User talk:Dervish Tsaddik

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – El Comandante.

---

Welcome

What are you talking about Willis? Toshiba 09:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism --saxet 09:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:France

You added {{limitedgeographicscope}} to the talk page of France. You however did not provide any hint as to which parts of the article, according to you, lacked a "world view".

This tag is generally used for articles about general topics when these topics are treated from the specific point of view of a small number of countries or regions (ex: an article about a law concept discussing it only from the point of view of US law). David.Monniaux 19:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel

Why don't you tell us what your problem is with the article, and suggest alternatives, rather than just adding (inappropriate) tags to the Talk page? Adam 02:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The tag limitedgeographicscope is not inappropriate since the article presents a POV held by a narrow minority as if it was the (global) majority view. It's disgusting frankly. As a Jewish person I _know_ that what you are doing is a disservice to Jews even if you mean to do the opposite. By presenting (modern) extremist US-Israeli views on Israel and it's history as if it was factual you are turning a Wikipedia article into cheap propaganda.

Imagine if I would edit an article on homosexuality and would put in this sentence: 'Men and women has throughout the ages strived to become homosexuals and it is well known that every important historical person that has ever lived has been a homosexual', do you think a person reading that would say 'Interesting, I didn't know that' or do you think they would laugh and then not take the other (real, factual) claims that were in the article seriously?

If I was to edit an article about Israel I would probably slant it in a pro-Israeli way since I believe that we should have a homeland (and it's impossible to not be biased) but I wouldn't resort to writing a fairytale version of reality.

In the opening paragraph you have this sentence;

"In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens), but Israel is not a secular or multicultural state in the purest sense."

Who do you expect would believe that? The whole article is like that and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia, and to discredit us Jews that wants and needs to live in the real world.

I don't think it would be much use if I were to edit/suggest edits to the article as I believe they would get reverted, even if I submitted 100 references for every edit. That's not the way it should be. --saxet 05:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you are not prepared to participate in editing the article you have no right to post tags on it.
• I still don't know precisely what your objection to the article is. Which statements in the article are factually wrong? What relevant facts are omitted?
• I wrote the sentence you quote. In what specific sense is it incorrect?

Adam 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism

If it is antisemitic to propose to reflect the long-standing and widely held perspective that Israel is not a legitimate state -- that's the reality, not my opinion -- what is it to remove any direct reference to Palestinians perhaps having rights to the lands they live on? Marsden 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments at Talk:Territories under Israeli control (which I've returned to the article's original name, Talk:Occupied Territories (Israeli), by the way, at least until Jayjg and SlimVirgin get back up to their old tricks. I've also submitted an RFC on it). It is an unfortunate quality of Wikipedia's editing policy that a motivated minority -- even as few as a half-dozen people, I would guess -- can hijack an issue, unless an effort is made to stop them. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are dirty players -- you should see some of the veiled threats they've hurled at relatively new users -- and I have been losing the battle to maintain even the vaguest reference to Israel being an occupier. Again, thanks for your comments, and I'm sorry I had to threaten to ratchet up the dispute so much. Marsden 12:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, "Zionist Entity" is the term used by Arab governments that don't recognize Israel when they need to refer to Israel. I don't think it is ever (or at least only in the most extreme nut-case examples) used to refer to all Jewish people. It is, of course, not a popular term for Israelis, but -- as some have noted on other matters -- it is accurate that the State of Israel is by almost all reckonings both Zionist and an "entity." I think it's silly, but in many parts of the world it is probably a lot more commonly used than "Disputed Territories" is used anywhere in the West. Marsden 15:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dervish, the title of the article is a separate issue from the contents. I strongly protest your reverting in Marsden's many POV additions to the article which have nothing to do with the topic of the article or it's title. You have even reverted in his modification of the arguments of the opponents of the term - how can you justify having them say things that they never actually said? I've cited explicit arguments, and yet Marsden feels they should have made different arguments - and you seem to support him! Again, as I said, the title of the article is one thing, but blind reverts of the entire contents are unacceptable in my view, as are your threats to have people blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and methods

Saxet, I think you, like Marsden, are a potentially valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, but I would like to echo the suggestions that I made to him on the whole "Occupied Territories" talk page. You are attacking two well-regarded, long-time editors rather strongly (and others in passing) -- which does not mean that your points are necessarily wrong, but rather that that your approach might be, especially given that you are relatively new to the WP community. It also makes it hard to intervene on your behalf in settling the dispute. The kind of chaos that is occuring on the Talk:Territories under Israeli control page is not usual for Wikipedia, and it might be worth trying to calm it down a notch instead of inflaming it. For example, you could help me in reaching out to Marsden to get him to agree to be less combative, and, even if you are feeling provoked by Jay and Slimvirgin, don't shoot back, instead concentrate on the debate. This will serve you much better in arguing your points, and will help establish a reputation for constructive edits, which is the best asset on WP. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, my girlfriend is a long-time member of the Wikipedia community and is the one responsible for bringing me onboard.

I have, on at least three different occasions, let Marsden know that I have found his approach to have been 'less than constructive'. I do, however, feel slightly uneasy about reprimanding him once more - I did accuse him of being an anti-Semite (which he probably isn't) and I've been unnecessarily harsh when communicating with him. Right now I feel that maybe I owe him an apology rather than another scolding. I agree that the actual debate is more important than mudslinging and disruptive behaviour and that the situation on the discussion page is out of control. Since I'm a part of that I share responsibility for the unpleasant atmosphere. But I strongly object to any notion that me and/or Marsden are the ones who should be blamed for the havoc, even if Jayjg and SlimVirgin are long-time editors. I think this would be obvious to anyone who read Talk:Territories under Israeli control, Talk:Israel and the respective user pages. It is frustrating when different standards are applied, that rules/guidelines can be broken if you 'know the right people'. It is frustrating that sources like CIA, U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc, are so easily dismissed while the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is viewed as credible. It is frustrating that people like you don't want to argue the points of the debate because of the behaviour of one of the editors, and also that you give leeway to the equally bad behaviour of other editors. I feel this give readers an impression that Marsden (and probably me?) are lose cannons while Jayjg and SlimVirgin are acting in an honest and responsible way.

I have disclosed my personal POV, I did it because I wanted other Jews here on Wikipedia to take notice of what I perceived to be a group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them), who have succeeded in having their narrow minority view presented as a factual NPOV majority view in a number of Israeli/Palestinian pages. I had a, sort of, not-in-my-name reaction, and I was hoping that others (non-Jews also of course) would feel the same. I believe there is an unhealthy groupmentality thing going on right now where changes/edits made by 'outsiders' are opposed and/or reverted on sight. I believe you're part of that (note; this doesn't mean that I believe you're involved in bad faith editing). I also believe that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are part of this 'group'. As is MPerel, Klonimus, Guy Montag, and Humus sapiens. I think that this is a serious problem for Wikipedia, not just in this case but also as a meta-issue; if I get 50 friends to start edit Ariel Sharon, we could coordinate efforts to have the article say that Sharon had Muslim parents. This kind of 'loyalty' between editors damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

I will try to be more civil and constructive, and I ask you to reflect upon if any of my criticisms ring true. --saxet 00:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, you absolutely never owed me an apology. You reacted honestly and naturally to what I had written, but you did not close your mind to seeing whether or not there was something to what I wrote. That is the best response I could ask for. I don't know your personal experiences with Polonius, but in my experience he is a straight shooter. Marsden 12:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A few things. First, are you calling me part of a "group of rightwing Israeli Jews (and sympathizers to them)" or simply part of the "group mentality" with a bunch of other users that you have stated that you dislike in the past? I have no idea how you are getting any of this at all from my editing history or my discussions on any page you have been involved in, but you are welcome to believe whatever you want, and it is clear that this means that, for you, I am not to be taken seriously -- so be it, I tried. As I have stated, it is not my desire or my interest to work on issues about contemporary Israeli policy for a large number of reasons (such as these sorts of fights), but Marsden's threats against other, totally unrelated articles did draw my attention. And the lack of apologies or promises from him to refrain from threatening again is definitely my concern, in that I find that to be the most destructive approach to editing possible, and could lead quite rightly to a ban or other action, which I don't want to see happen. The fact that Marsden seemed happy that it drew attention to his position, and therefore was the right thing to do, only made the matter more untenable for me. I tried to resolve that situation and failed, but thought you might help. I then wrote a note to you to suggest that attacking, rather than helping calm, the situation was a bad idea, which you then cross-posted to Marsden's page as an apology to him, along with your note above accusing me above of being part of a cabal suppressing outside thought. I don't like being accused of things I have not done (when did I revert Marsden or any of the other stuff you are discussing?), and, while I am sympathetic to your POV, I am not at all to these methods, or your blanket accusations. Feel free to cross-post this wherever you want. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that it wasn't my intention to offend you when I cross-posted our exchange; I felt that since we both were discussing Marsden, it would only be appropriate to make the comments available for him to read. I apologize for not asking you first. I apologized to Marsden since I had accused him of having an anti-Semitic agenda (and also, I think, for speaking down to him).

It seems that you and I are in perfect agreement regarding Marsden's threat, it was beyond the pale. Completely unacceptable and, as I told him, I would fight such a proposal every step of the way. What I think you and I disagree on is that I don't find that what he did the "most destructive approach to editing possible". My reasoning here is that it was an empty threat, it didn't seem to be a calculated move, and it certainly wouldn't have been successful. The most destructive approach, in my opinion, is when editors that share a fringe POV collaborate in such a way so that a large number of Wikipedia articles (for months/years) remain inaccurate and dishonest. That is a bigger problem, because a lot of average readers actually believe what they read in Wikipedia.

I accused you of the group mentality thing, because I thought you made the wrong choice between two ethical principles (translated to Wiki language; POV vs. POINT). Also, I don't know if you remember this but on 02:42, 24 September 2005, you entered a minor edit war that was going on at Talk:Israel, I had provided numerous sources (CIA, Amnesty International, etc) to back up my claim that Israeli Arabs didn't "enjoy full political and civic rights". You then provided Steve Forbes' Freedom House as a countersource to my sources and the other editors thought that your source trumped all of my sources. Since you are intelligent and knowledgeable it was/is hard to fathom why you did that. If you really think that Palestinians enjoy full rights in Israel?

You are, most definitely, to be taken seriously. You will be here long after I'm gone and from your recent comments I sense that you're not a close-minded ideologue. But just like you I have principles, and my conscience demands that I follow them. If Wikipedia consensus is that I haven't been respectful enough in regard to long-time editors Jayjg & SlimVirgin, when I try to include terms that is used by 99.5% of the people in the 'real world' (including Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush), then I will take my leave. Sincere thanks for taking your time to talk to me. --saxet 07:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

First, a factual issue, on the Talk:Israel page, you will notice on the page history that I was the first person to add sources, after your very first edit -- I never got involved in the revert war after this point. [1]. You should know that while I am far from a rightwinger, I feel that your POV that "Israel is an apartheid state" is very incorrect -- not that the country doesn't have major issues of social and civil justice, of course -- and I felt that you were pushing that point very strongly. At the same time, I really don't want to get involved in a long-term debate over Israeli policy, especially since many people (not you) get involved in these arguments in bad faith, so I dropped out of the discussion. As someone who has worked on Jewish history topics, I am always shocked at how many out-and-out honest-to-goodness anti-Semitic edits I see being made (Holocaust denial, people insisting the Protoccols of the Elders of Zion are real, or that Jews committed 9/11, or justifying Nazi Germany's attacks on Jews, etc.), and many of these aggressive POV editors start on the Israel pages. That is why I generally try to give leeway to the few editors who make a stand and spend lots of time reverting these kinds of edits, which means new editors who want to improve Wikipedia and start with Israel need a bit of patience to be heard over the noise. Given this, I find the speed at which you are reposting HistoryBuffER's claims that WP is "Zionpedia." a racist enterprise run by a pornographer unsettling, by the way. I take it that you are probably going to quit soon, since one probably does not want to waste their time around a "neocon" collection of "shovel-ware." --Goodoldpolonius2 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My POV is not that "Israel is an apartheid state", my POV is that Israeli Arabs doesn't have equal rights, and that comparisons can be drawn to apartheid era South Africa (the later years). And when that was inserted in the article, I cited a newspaper article where a person (Desmond Tutu) made that comparison. My POV is also that it's very dishonest to have an article present the POV that Palestinians are equal under the law as if it was factual, using a source like Steve Forbes' Freedom House.

And as you are far from a rightwinger, I'm far from a hippie. I don't get shocked when I encounter anti-Semitism, I've been in, quite a few, 'heated situations' with neonazis over the last nine years and I know what they are about. But I have also realized that sometimes we get this tunnel vision, we see what's happening to us but we fail to see what we are doing to others. I try to be (as little as possible) in the us/them frame of mind, and to be equally intolerant of intolerance.

If you would take the time and, for an hour or so, try to read articles relating to Islam with an empathic mindset you will notice, I think, the same kind of hatred that you get shocked by in your articles also exist on those pages. I replace "Muslim" with "Jew" when I read in such a way, and it is disturbing. I did the same thing when I read Guy Montag, explaining to Ramallite in a very calm and collected manner, why it was necessary to get rid of all Palestinians [2], I replaced "Palestinian" with "Jew", and it was as if Hitler had written it. Like Guy Montag was talking about animals.

There are things about Wikipedia I find very fascinating, and other things I find deplorable. Yes, I will most likely quit this project soon, if I don't get banned first of course. You say that "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else" [3]. I don't necessarily agree with that. Anyways, Shalom Aleichem. --saxet 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, like many Wikipedia editors (including the other ones besides me above who you presume to lump into a monolithic group and disparage), I don't make it a habit of discussing my personal opinions about Middle East matters at Wikipedia, since my personal data is irrelevant as far as editing here. There are plenty of venues available on the internet for debating ideas and opinions, it's just not the focus here. I also don't feel compelled or obligated to correct people's false assumptions regarding what they *think* my opinions are, or what my religion is, or even my ethnicity or gender. For example, I've never even bothered to correct all the editors who regularly refer to me as a "he". But for your benefit, since you seem to care very much about these irrelevant personal matters concerning editors like myself, let me fill you in on *my* particular viewpoint on the Middle East, which, btw, has nothing to do with how I edit at Wikipedia. Here it is: I think that the whole conflict is complex, that it's a very difficult situation for the people involved on all sides, and that it's presumptuous for people who don't actually live there (like me, for example, I don't live there) to express strong opinions about what the people who live there should do about it. There, that's my personal point of view. I'm not sure if that places me in the category of editors who hold personal views you disagree with that you would perhaps like to see "cleansed" from Wikipedia, but at least I hope you will now refrain from spreading false assumptions about what you think I think. Unfortunately, your focus on venting your personal feelings about what you suppose are other editors' personal beliefs has really caused needless disruption and diverts from the purpose of building an encyclopedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mperel, this is the first time I write something in response to you. One of the reasons that this hasn't happened earlier is that I sense that you don't really know why you argue for or against something - if you really agree with SlimVirgin (for example) and understand what her proposals entails or if you just feel that she is a nice person and that it's nice to have friends here on Wikipedia.

You say that the "Middle East conflict" is "complex" - I honestly do not know how to reply to that (although I'm in agreement with the sentiment course). If I argue that since Knesset passed two laws, the Civil Wrongs/Civil Torts (Liability of the State) Law and the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (which both are admittedly discriminatory against Palestinians) [4], it is wrong to state in the Israel article that Palestinians enjoy equal political rights. Is that argument disruptive to the purpose of Wikipedia? Was that why editors opposed that argument?

You say it would be presumptuous for you to express strong opinions about the personal choices of people living in that region. What can I reply to that? Yes, I agree - you shouldn't judge a man until you have walked a couple of years in his shoes. Naivety is nice, but certain experiences washes that naivety away (and one starts to judge oneself). You seem to miss something here - I'm not arguing that the individual people who edit Wikipedia should conform to my opinions; I'm arguing that the article(s) shouldn't conform to a view held by less than a half percent of the world's population, a view held by less than 40% of Jewish people, and less than one tenth of a percentage of Arabs. And I can Cite Sources for every edit I've made.

Let's just say that there are some bad people out there; neonazis, Stormfronters, Al-Qaeda sympathizers, KKK, Kahane supporters, and so forth. Sure, if I had any power around here I wouldn't mind having those people cleansed from Wikipedia. An effective hate speech policy or something. I hope you're not under the impression that those groups aren't represented here on Wikipedia, and that all editors are doing this as a hobby.

I must also say that I didn't appreciate this lie about me [5].

Ok, I will from now on refrain from spreading false and/or true assumptions about what I think you think, and I hope you will do the same. --saxet 04:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, please note I’m not keen on your condescending statements and assumptions about my motives in why I choose to argue for or against something. Would you mind just sticking to the actual merits or lack thereof of my reasoning and arguments concerning edits, thank you?

Here is the thing. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a debate club or Wiki-editorial where we all get to hash out our beliefs and opinions. Personal beliefs of editors are irrelevant--the only arguments we should be having should be about how to present article contents accurately and neutrally (which is why I’m not interested in debating with anyone on Wikipedia my *personal* opinions). Let’s take your example about the statement, “Palestinians enjoy equal political rights.” I don’t know the context of that statement without taking a closer look at the Israel article. However, the neutral way to approach that would be to consider whether a) it’s relevant to the article, and b) whether it is an undisputed and universally held statement. If so, then it can be stated as such, though I would quibble with the word “enjoy” which sounds awfully subjective. If the statement is not universally held, then it would be necessary to present who agrees with it and why, and who disagrees with it and why. It should be indistinguishable to the reader which “side” Wikipedia takes, though it should be made clear which view is the “majority” view if one exists, without any judgment on which view is “correct”. As editors, we’re just supposed to be dispassionate narrators of other people’s views. In no case would it matter one iota whether you or I, as the editors, agreed or disagreed with the statement. That’s what neutrality is about and how we’re supposed to approach writing this encyclopedia.

As for the “bad” people, it’s not the editors’ “offensive” beliefs that get them rejected and banned, it’s their offensive behavior and refusal to abide by policy. If neonazis et al could behave like reasonable editors (e.g., not engage in hate speech), there’s no reason they should be excluded from Wikipedia editing. For some reason, there haven’t been too many of them successful in doing that.

One last thing, my hackles get raised [6] when other good editors are maligned. You made some highly presumptive and misinformed statements about several people, with your only explanation being that you were offended by the personal viewpoints expressed by one particular editor on a talk page that had nothing even to do with edits to any articles. Rather than reacting by projecting all your anger about one person’s opinions onto a whole group of people and ranting about it, why don’t you discuss it personally with that particular editor, if he’s willing to discuss it with you? Or better yet, if you see edits he or anyone makes to articles that represent POV information as being universal fact rather than from a particular POV, then nicely point it out and discuss it reasonably on the talk page of the relevant article. Things don’t have to be so personal and escalated, and a lot more is accomplished when people treat each other with respect, even if they disagree. By the way, all that said, I don’t hold grudges, and I would be perfectly amenable to trying to get off on a better foot with you. Welcome to Wikipedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? You're preaching your interpretations of Wikipedia policy, yet you simultaneously violate the essence of your gospels.

I have respect for Slim Virgin (the "good editor" that you in the spirit of "neutrality" pointed out that I had "maligned" with my "misinformed statements"), because although we might collide together when arguing a proposed edit, or an edit made, she knows that the quarrel over a sentence like "Palestinians enjoy equal political rights." never have and never will have anything to do with the usage of the word "enjoy".

I will not hold a grudge either, believe it or not, but I haven't been personally offended by anyone here. The world is far more complex than most people realize. Anyways, thanks for the welcome. --saxet 14:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read what I wrote either. Maybe we're both wasting our time. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sad but (partly) true (it seems)

Welcome to Ziopedia (tm), a reverse Robin Hood venture (By HistoryBuffEr)

Before donating your time or money to this project consider these points:

• You'd be wasting your time:

This project has attracted many because anyone can contribute (but see some fine-print below.) However, a reference work written by "anyone" is a contradiction in terms.

• You'd be helping promote a racist/imperial worldview:

The owner of this outfit and the majority of his lieutenants (board, arbs and admins) are pro-Zionists.

In the last 3 months, four editors who tried to add the neutral-point-of view balance to Israel-related aticles were banned from Wikipedia (another one is expected to be banned soon.) In the same time-frame, four editors who were persistently biasing articles in favor of Israel were let go free (one has even had his previous sentence reduced.) Simply skim any of the articles related to Israel and draw your own conclusion.

Most non-science articles exhibit clear bias: neocon, right-wing, USA, Western.

• You'd be merely enriching a private venture rather than some common good:

Below the thin PR veneer of a community run public/non-profit org, this venture is actually owned and run by one person. Read that again.

Prior to asking for public donations, the owner financed this project by selling titillating images of women's flesh. There is no indication that the owner's nature has since changed. On the contrary, he recently opposed posting a link for donations for tsunami victims on the home page.

This project was not created for the public benefit, but for the owner to some day cash in on the huge quantity of "stuff" created for free by others. Despite the questionable quality, he is likely to benefit: the sheer volume is at least worth something in terms of potential (low-Q) eyeballs for ads. The public, however, is unlikely to ever benefit from this shovel-ware collection of mostly random musings which often change without notice or discernible cause.

Worse yet, even if all of the above appeals to you because you are part of the cabal, you are still doomed because Ziopedia will never become a credible source of information. Period.

- - -

Required Reading: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

--saxet 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

- - -

And best of luck to those that fight the wikipropaganda - who tries to make the encyclopaedia a lot less Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan, and a little more Noam Chomsky/Nelson Mandela. --saxet 02:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please quit vandalizing my user page or you will be reported. Großhauptsturmführer 22:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Großhauptsturmführer is in violation of Wikipedia:Username policies, he/it continues to remove the UsernameBlock template from his/its user page. --saxet 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Common-use argument

Saxet, I saw your exchange with Polonius. I feel you're going too far in describing anyone who opposes you as necessarily part of a group of "right-wing Israeli Jews and their sympathizers" (and Marsden has elsewhere accused me of being a nasty, evil, right-wing, bullying, nationalist proponent of ethnic cleansing!), all because I'm trying to do two things:

(1) I'm trying to find an acceptable neutral title for an article that will explain why many organizations and governments call the West Bank etc "occupied territories," but why the Israeli government and some of its supporters prefer "disputed territories." Because the article will discuss that controversy, I feel that the title should not beg the question by containing either word, but instead should use a third, neutral term. I'm not arguing for a Wikipedia-wide "ban" on the term "occupied territories," or censorship of the term from this particular article. The discussion concerns only the title. My wanting to discuss that issue does not mean I'm evil.

(2) The second thing I've been trying to do (and not just here with the word "occupied") is to explore what our NPOV policy means when it comes to using neutral phrases versus phrases that are in common use — the so-called common-use argument. Until quite recently, I supported the common-use argument; that is, I believed the word "terrorist" should be used to describe certain groups, if most people, or most Western governments, thought of them as such, and I supported the use of the phrase "occupied territories" for the reasons you've outlined. But then I became engaged in a protracted debate at Human about whether the introduction should include reference to human beings as having souls and being made in the image of God. I argued strongly against that, but was overruled on the grounds that most people in the world hold these beliefs, and that therefore NPOV dictates the inclusion of that view, not only in the article, but in the introduction, because of the common-use or majority-view argument. I found this so counter-intuitive that it got me thinking about how the common-use argument applies elsewhere. Most people in the world may think gays are evil, but do we want that in the introduction of Gay? Clearly not. So who exactly are we referring to when we rely on the common-use argument? Commonly used by intelligent people? People in the West? Governments, think tanks, academics, news organizations, other encyclopedias? If so, which ones? Only English-speaking ones?

When it's explored in this way, the common-use argument begins to fall apart at the seams, and I think is sometimes used as a way of bolstering our own POVs. I therefore stopped using the word "terrorist" and began to have my doubts about the phrase "occupied territories," and a few other phrases I won't bore you with. "Occupied" is a particularly interesting one, because we don't use it of Iraq. There are 147,000 U.S. soldiers there governing a puppet administration — clearly shown to be such by, for example, the recent arrest by Iraqi police of two plain-clothes British soldiers, which the British army allegedly responded to by knocking down the walls of the prison using six tanks, and freeing them. These are clearly the actions of an occupying power (though perhaps only in the loose, non-legal, common-use sense) and yet, because the UN and the U.S. announced that the occupation was over, Wikipedia changed the title Occupation of Iraq to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. So there's an example of the aggressor dictating the terms of the debate and Wikipedia rolling over and allowing it, solely on the grounds that the U.S. announcement was rubber-stamped by the UN. But does this mean we now follow whatever the UN says? That's not NPOV either.

With these difficult terms, and particularly in titles, I feel it's a test of our intelligence and integrity to fly in the face of the politicking (and common use) and use neutral terms. Not using the word "occupied" in relation to the territories is not to reject it, or to imply acceptance of the term "disputed." It is simply a recognition of the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, and also a recognition that the term is used inconsistently by lawyers, by governments, and within Wikipedia itself, and is therefore a term that is flawed, and arguably better avoided.

You may disagree with everything I've written, but please acknowledge that writing it doesn't make me evil, or a supporter of right-wing nationalism, or a proponent of ethnic cleansing, or a member of an "alien race ... that very much needs to be expunged forever from this planet," as an anon IP told me on Friday, with reference, I believe, to the same debate.

The only distinction I draw between editors is whether they're trying to be good editors or not. I don't care about race, ethnicity, religion, POV, right-wing, left-wing, and I strongly dislike it when other people concentrate on those issues, instead of on content. This is what Marsden has done, almost entirely, and it has turned those talk pages toxic. The only reason I'm writing this is that I see you as a reasonable person, which is why I want to explain myself to you. I hope that, no matter how much you disagree with me, you'll assume good faith from now on, and if I do something that makes you doubt it, drop a friendly note on my talk page or e-mail me, and I'll try to explain myself — though I'll try not to be so long-winded the next time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and SlimVirgin

I have noticed that you, such as many of us, have encountered the problem that the SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon tag team poses to wikipedia. They are experienced users, and as such can manage to play the rules to push determined POV. Jayjg is specially skillful in upsetting others through namecalling as well which may cause you to focus on the attack instead of the facts.

You will often see that entire paragraphs will be removed if there is disagreement on it even when the removal of only a statement isjustified. Avoid falling into this trap by making three reverts within 24 hours. In my first encounter with SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon I fell into that trap. The standard they have for those who have a different opinion is much higher than for those who agree with their POVs. The addition of different opinions must be fully justified and sourced while those statements that fit their POV do not have to be. If you add enough justification and sources to your paragraph, then the paragraph may be removed or reduced to its minimum because "this is not an article about ...".

I assure you, however, that they are not considered authorities of wikipedia, even when they are consider admins. It is always pleasant to see new people attempting to level the POV that this group brings to wikipedia. Keep it up. --Vizcarra 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You may want to see this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence --Vizcarra 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Saxet, would you mind e-mailing me, please, using the link on my user page? I just tried to send you one, but you haven't specified an address. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations aginst Jayjg

In this diff you maintain that Jayjg is being paid to edit Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim? Also, elsewhere you mentioned that, based on information provided by "two upper level admins," you have evidence suggesting User:John McW is a sockpuppet being employed by Jayjg (which would clearly be in violation of policy on his part). Could please make me privy to this evidence, as well? Thanks. El_C 19:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone that you say you admire once said; "There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, for a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory; just as any country's defeat is a defeat for all of us." --saxet 07:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

---

In a recent arbitration case, Yuber, the Committee adopted the following principle by five votes to nil:

• Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.

It went further, passing the following remedy on one of its own number, Jayjg, by four votes to nil with one abstention:

• Jayjg (talk · contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.

In that case, the Committee has chosen to ban one editor from a class of articles for one month, and to place another on probation, primarily for edit warring.

It is bad for Wikipedia when an editor engages in edit wars. When that editor is an administrator, it is also bad for administrator morale, it makes admimnistrators look like hypocrites, and when he is supported in his warring behavior it brings inevitable and quite justifiable accusations of cronyism. It is thus a very serious matter indeed.

You're unblocked

Hi, I've unblocked you. I don't think the block was at all justified. john k 14:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations against Jay

Hello Saxet, I'm responding to your comments here because I don't think it belongs on the already fractious talk page. I am well aware of what an ad hominem argument is, and I would agree with you that my post was not an ad hominem (although I was unnecessarily insulting at a few points). In terms of your claims about Jay, if you're going to repeat them, you need to provide some substantiation, rather than vague accusations. Either that, or you need to stop making the accusation. If Jay is using a sock puppet to make personal attacks, that is a very serious issue. Why would your "high level admin" not expose this publicly? Why would he tell this only to you, on the condition that you do not reveal who told it to you? If this were in fact being done, it would be grounds for arbitration against Jay. So why is it that the only evidence so far presented on this matter is your claim that a "high level admin" told you this? I'm sorry, but this simply isn't at all credible. So, if you want to keep bringing this up, you need to provide some evidence. john k 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wont provide evidence so henceforth I won't bring up the issue any more. You have, of course, every right to your assessment that my claim isn't credible, but I nevertheless stand by what I've written. And as I said, if User:David Gerard comes to the conclusion that I'm wrong about this matter, I will accept his 'verdict' and he would be free to (once again) ban/block me.

Also, I kind of figured that you knew what an ad hominem argument is - my point was more that it is contra productive to 'roll over', to accept the current situation where 'well-regarded long-time editors' operate by a different set of rules and doesn't need to worry about consequences if they violate policies/guidelines. --saxet 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I'm sorry to see that you're back and causing trouble again. Regarding your allegations, do I have your permission to forward to John a copy of the e-mail you sent me about that situation? I would also like your permission to summarize the contents of it on the article talk page. I wouldn't normally ask for this, but you've raised the issue again, and your e-mail would shed some light on the status of the claim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm asking permission to share only the part that directly pertains to this issue, not all of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm sorry you're sorry. I've enjoyed our e-mail exchange and I hope that we can continue it, but I will not give you permission to use/post/forward anything I've written (at least not for now). It's been quite a few e-mails and I'm afraid I don't really trust you to choose what paragraphs/sentences would accurately describe the reality of the situation. Maybe if all our e-mails are made available to the Wikipedia community in an unaltered state. I'll do this - I'll respond to your latest e-mail and maybe we can (via e-mail) come to some sort of agreement as to what material is relevant in this situation. I must say that I'm disappointed that you even referred to my e-mails on the talk page; I could easily 'retaliate' by 'quoting' from your e-mails, but I feel that's a line I'm not willing to cross. --saxet 06:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your request for an apology

Saxet, you left the following on my talk page:

SlimVirgin, you quoted (without my permission & out of context) from a private e-mail I sent you, on the Talk:Israeli-occupied territories page. I'm honoured to have made your acquaintance, but re this issue I only see two viable alternatives:

1. You apologize on my user page for completely disregarding e-mail privacy.
2. I set up a page, User talk:Dervish Tsaddik/Emails from SlimVirgin, where I copy/paste all nine e-mails in an unaltered state (except for crossing out your name of course). It would provide context to the paragraph you quoted from. Also; I think there might be a few Wikipedians who would find our e-mail exchange quite illuminating.

What do you think? Cheers. --saxet 09:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I didn't quote from a private e-mail you sent me. I referred to the fact that you had sent me one, and asked your permission to quote from it, because it directly contradicted a statement about another editor that you'd made on a talk page. You said you wouldn't give permission, so I didn't quote from it. See above.

• Well, you dishonestly used information that I had sent you in a private e-mail in an attempt to discredit me.

• I don't understand the purpose of this. You accused an editor of wrong-doing on a talk page. Shortly afterwards you e-mailed me some information that shed light on that allegation. I e-mailed you asking for an explanation. You didn't respond. I asked you on your talk page for permission to quote from the e-mail. You said no, and said you wished I hadn't even referred to it. I apologized. So what is this all about now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, you seem to be trying to blackmail me, and that never works.

• You personally, or Wikimedia Foundation Inc. - or is that a distinction that can't be made? It's not about blackmail, it's about a well-regarded long-time editor such as yourself taking responsibility when you've done something that just shouldn't have been done. Which you're well aware of since you apologized to me in two separate e-emails (Oct 19, Oct 21).

Third, you're trying to give the impression that there was something interesting about our e-mails. There wasn't.

• That hurts. It's a matter of perspective though. I was mainly thinking about your prediction about how long the word "occupied" would remain in the title, and also how we good-heartedly critiqued our various strategies and such. But it was probably more interesting for me than it was for you (even though you sent me three times as many e-mails as I sent you).

• I didn't mean of no interest to me. I enjoyed reading your e-mails. I meant of no interest to anyone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fourth, I'm sorry to see that these games continue, and fail to see the point of them, so please play on without me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• What makes you think it's a game? I really don't see it that way, I see it as a 'When in Rome, do as the Romans' kind of strategy to counter the much more effective games that you (and the usual suspects) put into play. Then I hear: so why don't you just leave if you're not happy with how we do it. That "we" bothers me. When you use it; are you referring to yourself, your crowd, or every Wikipedian? --saxet 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a game to me. Looking at your contribs, you've made almost no edits to the encyclopedia. Coming to Wikipedia only to ask for apologies (or cause trouble) on talk pages seems like a waste of everyone's time.

You seem like such a nice person by e-mail. But talk pages have a bad effect on you, saxet. Talk pages are your full moon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my delusions of grandeur really sets in when I see a talk page. ;-) Don't worry though, I wont trespass much longer since, as you already know, I'm not really a fan of Wales or the policies of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and I also see no point in becoming a talk page anti-Wikipedia activist. That contribs stuff was unfair though, look again and you'll see that I've probably contributed more to articles than MPerel and a few others put together.

You also seem like such a nice person; Edith Wharton said that: "There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it." :-) Looking forward to another e-mail. Respectfully. --saxet 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

POV battle

In case you're around: Israeli settlement Marsden 05:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should create the category, "Nations with only one ski resort," so that this critically important information is more readily accessible. ;) I tend to think that Jay's intent with the ski resort nonsense is in fact to make it funny, so that people who read an article that he failed to impose his petulant POV upon will not take it seriously. Ah, well. I guess I should read up on the balance of ski resorts in the Middle East, a matter regarding which I have been inexcusably uninformed. Probably there should be clear distinctions made between resorts with full chair-lifts or even gondolas and those that only have rope lifts. Surely there has been a UN mission or two on the matter. Regards. Marsden 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Saxet, if you have a problem with my contribution, why don't you explain it on the article's talk page, rather than my talk page? Andjam 00:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I promised El C aka Nameless editor that I would take my leave from that article's talk page. It is a question of honour, integrity, and other such words. --saxet 01:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Using the phrase "ret****d edit" on my talk page about an edit to that article might be viewed by some as not exactly honouring the spirit of the promise, though. Andjam 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought I honoured the spirit of my promise, but maybe that's not for me to judge. The stated objective of Israel, PLO, and the world community is to have a Palestinian state coexist side-by-side with the State of Israel in peace and harmony. In the negotiations to achieve this goal there are several important issues the different parties has (or hopefully will) reach an agreement on. This includes everything from how terrorism is dealt with to natural resources. You had the opinion that such a crucial issue was a small ski resort in the Golan Heights, I honestly tried to find the most polite word (that was still accurate) when describing your insistence re the inclusion of the ski resort. Maybe I should have used the word "injudicious" instead of "retarded" to describe your actions. Please note though that it was not a personal attack. --saxet 11:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you wish to cite sources that Palestinians want control of the Golan Heights, as opposed to water rights? And you question my intelligence? Andjam 13:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What intelligence? --saxet 22:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it

You're opposing Ramallite as an "agent of influence"? I don't understand. He's a great editor, and brings a much-needed POV to those pages, in an intelligent way, and has a calming influence. What is your substantive objection? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe he would bring "a much-needed POV to those pages". And there's not enough Wiki namespace participation. Must say though; it is not very palatable to be on the same side as Klonimus in this RfA; even if my reasoning was probably very different from his. --saxet 05:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

But what's the agent of influence thing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I was just going to ask you the same, and then I find that Slim has beat me to it. ;-) Anyway: I´ve had my differences (to put it diplomatically) with Slim and Jayjg in the past (and probably will have more in the future, if I stay on WP); ...but your vote here has greatly suprised me. I can agree with you that R. does´t have too much Wiki namespace participation, but others have been elected (I belive) with as little. And, to be frank: I feel you are seriously belitteling R. if you believe he will be anybodys "agent of influence". I think/believe he is "his own man". As for feeling uncomfortable beeing on the same side as Klonimus; you should be even more uncomfortable by being on the side of Zeq; I (like R.) have been struggeling with him, over in the "Israeli Arabs". A frustrating experience, to put it mildly. ..I notice that already one person has changed his vote from Oppose to Support. It could be two? ;-) Regards, Huldra 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is not only very smart, she's also fast. ;-) Yeah, being on the same side as Zeq feels like you're on a date with one of the Bush twins. Or at least I think the feeling would be similar. I've noticed various strategies/methods being used here on WP, and right now I feel that it would take a lot to surprise me. Hela projektet är aningen tvivelaktigt. I've seen your comments and edits though, and if you say Ramallite is ok, I'll trust you. Which means the blame will fall entirely on you when it turns out that he is in fact the uncle of Donald Rumsfeld's nephew. :-) Cheers. --saxet 01:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tjenare, nabo! "In bed with the enemy", wasn´t that the name of a film (or a book)? Just remembered the name, for some reason ;-) and yes: you can blame me if Ramallite turns out to be the son of Ariel Sharons father...Regards, Huldra 01:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)PS: begynner å føle som deg om projektet ..men email meg! PPS Hey, don´t forget to change that vote..

A big THANKS! (and good-night..) Regards, Huldra 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No thanks neccessary närbo. Yeah, I think I've seen that movie. ;-) Skickar iväg ett till dig - also; good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. :-) Regards. --saxet 02:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just noticed this discussion, which shows (together with your answer to Palmiro) that you have no independent view point on this issue and your vote was tampered with. Zeq 08:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers

Hi Saxet - I consider being an admin as having some tools that help me do what I already do easier (revert faster, etc). I sometimes am on Wikipedia in between experiments (and sometimes in spite of them) but usually early morning before work (if I have time) and in the evenings and weekends. I probably will not be changing that pattern, but at the same time, I do not see an admin as having to devote more time to WP per se, but making good use of the time that person is online. I'm actually not sure there is a requirement for minimum time devoted in order to qualify. I hope you realize that my bio is completely fictional! I merely wrote that to illustrate the absurdity of the conflict (depends on how one looks at it of course); how people could get along better if there aren't such petty "cliche" historical positions taken. There never was an Avi/Abdulhakeem, it's all in good humor (or so I thought). Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RfA, I appreciate it :) I hope I've answered your questions adequately. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, I did realize that your bio was fictional, the reading was fun galore (Arabs on Ladders!!) and I even think I understood some of the subtext. Thing is; 92.4%, or 14.8% (depending on how you count) of all Wikipedians have a persona that is very different from their real life identity. So how does someone like me trust that you're not another Likud supporter; with a perfect background story - a 'cover' which would bring great moral credence to the debates. After all, you haven't been around very long, and you were nominated by SlimVirgin (and supported by Jayjg, et al). All very suspect for a world-weary, disillusioned person such as myself. I've realized it's not the best substantive arguments that 'wins' the debates, it's the number of 'friends' one has (and their importance) - I can only hope that once you become an admin you will not forget concepts like truth and integrity, no matter how much Champagne and blingbling you get offered. That is if you're not already corrupted, if you are you should of course take as much as you can. ;-) Regards. --saxet 01:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Historia universal de la infamia

I recently apologized to El C for (indirectly) calling him a coward. I guess I've posted a few comments these last couple of months that could be interpreted as personal attacks. Funny thing is; for my most egregious violation of WP:NPA, I wasn't blocked. I wasn't even reprimanded by anyone, and the comment wasn't removed. That attack was directed at Marsden. Ain't it ironic, ya think? I have contributed to content, in perfect accordance to guidelines and policies (paying my dues one could say). I've also, in my megalomaniacal delusion of grandeur, helped remove extremist POV stuff from a couple of articles. And I've made a few 'character assassinations'. Someone wrote to me in an e-mail that WP was about rising above a dysfunctional world. My feeling was that the people/entities behind the userids are the same who make our world so dysfunctional (or sometimes elysian). That someone wrote me it could work; "If we all believe it, it becomes true.". So it's a question of being willing to have faith, and believe that the ones who enforces the guidelines (that they themselves are constantly rewriting) are to be trusted with their version of reality. The reason I've lashed out against Ayn Rand (that can't even defend herself due to her deadness) is the influence she yields around here. That disturbed woman is to philosophy (and politics) what L. Ron Hubbard is to science, and like him she sadly enough has a cult following. Quite a few of my posts here was written in a Dan Brown-esque style, 'simplistic conspiracy theories' as some might say; but with a few hints thrown in as to who this J-character (i.e. Jimbo) really is, et cetera. During my time here I've only once been banned indefinitely. :-) And that for an offence I wasn't even guilty of. I guess I couldn't be banned for the stuff I was actually guilty of, as my methods weren't all that different from the methods employed by the people who wanted to have me banned (difference being: my methods was far less sophisticated). I dared Jayjg to start an arbitration against me, but he (unfortunately) didn't take the bait. I tried to heighten SlimVirgin's sense of omnipotence, while at the same time chipping away at her credibility. This all might sound "unproductive" and like "a waste of everyone's time", but I didn't do it just for the pleasure of screaming into mirrors, or painting my name in graffiti. I did it because, in my humble opinion, I think the time is right for an unbloody revolution. A small one while we wait for the great unbloody revolution of 2009; that begins at 4:10 PM on June the 24th. :-) Something like that. --saxet 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's pointless though. They are far more committed than you are and far less able to see that what they do is a long way from progressing towards the noble aims they share with you in emails. More's the pity. If their energies were directed towards the foundation aims of Wikipedia, it might have a chance of being what it dreams of.

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for changing your vote to support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! And not to worry, I am no Likkudnik! Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

I think some of the current text of this article may have been stolen from the (copyrighted?) Ku Klux Klan encyclopedia entry for "nigger lover." Have a look. 69.138.215.194 16:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Dutton Douglas

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael Dutton Douglas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)