done anything. It doesn't say much for Wikipedia governance that you haven't been banned forever for your unacceptable actions."
This is sort of Sad. Stan continually hurls ugly personal attacks, while I am only asking that we follow our usual NPOV editing procedures. This is called projection, and it is neither helpful nor reasonable.
OK, then answer this yes or no - did you or did you not say "Fuck you sick Nazi bastards" to everyone on this mailing list, and do you think this was an acceptable thing for you to do?
Stan
I suggest that the moderator of that mailing list (hi Ed !) do start moderating the mailing list not only for spam issues, but for uncivility as well.
Those who offer only personnal comments as food for thought should be added on a non-automatically post list. The content reviewed. And only posted if it is constructive, or at least non-destructive.
I assume that RK is referring to the edit war over [[Palestinian views of the peace process]]? (I haven't been following this thread too closely, so correct me if I'm mistaken.) Observe, then, a very convenient memory lapse on his part. Robert wrote:
People are not offering sources or facts; they are just using their personal opinions, and anger at Israel, to remove verified and important historical facts.
Observe one instance where someone (me) did offer sourced and referenced historical facts (regarding the Treaty of Hudaibiya) that contradicted part of the article in question. Note that my reference was to a Wikipedia article, so RK could have checked it with one mouse click:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Palestinian_views_of_the_pea...
And observe RK's response; he responded to some of my objections, but left others (those that were sourced and referenced to a reliable source) untouched; he responded to Martin's objections on the same topic with more editorializing, instead of the sources and facts that he claims to love so much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Palestinian_views_of_the_pea... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Palestinian_views_of_the_pea...
But despite his lack of sourced, referenced factual information to counter my objections, he reverted the article, twice, so it included the material that I had challenged and he had not justified (and somehow, he removed the NPOV and inclusion dispute headers, but never mind -- that could have been an accident.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_pr...
(I added further references to reliable historical sources later on, if anyone has any doubts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Palestinian_views_of_the_pea... )
RK continues to claim that he is trying to build an accurate, NPOV article on this topic, but his actions suggest otherwise.
--Charles P. (en:User:Mirv)