User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Supreme Deliciousness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(Imaginary) NPOV violations
WP:HOUND: Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended.
This is exactly what I am doing. When you stop pushing your POV on multiple articles, I will not need to correct those problems. HupHollandHup (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- What npov violations have I done that you are "fixing"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The most recent ones are the wholly unnecessary addition of "believes" to the Israeli (and only to the Israeli...) view on Jerusalem, and the addition of the "in Syria" Category to the Umm el Kanatir article, when you know very well that the consensus on articles related to the Golan is to either have both Syria and Israel, or neither one, or just the "in the Golan" Category. Others include tagging the Jerusalem article as not representing a world view (reverted by other editors) and arguing an extreme fringe position on that article's talk page. Our previous interaction, of several months ago, involved you repeatedly removing "Israel" from the habitat of the Syrian Brown bear, and replacing it with "Palestine". I am sure there are other examples I could show you, but these should really suffice. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- How is "believe" not npov? Instead of presenting it as a "fact": "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the State of Israel, undivided, under exclusive Israeli sovereignty." is that npov according to you? Almost all other parts there was presented as views from those parts and I first thought the Israeli view was the only one presented as fact. Have some good faith, you yourself said "not unless you change all other positions to "believes" .. what "all other positions" ? Almost all of them was already presented as views. How is the Syria category at Um al Kanatir not npov when its internationally recognized as part of Syria? There is no consensus to have articles related to Golan with both Syria and Israel cats. Why would areas in Syria be put in the same position as another country? How is that neutral? Yes I believe the Global tag is right as the article is representing Israels view and not a world view, how is that not npov? And I'm not the one that added that tag. The sources showed that Syrian brown bear has never lived in Israel, source said last Syrian bear in Israel and Israeli-occupied-Syria died in 1917 near Majdal Shams (occupied Syria) which means that the last Syrian bear in Israel died before 1917, so that's several years before Israel came into existence in 1948 = There has never been a Syrian bear in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- All the positions presented on that page are just that - positions, views, or beliefs. None of them were explicitly described as such, because it is implied in the article's title. You went in and changed just a single one to say "believes" - one would be hard pressed to find a more egregious example of POV-pushing. As to the Golan, there is clear consensus of which you are well aware that the neutral treatment of this area is not to say it is in Syria or in Israel - we say it is in both, or in neither, or use the neutral "in the Golan" descriptor. Despite being well aware of this consensus, which was established with your participation on numerous articles, I see you continuously finding new articles to attempt to push the POV that he area is in Syria. We've had the discussion about the bear before, oi I won't repeat what I explained to you then. You can re-read it in your archives. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Almost all other positions were described as views, and I made sure Israels also was a view instead of a "fact", according to npov. What? where is the "clear consensus" "that the neutral treatment of this area is not to say it is in Syria or in Israel" ? Show me the consensus that say that: "we say it is in both, or in neither". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- All the positions presented on that page are just that - positions, views, or beliefs. None of them were explicitly described as such, because it is implied in the article's title. You went in and changed just a single one to say "believes" - one would be hard pressed to find a more egregious example of POV-pushing. As to the Golan, there is clear consensus of which you are well aware that the neutral treatment of this area is not to say it is in Syria or in Israel - we say it is in both, or in neither, or use the neutral "in the Golan" descriptor. Despite being well aware of this consensus, which was established with your participation on numerous articles, I see you continuously finding new articles to attempt to push the POV that he area is in Syria. We've had the discussion about the bear before, oi I won't repeat what I explained to you then. You can re-read it in your archives. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- How is "believe" not npov? Instead of presenting it as a "fact": "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the State of Israel, undivided, under exclusive Israeli sovereignty." is that npov according to you? Almost all other parts there was presented as views from those parts and I first thought the Israeli view was the only one presented as fact. Have some good faith, you yourself said "not unless you change all other positions to "believes" .. what "all other positions" ? Almost all of them was already presented as views. How is the Syria category at Um al Kanatir not npov when its internationally recognized as part of Syria? There is no consensus to have articles related to Golan with both Syria and Israel cats. Why would areas in Syria be put in the same position as another country? How is that neutral? Yes I believe the Global tag is right as the article is representing Israels view and not a world view, how is that not npov? And I'm not the one that added that tag. The sources showed that Syrian brown bear has never lived in Israel, source said last Syrian bear in Israel and Israeli-occupied-Syria died in 1917 near Majdal Shams (occupied Syria) which means that the last Syrian bear in Israel died before 1917, so that's several years before Israel came into existence in 1948 = There has never been a Syrian bear in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The most recent ones are the wholly unnecessary addition of "believes" to the Israeli (and only to the Israeli...) view on Jerusalem, and the addition of the "in Syria" Category to the Umm el Kanatir article, when you know very well that the consensus on articles related to the Golan is to either have both Syria and Israel, or neither one, or just the "in the Golan" Category. Others include tagging the Jerusalem article as not representing a world view (reverted by other editors) and arguing an extreme fringe position on that article's talk page. Our previous interaction, of several months ago, involved you repeatedly removing "Israel" from the habitat of the Syrian Brown bear, and replacing it with "Palestine". I am sure there are other examples I could show you, but these should really suffice. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Golan subdistrict
Can you find for me a map of this subdistrict's boundaries? I don't want to make a delete or don't-delete decision based on your statements at my talk until I know how closely the district and the Golan Heights correspond. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Being governmental entities, sub-districts should generally have their own articles; it's often appropriate to have information that somewhat overlaps in such cases. If they're identical, I might lean toward redirecting the district to the Heights article, but I won't do that unless I can see that they're really identical. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted your last comment on my talk: not because I object to it, but because such a large amount of text gets in the way of navigation. You give the presence of the North District article as a rationale for deletion of this sub-district article; do you therefore propose that we delete articles on US counties, since both they and Israeli subdistricts are subdivisions of subnational entities? Anyway, I don't care about the French Mandate of Syria; I never said anything about it. I want a map of this specific sub-district that I can compare with a map of the Golan. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's only reasonable to include relevant information in the subdistrict article. Thanks for the map, but you didn't provide a link to the key, and I don't know how to find it. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Listen: it's appropriate to have an article on a governmental entity. Pure and simple. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's only reasonable to include relevant information in the subdistrict article. Thanks for the map, but you didn't provide a link to the key, and I don't know how to find it. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted your last comment on my talk: not because I object to it, but because such a large amount of text gets in the way of navigation. You give the presence of the North District article as a rationale for deletion of this sub-district article; do you therefore propose that we delete articles on US counties, since both they and Israeli subdistricts are subdivisions of subnational entities? Anyway, I don't care about the French Mandate of Syria; I never said anything about it. I want a map of this specific sub-district that I can compare with a map of the Golan. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hello, do you watch other's talk pages or prefer to receive talkback messages here? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I make a post at your talkpage or at an article talk page I will go back there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm too tired and will reply on GH talk tomorrow. I guess we are making progress, stay cool :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Your userpage and talk page were vandalized last night, with similar content to what was there a few months ago. I've sent you an email with the actual diffs, if you want it. —Soap— 10:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have protected the talk page for the time being. —Soap— 00:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You have been nominated...
...together with Nab to re-add the illegal clause vis-a-vis the Turkish settlements in NC. Happy clicking. Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Mass editing and WP:AN/I
I've asked for your comment here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me share my thoughts. Since I'm still working on developing telepathy, I can't tell if your edits were done in wp:point mood or in clean and pure intention, so I can't blame you. However, intentionally or not, you've provoked Chesdovi (which was looking for troubles anyway), raised questions about yourself on AN/I, and got your edits to GH settlement articles reverted. As any other involved editor you know that I-P domain is a minefield, so I call you to consider your steps more wisely. After all there is a lot of fun in editing Wikipedia, it's up to us to keep it the cool way or to turn it to time-wasting battle. I believe this discussion can be a step in the "cool" direction. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have not made any unwise steps lately, if you are referring to my edits at the GH settlement articles, they are all wise, me adding notable, relevant and well sourced information. Can you summarize that long discussion at WPIPCCAI? was there consensus that we can not ad to settlement articles that the international view is that they are illegal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some people have tried to find an agreement on how the settlement articles have to reflect the legality issue in balanced and NPOV manner (addressing the "undue weight" claims, international/palestinian/israeli POVs and so on). It never gone too far for people seem to be more interested in edit wars rather then consensus seeking. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have not made any unwise steps lately, if you are referring to my edits at the GH settlement articles, they are all wise, me adding notable, relevant and well sourced information. Can you summarize that long discussion at WPIPCCAI? was there consensus that we can not ad to settlement articles that the international view is that they are illegal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community." No npov or undue weight violation there as its presented as the the view by the international community. If the miniority Israeli view must be in the article then we can ad "though Israel disputes this." at the end of the sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary
| “ |  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this: Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Edit summary content is visible in: Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! |
” |
- On the above subject, I hope you can consistently provide an edit summary for each and everytime you conduct an edit here on Wikipedia. Note that the article page of Rachel's tomb happens to be one of those highly conspicuous ones, and thus, always end up on the dinner plates of vandals and mischief-makers alike. As such, many editors such as myself has it on our watchlist, so for the sake of the community please stop being lazy, work with us by sticking to what I just told you, unless you don't mind being accidentally branded a vandal, which can be avoided in the first place by playing according to the rules.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This odd?
Hey SD,
You have a great deal of experience dealing with shinenigans. Can you pass your eye of this and tell me if it is a little odd? NickCT (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- (I thought) Thats the same user who controlled the LibiBamizrach account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- So its a sock? And how do you know these things? NickCT (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, should we launch SPI? NickCT (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- CU didn't find anything, I still believe its some old user. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, should we launch SPI? NickCT (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- So its a sock? And how do you know these things? NickCT (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See this new Dallas IP now editing? That's gotta be the same person. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Proposals
I don't really like the "considered illegal under international law by the international community", because it sounds repetitive (saying international twice so close together). So I moved the "international community" bit to the start. I don't think it actually changes the meaning of the sentence at all. Thoughts? ← George talk 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)