German reunification

Re: WP:AGF and defenestrations

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm already on it: [1]. I'm still formulating the post, but it will appear soon.

Cheers and thanks again! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:05

Ta-da! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:27

Nahum Shahaf

As Elonka already warned you[2], 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)

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)

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)