User talk:Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Style and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

I like your style, Style! Thanks for your edits to ozone depletion. I had an inkling that the "weight" of freon wasn't the only factor. --Uncle Ed 17:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem :), HTH. --- Style 08:42, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

As much as I deplore your effective abuse of the three-revert rule, I will of course abide by it.

That said, your edits are against Wikipedia policy in three areas. They're biased. They use weasel words. And they were done with absolutely no discussion, while being marked as minor.

As I said on the talk page, if you want to change the practice of classifying things as "terrorist", then feel free to start a discussion. Don't expect to get consensus - though you may well end up doing so. In addition, be prepared to change things across the board - as just doing so in a Palestinian sense is clearly and obviously biased. Ambi 12:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dispute the above as false, misleading and hypocritical, but I don't have to explain myself to Ambi, and I don't know why he posted this here. If anyone reads this and is curious about the context, see Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 and judge for yourself. --style 08:28, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Excuse me? He? Read my user page, thank you.
You didn't discuss anything. You came along, made major and controversial changes without a word of discussion apart from "This is what I'm doing so nyah" in the edit summary. In those circumstances, I believe the use of the rollback feature is appropriate.
Indeed, perhaps the fact that you appear to be being reverted by multiple people would suggest that you aren't necessarily a paragon of virtue here. I'm not necessarily disputing that the page is biased, and I would hope that that could be fixed in the interests of neutrality. Neutrality, however, is not helped by the selective use of weasel words ('militant'), which would appear to reflect your POV of that particular group. Nor am I necessarily opposed to removing the term across the board. What I am opposed to, is your unilateral removal of it in a Palestinian context. Out of politeness, I've refrained from reverting said removal myself once more, and stepped back from this, but it seems that you still want to have a go.
I am interested in removing any bias in Wikipedia, if possible. I've been trying to take down an anti-Palestinian editor who keeps starting edit wars adding material that is grossly pro-Israel. I happen to agree with his POV, but my own POV is irrelevant here.
I'm for neutrality. What I'm not for is biased, pro-Palestinian edits - of which I oppose just as strongly as what the aforementioned editor has been doing. Ambi 23:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It seems strange that you seem to find the word terrorist so offensive, yet only appear interested in removing it in a Palestinian context. As I've said repeatedly, if you attempt to remove it across the board, then I may well support you, but to just do it here is biased.
You accuse me of personal attacks (what? calling you biased?), and then proceed to go far beyond that. Lovely. You also suggest that I'm the only one with a problem with your edits to this page. Somehow, I think MathKnight would disagree.
If you want to make this page neutral, fine - and if there's any way I can assist in doing so, I will. The answer, is not, however, replacing pro-Israeli bias with pro-Palestinian bias. And yes, that includes using unreliable sources. I wouldn't quote DebkaFile as bonafide fact in this area for exactly the same reason. Ambi 08:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to your comments in the Talk page. And your User page actually says you are leaving - I am merely supporting you in that decision. :) If you really want to see me in a bad mood, stick around. Adam 11:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Style- I saw that you are engaged in an edit conflict on the Lebanon war article. I think your edits may have merit, but you should discuss them on the talk page to justify why you think they are important. Your user page suggests that you might have had quite frustrating experiences at Wikipedia, which many other editors have also found when editing articles on the Middle East. Still the best reaction is not to become too defensive, but to discuss openly and assume good faith. - pir 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks[edit]

Unlike your 4 deliberate reverts, I reverted only 3 times. The issue wasn't clarity, it was Wikiquette; "If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored." is a threat. Also, I'm rather tired of people who believe they can ignore Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and I'm not inclined to respond to any who do. "Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English." is a violation of both of those rules. If you have any civil requests you with to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My condolences on your headache[edit]

He's the slimiest bastard AH on Wikipedia. Alberuni 15:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your flames from Talk:1982 Invasion of Lebanon: that always helps to keep a productive discussion of the article going. —No-One Jones (m) 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, pal. You state it as a cited, undisputable, fact. Jayjg states it as a cited view. One is neutral; the other not. Ambi 09:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I justified my reverts to you. You know perfectly well why I'm reverting - and you know perfectly well why that paragraph isn't neutral. If the cite is so important, add it in without trashing the article's neutrality. Ambi 09:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial[edit]

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Style&oldid=691987841"