User talk:Jaysweet/archive 1
|
belligerent comments on your user page
I suggest you ignore them. Especially when they come from users with a negligible edit count and are completely unconstructive. If they border on a personal attack contact an admin to have the user or ip banned for a short while. Not everyone will agree with you on every editing issue, but all serious users will agree that the comments you've been getting are inappropriate.
regarding the similarities to the 1996 attack, yes I think they should go in. I think the point of view of the people and news sources making this comparison should be noted, and citations given to specific quotations if possible. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. Dsol 22:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I did put one more thing on the talk page pointing out that nobody has ever cited a specific edit of mine that was propaganda, but I swear I will ignore the trolls from now on. I promise! Anyway, thanks very much for the answers and advice!! --Jaysweet 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Omar
I believe this editor may be acting in bad faith. They removed a POV tag I placed on the article due to the conspiracy theory. They did it inside 4 minutes. On checking the users edit history, (Qana is the only article that ID has worked on), I found a number of edits which appear to be deliberately misleading [1] [2] [3] [4]
How does this user get stopped from disrupting it with his silly edit wars and refusal to discuss before acting? 82.29.227.171 10:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I also believe the same thing, unfortunately, it is difficult because Omar's edits are not blatant vandalism. I am not exactly sure how to deal with it. FYI, tasc is also dead-set against the pov tag, he is not willing to negotiate, and if you check his [User Talk:tasc|Talk page], you will see that he has no qualms about engaging in a messy revert war. He has also deleted and entire section I added and refused repeated requests to justify himself.
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure what to do. Blatant vandalism is easy to handle, I just revert it and report it on WP:AIV. But the sort of subtle vandalism that Omar and tasc are engaging in, I don't know... We could try reporting it, but it's subtle enough I'm not sure anything would happen.
The only hope I think is WP:3RR. If we can get a concensus on the Talk page from multiple people that there should be a pov tag, then Omar and/or tasc could get dinged for reverting it four times in 24 hours. tasc has already been blocked for this twice in the past (although he is utterly unrepentant about it...)
I certainly think a pov tag would be good. Although I think we've reached a reasonable compromise on the "Hoax" section, I know some people are still uncomfortable with its presence at all. The casualty numbers swing by a factor of 2x about every 12 hours. The accompanying photo keeps disappearing and reappearing. How is that all not disputed? heh... --Jaysweet 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK I see it is a delicate situation with these people. I'm re-writing the hoax section now as 1) the allegations in all their gruesome detail arent listed 2) the rebuttal/denials to the allegations arent listed. So its suitably fudged to give the impression there is some factual detail lurking somewhere. Once re-written it can go into its own article and be kept away from factual information on the event. Its polluting the page, just as certain editors are polluting & stifling the athmosphere of the discussion imho. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd leave the hoax section as is unless you get buy-in from folks on the Talk page. We spent a lot of time reaching concensus for the one we have now, and while I'm still not completely happy with it, it's much better than what it has been -- and was fairly stable, until somebody just went in and trashed it... --Jaysweet 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Qana airstrike
I agree with you that we need to tread carefully. But hear me out. I was not attempting to explain the attack, but simply state that it wasn't made in a vacuum. I did not claim it to be fact, and I qualified it with according to the IDF. In previous versions I did not believe that the qualifier even needed to exist. I think it adds just enough background to make the article rounded. Of course, I am open to suggestions that don't include deleting the information from the article, and preferably not the intro.