User talk:Unbehagen

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anser 6 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thank you very much for supporting me. :) I wish you all the best. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Occupied territories

All it would take for Jayjg to succeed is for good people to do nothing.  ;) Marsden 23:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Having a bit of a revert war with the usual suspects at Israeli settlement. Cheers. Marsden 07:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ski resort

Hi. Did you mean to move the ski resort from the Golan Heights to the West Bank? Andjam 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

Thank you for kind comment, Unbehagen, and I look forward to working with you more. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a note to thank you for supporting my RfA, I greatly appreciated it. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

Can you take a look? A clique of editors is trying to remove quotes that they feel reflect too badly on their group. Yuber^(talk) 21:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

arbcom election

I think that the question you pose is reasonable, although I am not sure I share your premise. My protection of the Jayjg page was motivated primarily by the revert war that was brewing, in which I do not believe you were involved. Slrubenstein 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

Thank you for your note, Unbehagen. I'm not sure which articles you're referring to, as I'm not currently editing any articles that he's editing. In any event, I asked three other admins to review the extension of his block, so I've had the fresh pair of eyes, and if you check the block log, you'll see he'd been blocked six times by five different admins. But thank you for your concern and input. I appreciate it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked again

But why? Marsden 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. Marsden 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your question

Come on, Unbehagan, be fair. I'll answer it for him. No, he isn't. Okay? Asking a question like that would be like me asking whether you sexually assaulted someone last night: a personal attack masquerading as a question. Please don't support Marsden in these silly games. Let's concentrate on content and building an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. At least you've asked an open question and it's borderline so I won't revert you. You know what Jay is? He's someone who wants to see good sources when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, because it's an area that attracts endless nonsense and bad editing. I've seen Jay support people with an anti-Israel POV and good sources, and I've seen him strongly oppose pro-Israel editors who don't use good sources. You should try assuming good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't regard you in the same way as Marsden et al, so I'm already assuming good faith. The way I judge edits is whether they're well written, well sourced, relevant, and not NOR. I don't really care about anything else, and Jay tends to have a similar attitude. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel and the UN

It does belong there. This incident was typical, just the latest. If you think Israelis or some world conspiracy invented or "spun" it, do a news search and you'll see a lot of similar articles. I used that particular link (rather than Kuwaiti, for example) simply because it demonstrates Israeli opinion. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That was your POV. What was the result of the search? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How's this: [1]? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is Israel and the United Nations, and of course it is fair to illustrate the UN's position as seen by Israel. Did we misrepresent their view by merely providing a link - without even a comment? What is this supposed to mean: "condemnation of the Palestinians in every UN resolution"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a rewording?

Unbehagen, the question you phrased on Jayjg's candidate page was, "Jayg - Do you recieve payment whether in money, credit or other intangibles for editing, working with, or performing administrative tasks on Wikipedia from any party?" My original question was, "does participating in Wikipedia fulfill part or all of your employment duties?"

Could you change your wording to match mine? The reason I ask this is, I am unfortunately familiar with weasel-speak, and, if someone was employed to promote the positive portrayal of Israel and its policies however he sees fit, he could both claim, with a measured amount of honesty, that he was not paid in any way to participate in Wikipedia, while in fact he was fulfilling his employment duties by participating in Wikipedia.

I would not have made anything of this distinction but for SlimVirgin's absolute venom at my question, followed by her relatively warm reception of your question; something does not fit.

Sorry to bother you, and if you decide not to do what I request, I certainly understand.

Marsden 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Article for deletion vote

Thought you might be interested in this: [2]. Marsden 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what stalking you are talking about. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Unbehagen! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

ID

On what grounds do you consider AAAS to be a US-only organisation? Guettarda 03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

About this: [3] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, FeloniousMonk 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please note that it's not a personal attack when it's true and fair comment on a person's conduct. Unbehagen 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time to actually read WP:NPA. I'll add to the above: Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. -- Ec5618 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Ec5618 -- Ec5618

Thanks. Since my comments were made in good faith (and refered to the editor's actions not the editor - as per the policy) I think I'm in the clear then. Unbehagen 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your comments refered to the editor as well. Quote: "I honestly dont know whether she's in good faith or just a parody." Clearly you are suggesting this editor as a whole cannot be taken seriously. You are not merely dismissing her arguments.

While you may not have intended it, you did 'attack' another editor. -- Ec5618 16:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Truth is not an affirmative defense when it comes to NPA, but merely a restatement of the original offense, compounding it. Your comments were unnecessary and only served to insult, so let's just leave off the personal attacks, alright? FeloniousMonk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)