HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons

Please note: To preserve context, my replies (if any) will be posted '''here''', ''not on your Talk page'', so add this page to your watch. Thanks. Free ringtones User:HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr

Hi

Hi HistoryBuffEr,
I feel it is my duty to let you know that we have a 3 Revert Rule here at Wikipedia. Reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours is generally considered taboo, and extremely obessive reverting can result in a 24-hour block.

Best,
Majo Mills Node ue/Node 06:58, 14 Sep 2004

::So, how come the others with MORE numerous reverts have not been blocked yet? Also, does the rule apply to you as well? Thanks, Mosquito ringtone HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 07:00, 2004 Sep 14

:::Because I have added new content and changed existing content each time which is considered constructive, while you OTOH have simply rv'd over and over.

:::Sabrina Martins Node ue/Node 07:36, 14 Sep 2004

::::We seem to be talking in vain. Each of your posts looks almost identical to each other. Also, I don't see how putting "alleged" in every sentence is helpful when I had already put in a disclamer in the first paragraph. And I have already shown you that the term "occupation" is well settled (eg: Iraq was bombed twice on much less evidence). This and all other points are well supported by documents and history books (including Israel's). Nextel ringtones HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 07:43, 2004 Sep 14

Occupation of Palestine

Please take a moment to read the Abbey Diaz NPOV policy and Free ringtones NPOV tutorial in their entirety, whether you have read them before or not. Note the admonition that "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." This means that people who make remarks like "NPOV schmPOV" or "Resistance is futile" in regard to NPOV disputes should work on articles that are at less risk of dispute. You should read the section about "writing for the enemy" a few times as it applies specifically to difficulties you have had.

From your comments on the VfD page, it's clear that you have not learned the techniques WP uses to resolve these disputes. We do not write up our POVs in full and then fight over which complete version is "right." Work a couple sentences at a time, so there is a chance for people to raise objections. You ''must'' consider their objections, in exchange for their consideration of yours. Think about ways to reword your changes that avoid their objections while making your point. If possible, step back from general conclusions to the underlying details. Do not change wording that is factually accurate. A statement that someone takes a particular position on a disputed question is a fact; A statement that the position is "right" is POV.

If you have any questions or comments about your understanding of NPOV dispute resolution, or about your experiences trying to modify Majo Mills Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you can leave them on Mosquito ringtone User talk:Gazpacho/my talk page. Please don't post a diatribe there trying to convince me that "Occupation of Palestine" is the right term. I am not on any "side" and you will only waste your time Sabrina Martins Gazpacho/Gazpacho 16:11, 23 Sep 2004

Large-scale edits and ad hominem comments

HistoryBuffEr, I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia's content, but I think the way you are going about it is counter-productive. Rather that replacing existing articles with your own significantly different versions, I strongly recommend bringing edits one at a time to Talk: pages for discussion. The is especially true for highly contentious articles, and is standard Wikipedia practice. Also, I very strongly recommend that your restrict your comments on Talk: pages to discussions of article content, rather than comments about the people making the edits. This is also standard Wikipedia practice. Thanks. Cingular Ringtones Jayjg/Jayjg 00:25, 27 Sep 2004

Removing comments from your user talk page because you disagree with what was said is a violation of also appalling Wikiquette/Wikipedia etiquette. See also indonesia elected Avoiding common mistakes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you choose not to approach it collaboratively, much of your effort will be wasted. Have you noticed that my addition of the phrase "occupation of Palestine" to the intro of movement than Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone unchallenged in subsequent edits? Maybe, just maybe, my advice is worth paying attention to. abruptly ousted Gazpacho/Gazpacho 18:56, 27 Sep 2004

::If you paid attention you would have noticed that your comments have not been removed from my Talk but just moved to subpage back news User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. I hope that reading before hurling accusations is part of the Wikipedia etiquette you cited in your sermon. home it HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 07:27, 2004 Sep 28

You have removed comments from your talk page (i.e. this page) because they are critical, and you have announced that you do so willingly. This is a violation of Wikipedia etiquette. It is easy enough for you to find out what is and is not part of that etiquette, and all users are well-advised to do so.package backlashes Gazpacho/Gazpacho 08:16, 28 Sep 2004

: I can't see anything in the etiquette that suggests that a user ought not to edit their talk page. It seems to me that throwing a rule in HistoryBuffEr's face like this is not "discussing" a point with him at all. Indeed, the Wikiquette page suggests that comments on talk pages should aim to comfort, to lessen tension, not to "criticise" others. I took your advice, Gazpacho, and I will advise you in turn that the confrontational approach you have taken to HistoryBuffEr breaches the very etiquette you are promoting.frequently outrageously Dr Zen/Dr Zen 12:26, 26 Oct 2004

Attitude
We don't have to agree on anything but I'd like you to know that I find your attitude towards other users and your edits in regards to Israel offensive and harmful to WP. This is an encyclopedia, not a hate forum. can consult Humus sapiens/←nonprofit corporation User:Humus sapiens/Humus sapiens←has disclosed User talk:Humus sapiens/Talk 09:21, 28 Sep 2004

Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts

HistoryBuffEr, I'm going to request again that instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts, you please bring suggested changes here first for discussion. This has been perhaps the single most difficult problem with your edits ever since you joined Wikipedia. You know these pages are highly contentious at best, and contentious edits are best worked out on Talk: pages so that edit wars do not develop. I have yet to see you actually '''propose''' a change on '''any''' page before going ahead and making it, and this is, in my view, a recipe for continued strife. mandatory retirement Jayjg/Jayjg 16:23, 29 Sep 2004

:It takes two to dance.
:* When '''you''' post in Talk what you disagree with in my edits, instead of reverting the entire article, and
:* When you post '''your edits''' to Talk for prior approval,
:then you'll have some grounds to complain. byrd civil HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 18:27, 2004 Sep 29

::My edits tend to be small in nature; a few words changed, or two or three sentences. Yours are wholesale replacements of entire articles with completely different texts. Wikipedia norms do not support replacing articles or sections with radically different texts, essentially completely contradicting everything that was there before, and then saying "O.K., now lets debate the new article". The existing articles have been arrived at through a long process of negotiation and compromise; you can't just pre-empt the Wikipedia discussion and debate process because you think the final product is POV, you have to work with it (and the existing editors) to produce NPOV. like said Jayjg/Jayjg 20:34, 29 Sep 2004

:::Really? Facts are not on your side:
:::* I had posted my objections in Talk (see "Where's the occupation" and "Democratic?") '''before''' editing a small section of 6 short sentences.
:::* You had posted '''nothing''' in Talk before completely rewriting my much longer text.
:::* IZAK and Viriditas had reverted the entire article (to remove my text) several times without posting anything in Talk, but you didn't complain about that, did you?
:::Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere.
:::demanding courses HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 22:54, 2004 Sep 29

::::#While you raised objections, you didn't actually propose new text.
::::#Rather than simply deleting your POV text this time, in the spirit of compromise I NPOV'd it instead. I did not insert my own text.
::::#Since your text was a wholesale POV re-write and insertion, as previously mentioned, it is not surprising that those editors did so.
::::As I've mentioned several times, if you try working with other editors, rather than doggedly insisting on inserting and reverting radically new texts without consultation, you will find the Wikipedia process much smoother. Indeed, case closed. windylane hanover Jayjg/Jayjg 02:14, 3 Oct 2004

4 Reverts in one day

That's four reverts in one day on her charges Arab anti-Semitism, HistoryBuffEr. You know this is a violation of guidelines. a flop Jayjg/Jayjg 05:36, 5 Oct 2004

:Having problems with simple counting? How did 3 become 4 for you? prime interests HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 05:40, 2004 Oct 5

::Read the edit history again; you first reverted RK, then me 3 times. school vocational Jayjg/Jayjg 05:42, 5 Oct 2004

:::You read history again, I didn't revert RK, I NPOVified the article (compare to prev versions.) HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 05:45, 2004 Oct 5

::::Actually, you POVd the article, RK reverted, and then you POVd it again. Jayjg/Jayjg 06:00, 5 Oct 2004

:::::Reread the above until you understand it. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned. HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 06:05, 2004 Oct 5

Request for comment

I doubt if I am qualified to co-sponsor this. Have you tried Alberuni/Alberuni, User:Gadykozma/Gadykozma, User:Jfdwolff/Jfdwolff, or User:Jayjg/Jayjg? User:Susvolans/Susvolans 13:16, 5 Oct 2004

:Any user can certify the basis for dispute. The reason I asked you is because you were also unjustly smeared by IZAK. HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 17:46, 2004 Oct 5

::History, I note your RFC against IZAK. Please understand I am not taking a position in this, but I think you should be aware that, as a complainant, you are supposed to show that ''you personally'' made an effort to resolve the dispute with IZAK over his behavior before bringing the RfC.

:::''at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. ''

::You need either to demonstrate ignored or rebuffed attempts by your to resolve this. It could have been something as simple as "please do not call me an anti-semite" or "Personal attacks such as calling me an anti-semite are against Wikipedia policy." Alternately, you could get two other people who ''have'' spoken to IZAK about this to certify instead of you.
::You have expressed that you don't have much faith in me, but I would propose that you approach IZAK for an apology and a promise not to call you an anti-semite (if that's what he did) in the future, and then withdraw the RfC if he does so. If he does not, or continues the disputed behavior, then you are on firmer ground to make the complaint yourself. Cecropia/Cecropia / User talk:Cecropia/Talk 03:46, 6 Oct 2004

:::Thanks for your input. I have no desire to communicate with foaming-at-the-mouth types like IZAK, and have filed the RfC in the interest of Wikipedia. I noticed that he had smeared a number of people before and after accusing me. Many of the falsely accused may be too offended or reluctant to take action and may just leave Wikipedia instead. I personally don't need this RfC, but IZAK obviously needs an official warning as he has ignored all friendly user warnings.
:::I am not sure why you are suddenly for strictly applying rules. If this RfC is killed for whatever reason the reckless hurling of epithets is likely to increase. Ignoring IZAK's violations would allow someone to fight back and call him, say, a "Nazi" without repercussions.
:::User:HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr

::::History, your additional gratuitous attack on me notwithstanding, I'm telling you the way it is. If you want the behavior to stop, and your means for stopping it is to call an RfC, the RfC will fail unless it is endorsed within 48 hours by two people who have personally made an effort to correct IZAK. As of now, you have not shown yourself to be one. If you are as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you imply, you might know that Guanaco almost avoided an RfC in exactly that way. Cecropia/Cecropia / User talk:Cecropia/Talk 04:22, 6 Oct 2004

:::::No gratuitous attack I am for strictly applying rules anywhere and I welcome your conversion. My point in this case is that the rules are truly bizarre: Users should not have to communicate with someone hurling profanities at them in order for the violator to be reprimanded. HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 04:40, 2004 Oct 6

::::Although we refer to "rules" on Wikipedia, it would probably be better if they were referred to as "protocols"ways of doing things. What I told you about VfD is the procedure there, and what I'm telling you about regarding RfCs is the procedure in those actions. If you feel, for example, that the five-day rule in VfD should be strictly enforced, or some other modification, you should post a poll at VfD talk with several choices and see if you can come up with a consensus for a different protocol.

::::But as to your specific issue: "Users should not have to communicate with someone hurling profanities at them in order for the violator to be reprimanded." Even though it seems goofy sometimes, many seasoned Wikipedians will give soft answers to even obvious provocationlike asking obvious vandals to "please not vandalize Wikipedia" or even '''". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my '''User talk:Ram-Man/talk page'''. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. User:Ram-Man/Ram-Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new/ User talk:Ram-Man/talk)

Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence
Due to its disorganization and unmanageable length, I have moved the material from the evidence page, 495 kb, to a new location and set up a new page. Please summarize your evidence at the new page, Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence, putting your evidence in a separate section, following the date and time format and limiting your presentation to no more than 1000 words and 100 diffs. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 13:17, Dec 13, 2004
:Will reply on the Evidence talk page. HistoryBuffEr/HistoryBuffEr 19:21, 2004 Dec 13

Something you noted

I note that you remarked on the manner in which certain cases were quickly ignored, but others taken up with relish. So, I pose the question,

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

User:CheeseDreams/CheeseDreams 01:29, 2004 Dec 18 (omitted sig added)

Request for Arbitration

Following the various tos-and-fros on WP:VIP, I have made a request for arbitration. You are one of a handful of users in the "Various" request. Sockatume/Sockatume 21:50, 23 Dec 2004
:Request withdrawn; turns out that the user accused of being a sockpuppet has been blocked, therefore resolving the issue. Sockatume/Sockatume 22:04, 23 Dec 2004

Note:

I also have problems involving user: Veriditas. I'd suggest ignoring him, although he and user: Jewbacca have launched a campaign, re: arbitration, and the operant idea with such things is 'fighting like hell.' I find these people distracting and annoying. Sorry you had to deal with them. Auto movil/Auto movil 04:28, 31 Dec 2004