Welcome!

Hello, Dasondas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again! Glad you decided to join us. If you need any help you can contact me on my user talk page. Take care, FloNight ^talk 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force" is not ambiguous. --Ian Pitchford 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Secure and Recognized Boundaries" is a lesser element because it's not accompani ed by a specific recommendation or instruction and the phrase has no explicit meaning, whereas the abolition of the right of conquest was a core principle of the Covenant of the League of Nations and is a core principle of the Charter of the United Nations. --Ian Pitchford 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Charter of the United Nations does not allow the acquisition of territory by conquest. This prinicple is empahised in the preamble to UNSC 242. The addition of an ambiguous phrase about secure boundaries doesn't change international law. --Ian Pitchford 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The work you are deleting seems to be non controversial. It does not seem to condemn relgious positions in any way.

NPOV is about capturing POV, not removing it from the encyclopedia, and this simply notes that there are POVs in the world. AFAICT it is correct in that, although I would prefer it if it noted that some religions perform these procedures as part of their belief structure and it had citations. But it does not seem to be incorrect, and so I have therefore reverted your edit.

If you believe that this piece is non NPOV, then I suggest you read NPOV again.WolfKeeper 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're violating 3 reverts. You've also removed a cite, and you are making false accusations that completely can't be sustained. You've got no leg to stand on here really. Seriously, the world isn't going to end if you leave this alone.WolfKeeper 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed high quality of your contributions. Thank you for making WP better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were exact quotes from the citations. Do not change exact quotes.TipPt 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB I changed no quotes whatsoever, and the few words of the article I have modified up until now had nothing to do with any quotes; I was neutralizing the POV that was inserted into the article byTipPt's dishonest and reckless manipulation of medical literature.Dasondas 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - and your concern - on my talk page. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. But I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning. I would agree if you said it was intolerant for people to object to religious circumcision, certainly. However, there is intolerance in this world, and some people do indeed object to this. Their numbers are probably smaller than those who object to elective secular circumcision (itself a fairly small group), but they do exist. While we should be careful to avoid implying that there's a lot of controversy (as a certain editor seems to desire), surely it isn't intolerant to note that some exists? Jakew 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, I understand the point you're making, and to an extent, I agree. The question, however, is at what point does a fringe element become noteworthy? I don't know the answer.

Please would you have a look here. It is an article by a gentleman who addresses the issue of religious circumcision from a supportive point of view. However, in doing so, he notes many of the objections that have been made. I'd be interested in learning your thoughts on the nature of the controversy in light of this. Jakew 12:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand the points you've made, and I agree that they're valid. I'm not entirely convinced that there should be no mention, but I'll help out and see if we can get some facts to help decide upon that. Jakew 15:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me? you're the one being POV and intolerant. I have no problem with you VOLUNTARILY getting YOURSELF circumcised for religion reasons. However you have no right to FORCE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING to be circumcised. Furthermore for religious purposes, would not voluntary circumcision be more religiously meaningful?

If you circumcise another without their consent (or before they're old enough to give consent) then you have engaged in genital mutilation and the violation of human rights. No religion gives anyone the right to deprive others of their human rights.

Do NOT attempt to imply others are "intolerant fringe groups" when you are merely projecting your own intolerance and bigotry. Whatever religion you are is not my concern, it is irrelevant. (and no, don't tell me, because I don't care what religion you are) Lordkazan 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're now doing exactly the same thing that you reported, Lordkazan. Jakew 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

You need to consult the dictionary on the term "bigot". If I was a bigot I would be attempting to outlaw your religion. I am not, I don't care what religion you are. You, as part of your religion, can have yourself voluntarily circumcised if you want. Yes I do understand the religious significance of it for some people, no that significance does not justify you doing it to other people without their consent. As I noted above "Furthermore for religious purposes, would not voluntary circumcision be more religiously meaningful?". You have been reported for your repeated personal attacks, and I am watching the genital mutilation article for any vandalism from you Lordkazan 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cool, Dasondas. I know the issue's important, but try. :-) Jakew 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Circumcision, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Genital_modification_and_mutilation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lordkazan 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are removing content on some of your edits. I am not sure if this is vandalism or not, because I don't really have a lot of knowledge about circumsision, but what I indicaed was that more knowledgeable editors and administrators may decide that it is vandalism. What concerns me more are your edit summaries. You claim that some of the other editors are vandals. Right now, I don't really think anyone is vandalizing the article. It is a content dispute and definitely needs mediation, but I am not really the right person to do most of it. A good start, however, would be for you and everyone else to stop claiming that the articl eis being vandalized, for now. Academic Challenger 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB -- An administrator has determined that none of the edits to which you refer constitute vandalism. Dasondas 14:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, you have been a bit off hand with User:Crimsone, who was only trying to help. I agree that Lordkazan's edits look harsh and his shouting above contravenes talk page guidelines etc. Crimsone has asked me to look into the dispute, which I will happily do, though not now as it is twenty to one in the morning where I live and frankly, I'm too tired. I will look in the morning, however. If you feel this needs discussing sooner, you can make a request for comment or suchlike. --Robdurbar 23:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dasondas. I too have been able to take a look, and I roughly agree with Robdurbar. The bigot issue was a personal attack according to the "letter of the law" in WP:NPA. However, I would explain further and say that I understand that you have been antagonised to a fair degree, but WP:NPA does state...

• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.

... And gives one example of a personal attack as...

• Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

...and as such, there can nevertheless be no excuse for a personal attack. Given the level of antagonism though, I am prepared to extend an olive branch. If you would be willing to reword your edits (as per the two diffs provided in the npa2 warning) to remove the offending remarks and to describe the edits themselves rather than the editor (perhaps using such language as "it is my belief that..."), it would be a strong enough demonstration of good faith for me to replace the npa2 with a simple note to suggest that you edit the remarks, to which you could reply that you have done so. If you do this, I could also make a note of the removal of npa2 in the WP:PAIN report and remove it.

I see the dispute over some of User:Lordkazan's edits, and I agree with Robdurbar that your reverts do not constitute vandalism. However, I do note that there are conflicting points of view that are fuelling this particular edit war. It appears that you hold a belief that what Lordkazan would describe as "forced circumcision" (for lack of a more concise title) is an acceptable practice in a religious context, and Lordkazan believes that it is never an acceptable practice, and these conflicting POV's are fuelling the edit war. I will not offer a POV on this issue as I don't really have one. By that same token, a whole edit war is not something I am going to involve myself in either, but I would like to offer one particular edit for discussion as an example so that you both might be able to resolve the edit war in good faith. My reasoning for this is that opposing points of views, when focused correctly, can make for far better articles with a far better degree of neutrality.

The edit I will refer to is this one.

Firstly, I note that both of you are concentrating here on the circumcision of boys, but it should be noted that religious circumcision is not limited to boys, and in a number of countries and cultures, a practice commonly called "female circumcision" is currently a very hot topic.

Lordkazanis indeed correct in introducing to the article a mention of the controversy surrounding religious circumcision, but I feel that the wording of his contributions does indeed introduce a POV element. A little evidence of the controversy surrounding circumcision in judaism in particular can bee found here. In Islam and Judaism, it is indeed the case that the law says that males should be circumcised, though to the best of my knowledge, it does not have this to say about females. By the same token, to the best of my limited knowledge, Judaism does allow for circumcision as an adult rather than 8 days after birth, and the holy book doesn't actually state specifically when circumcision must be performed, but offers strong indication that it should be after birth. As such, the statement that it is "customary or obligatory" is not only a contradiction of itself, but it is also incorrect. The rest of the paragraph regarding the various views on the subject of religious circumcision at birth may indeed be correct, but needs to be cited, and were not particularly POV with the exception of the fact that they did not include the religious POV. On the second paragraph however, I note that Lordkazan is incorrect in the removal of description of the new law as contraversial, as the source for the statement does indeed make mention of the controversy around it. In fact, the rewording of the whole paragraph makes it less accurate as it does indeed give a biased view of the source.

As such, in the interests of resolving the edit war, I would like to suggest the following...

• 1, Allow a statement that religious circumcision is a practice surrounded by a little controversy in line 407.
• 2, Revert the rest of Lordkazans edits to the rest of the paragraph starting at line 407 to the version you have been reverting to, and add a note to see a section on controversy.
• 3, Add a section or subsection on the controversy over the subject to the article which MUST be well cited, and MUST include multiple viewpoints in a NPOV manner, and these viewpoints MUST include a religious one. Each argument should be left open ended, and the section as a whole must not be biased towards any given viepoint.

With the facts available through various sources, I am sure that the above is possible. Given that I have no POV at all on the subject itself, also please be aware that this is an entirely unbiased view of the given edit. It is not given as an instruction or demand, but is given as a possible solution to the ongoing edit war. It is a means for you both to extend the olive branch to each other and cooperate in the spirit of wikipedia, creating an article in accordance with the stated goals of wikipedia. Given the shear amount of time and effort I have given to this attempted resolution, I feel it unlikely that anybody else is likely to offer so much effort should this fail, and the next step would possibly be arbitration.

As a cautionary note for my own benefit, Not that I am assuming that you would, but please realise Dasondas that this message with regards to the edit mentioned above is not only for yourself. It equally applies to Lordkazan, and anybody else on either side of this particular fence. The only part of this message specific to only yourself regards the npa2 warning. Following the advice there would be the first step to resolving this issue, and I would highly recommend it. If not for any other reason, it would be a lot easier than taking this whole thing to arbitration. I have not yet seen what as been said to Lordkazan, but I shall take a look momentarily. --Crimsone 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all presenting both views. I have a problem with his calling me a bigot for opposing nonvoluntary circumcision. I have a problem with his calling me a "sympathizer of fringe groups" for opposing nonvoluntary circumcision. I have a problem with him calling me ignorant. I have a problem with him doing all these after I made a statement to accomodate his religion, despite the fact that I am antireligious (People can choose to be whatever they want). My problem is with "forced circumcision" (quite an accurate description), and I am in a position of authority to talk on the subject as I am a victim of such. You are absolutely correct in your parallels to female circumcision, I even know a woman (know her online) who was FGMed in 1954 in the state of kansas (as a minor.. an infant I believe, I haven't read her book yet but I know her from a mailing list we're both on). I would prefer that Dasondas not revert his personal attacks, but instead make an apology for them. Furthermore I don't know exactly how I atagonized him - I simply have a completely different view tham him and that is what got me personally attacked by him, the revert war was later in the day than the PA incidents. Lordkazan 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I refer to antagonism, I am making no qualification on wheteher it was deliberate or not. I have simlpy put myself in Dasondas's shoes and looked at how I would feel if I were trying to edit in good faith (as I believe your edit was also intended originally), and was repeatedly accused of vandalism. The antagonism aspect stems from everything mentioned on your talk page.

With regards to the npa warning, you (lordkazan) need to be able to abide by the advice given to you on your talk page and assume good faith. You are after all referring only to two incidents close together. You will need to accept that this entire situation has arisen from misunderstanding on both sides and a breakdown in communications, and that these two things have resulted in all that has followed from that at the very beginning. You need to both forget the past, and try to move on in the spirit of wikipedia. My offer to Dasondas still remains.

I would hope that you are able to see that in order to resolve this dispute, which really is in the interests of everybody, what's past is past, and what matters now is how weto continue, partake in the reason that we are all here in the spirit that we are all here, and to do so amicably. --Crimsone 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but expirienced has taught me the foolishness of forgetting things as in the past, and principles have taught me to be indignant when my statements are misrepresented and my opinions are misrepresented - even in the purpose of accomodation. I have no illusions of his intentions, he called me a bigot for having a different opinion than him because it contradicts what he sees as his religions teachings. I even went out of my way to make a gesture of good faith and suggested an alternative way for his religion to exercise that belief, and he calls me a bigot for it? This is a prime example of why I am antireligious. Forgive him? sure if he renders an apology. Forget his transgression? Never. Forgive him for violating the human rights of others? Not on you life, I'd drag him before a court of law and have him sentanced to the full extent of the law if I could. Lordkazan 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - to be intolerant I would have to be against your right to be whatever religion you choose. I am not, I would fight for your religious freedom as determinedly as I fight for my own. I am however antireligious in that I will argue with anyone, anytime, that they are incorrect to hold those religious beliefs. I respect their right to disagree, that does not necessitate that I respect your choice. I treat all people fairly reguardless of their religion and I do my best not to hold it against people (people like Eric Rudolph and Fred Phelps are hard turkeys not to hold it against). However, like any right, the right to religious freedom only applies to activities that only affect you - activities that permanantly and irreversably affect others, such as circumcision, are not protected under religious freedom. I have tried my best to be nice and suggest other ways that you could practice your religion that would resolve the conflict between the childs human rights, and your religions requirements - and I have gotten called names by you for it.

So please, stop making false accusations of me being intolerant because I don't consider it morally acceptable for you to force permanant body alterations on others in the name of your religion. Lordkazan

For the record - to be intolerant I would have to be against your right to be whatever religion you choose.

Or indeed against the right to practice that religion in any way he chooses.

Could you guys please agree to disagree on this one issue, and never mention it again to or about Dasondas? Doing so won't stop you from editing articles, and not doing so isn't going to serve any useful purpose. Crimsone 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the way he choses to practice it doesn't violate the rights of others he is free to do so. And until he apologizes to me for his baseless and insulting accusations of antisemitism and islamaphobia it will not be dropped. Lordkazan 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dasondas, I was under the impression that it was an established fact that you held religious views; for assuming so I apologise. --Robdurbar 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, Can you drop me an email? Either through Wiki or at jake@waskett.org - thanks. Jakew 11:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, whenever you're ready. :-) Jakew 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've said everything you might want to say, and you should stop now. I'll view further interaction with him there as you baiting him into a response. Nandesuka 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In brief:

• Go to the page you want to create a diff for.
• Click on the 'history' tab at the top of the page.
• Either use the two columns of radio buttons to choose the 'earlier' and 'later' versions, then click on the 'compare selected versions', then highlight the text in your browser's URL bar and press ctrl + C, or if the versions are adjacent, click 'last' in the row corresponding to the more recent one and do the same.

Hope this helps. Jakew 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and you might find it helps to look at WP:DIFF. Jakew 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Dasondas, but even if I wanted to, I don't think that I'm in a position to start acting on LordKazan; I could probably already be classed as 'involved' and in a position where using administratvie powers could be seen as dubious. I've expressed my opinions to LordKazan, and he has been around long enough to be aware that in the event of any further 'dispute resolution' steps, the fact that admins have warned him of his actions would be taken into account.

I see that Crimsone agreed that you could drop the npa tag; not something I would have agreed with but fair's fair. If you really feel that LordKazan is abusing you still, then the route to go now would be an Request for comment and then, if that fails, an arbitration.

However, I would advise the following course of action instead:

1. Apologise to LordKazan for any offence, intentional or unintentional
2. Ask, politely, for him to remove the various comments in light of your apology
3. Ask, also politely, for LordKazan to pledge alongside you that you will consider this water under the bridge
4. Return to the relevant talk pages and discuss your content differences there.

If you do not wish to do this, or if LordKazan fails to remove comments upon your apology, then there are the options outlined above.

As I have said to LK - I consider this my final comment on this subject. If you go down dispute resolution paths, I will clearly provide evidence, but I would hope that this is not necessary.Robdurbar 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Robdurbar - I wouldn't normally have agreed either, but the community did get an apology, to the best of my knowledge, no attacks had been made since the resolution was agreed (the dispute itself is at the very least far less disruptive now I think), and so I figured that it was of benefit to the community (plus of course, it isn't punative anyway). As you quite rightly say, fair's fair and I did make that agreement. It is also my own final comment on the subject, lest I become part of a dispute itself, and I leave it with sentiments mirroring Robdurbars above. If you recall, Robdurbar apologised to yourself for causing offence even though none was clearly intended. Perhaps this may be a good time (for the sake of your own stress levels if nothing else), for you to do likewise. --Crimsone 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you accuse me of adding unsourced material in the "West Bank" article when my main aim was to remove a trashy section that is completely unsourced and is derogatory towards Arabs (with no source whatsoever). I hope you will take the time to read that "why not annexed" section before deciding to restore it. Or maybe you can find a source for it? Signed 72.255.123.192

(You have mail.) :-) Jakew 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Jakew 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Jakew 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing that have once again removed excellent sources from this article, including the opinion of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention [1] and have replaced them with links to propaganda sites that do not even support the claims made, for example: you have inserted this [2], an article on the legality of the Iraq war that says nothing at all about settlements. We don't present the consensus among nations and international bodies as simply an opinion to be contrasted with the opinion of various advocacy groups, see WP:NPOV. International law is determined by the bodies that make and regulate it; not the ADL, Dore Gold or dead US politicians The issue with the "annexation section" is now yours since you have restored it without sources in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. --Ian Pitchford 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed no good sources, in fact I added a source for your own Daniel MacIntyre that you failed to include. I was not the one who included the Julius Stone reference, but now that you've pointed it out I've repaired it. I never was a fan of the "Why not Annex" section and have myself now removed it; the reason it kept getting put back in was because of your own wholesale indiscriminate reversions. Finally, to argue that Dore Gold and Eugene Rostow's opinions on the legality of settlements are not valid simply betrays your own POV-pushing agenda. Dasondas 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - don't be too harsh on B'tselem though, they use good fieldwork data and, being an Israeli organization, are actually less prone to accusations of bias especially as they also publish on Palestinian violations of human rights, not just Israeli. As for the summary vs. link, I didn't want my sources to look like a tirade, but I appreciate your use of the longer source. Thomas Friedman used to say "Some things are true even if George Bush believes them". Similarly, some things are true even if Palestinians say them! Ramallite ^(talk) 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. Could you provide some diffs demonstrating policy violations by this user? I'm more than happy to look into this. Regards, DRK 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Jakew's analysis in the discussion section? He insisted on having that emphasis, which is a key aspect of the practice of neonatal circs.TipPt 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point it well taken (undue emphasis)... the majority circ'd are muslim. But, I bet there's significant controversy between parents and boys. We won't find citations for that.

Please remember there's no such thing as A circumcision in terms or results. What tissues actually removed and how varies greatly, and the norm has changed over time. For example, ancient jewish texts describe removal of just the tip of the foreskin. Muslim religious texts call for doing no harm. Current practice is much more radical, and that difference is a source of controversy. I can provide newspaper articles describing mass muslim circumcision rites (in Turkey and Indonesia) where they generally removed too much skin ... causing great angst in the community. Finally, rhere are Jewish groups in the US that reject and fight the practice I could cite.TipPt 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakew 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems written to promote a very specific POV, and none of it is sourced. It very badly needs sourcing, pruning, and ideally, a complete re-write. Why do you ask? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time to clean it up, I would applaud your doing so. Removing any unsourced negative information on the page would be a start - of course, you'd have little left at that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I've blocked that specific IP, in general there's not a lot that can be done when people with dynamic IPs evade their banning. Thanks for keeping me informed, though, it's quite helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, you have violated WP:3RR on Hamas. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Yas121 21:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yas121, please don't return here with your meaningless drivel until you learn how to count past the number 2. Thanks. Dasondas 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't, as long you keep "your meaningless drivel" POV out of articles. Thanks. Yas121 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and please do try to actually read and understand the policies before discussing them with people. It will make your edits appear to be less ridiculous. Dasondas 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that it was no longer a red link, so I had a look and it made me laugh. Cheers, Jakew 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, to save you the hassle of deleting banned user's posts, you might want to request semi-protection for your talk page. Jakew 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. It's an explanation that the article is in dispute. The dispute tag has been removed among others by Tewfik and Silverburg. So they don't dispute the article but others do. Removing dispute tags are so discorteous and childish. So is false accusations of perspnal attacks. Chhers. Will314159 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor comment about the footnote you recently add referencing Thomas work. You state that Cpt. Condes and others died in prision. As I have the book not at hand, i don't know if this statement comes from Thomas or not. The fact is that, at least, Cpt. Condes died on a war action July 27th. The link to his bio I put in the previous discussion on the talk page seems not to work now, but is available on the wayback machine [3]. I left it unsigned, sorryWllacer 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Thomas does not make the claim I originally wrote; he supports your additional source (Thomas, Modern Library edition, ed.2001, p.198n2 and p.309). I misread the orginal and have now fixed the footnote. Thanks much for the assist! Dasondas 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately things like moving stubborn talk pages are over this relatively n00b head of mine. The good news is that it looks like Duja (who responded to you here) has already taken care of it. Cheers, and thanks! Tobogganoggin 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that page is that some very biased editors, often with a bad understanding of the policy and poor writing style as well, insist on trying to skew the page into some sort of political rant or manifesto. On top of that they assume that anyone who is simply trying to turn it into something readable and encyclopedic is, in fact, trying to "whitewash" Israel's "genocides" and other assorted "evils". This makes it very hard to edit it in any sensible way. What kinds of changes do you think should be made to the style and structure? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dasondas. How about you try your changes to the sandbox article? See how that goes. I'm going to try contributing to it tomorrow. I would be curious as to how you would try to resolve the issues -- I found your comments to be well thought out. If its all peaceful then we can unlock the article come Sunday. It is important to realize that just prior to protecting the article there were multiple major reverts by more than 8 people -- at least 4 people, did 3RR or more in that recent "battle." It only slowed down by the end of the day when the article was protected because they were all in danger of going into 4RR territory. --Deodar 04:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the quotes section, which you brought up in your talk with Kendrick7, is that those quotes that are concise and most notable should be integrated directly into the text dealing with the subjects those quotes concern. Thus in the end, there should be no section just simply dedicated to "notable quotes" at all, the article instead will have topically focused sections which could be fleshed out with quotes where they fit. --Deodar 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've solicited feedback from User:SlimVirgin. It's just that when I get a new source for an article, I am like a dog with a bone.... -- Kendrick7 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want an edit war, please let me finish my edits, OK? Elizmr 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done. I started with positive supportive views on Israel jews etc. I took out the hitler quote because I thought that was inflammatory, but left everything else you had put in. I thought it was important to put in a little bit more on his views on Judiasm and apartheid as well as Israel and apartheid because they are relevant and also his reply to the charge of antisemitism rather than just letting that hang for balance. Also, in his rhetoric he does say that Israel should be held to a higher standard so I put this in. See what you think. Elizmr 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. Given the out of balance aspect, something I'm wondering is how much time Tutu has been spending on the circut for economic boycott stuff since stepping down as archbishop. If it is a main focus, the article is not unbalanced. Elizmr 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, I added a source as you requested for the claim that classical anti-Semitism is largely associated with the right. There were several sources in the text to choose from, so I plumped for Todd Endelman, professor of Jewish history at Michigan, who wrote: "[B]efore the Second World War, the right, rather than the left, was the paramount source of hatred and contempt for European Jews. Historically, liberalism promoted legal emancipation and sociall integration, the free movement of persons and property, while conservatism stood for the maintenance of the old regime, with its ranks, corporations, and restrictive practices. At the turn of the century, it was the left, not the right, that in France came to Dreyfus's defence and in Britain fought immigration restrictions. In Germany and Austria, the ferocity and omnipresence of antisemitism everwhere on the right guaranteed that Jews would find a political home om the left — whether among liberals, social democrats, or communists. This is no longer true." (Endelman, Todd. "Antisemitism in Western Europe today," in Penslar et al. Contemporary Antisemitism, 2005, p. 69)

Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent comment that you were being ignored and that I was borderline incivil. Hmm.. I apologize if you have been left with that impression. I have given one previous precedent in which a sandbox solution has worked but there was more buy-in than with this one. Second of all, I encourage you to actually edit the article, to be WP:BOLD. I myself sometimes, especially when my real-life workload is high, tend to be a talker more than a doer and most often my suggestions are not reflected in other people's edits to an article -- but not because of malice or AGF but just because people are lazy and tend not to act as proxies for others when others are equally capable of making those changes themselves. Anyways, I'm reading this great book called "Getting to Yes" for my business education and strangely it is incredibly relevant to the talk page argument dynamics present at Wikipedia. I totally recommend that you grab it as well. I'm probably going to try to introduce some of the elements of that book into the various contentious talk pages to see if they help. --Deodar 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually noticed a less confrontational tone lately, Deodar, good for you. Elizmr 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are curious, the book has a great Wikipedia article here btw Getting to YES. Its standard reading for most MBA programs. --Deodar 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and also "Getting past no" by the same authors which is also good. Elizmr 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the crib sheet version here: Getting past NO.  :-) --Deodar 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm long-since done with my MBA and prefer other genres for my optional reading. I have heard, though, that "Getting to Yes" is a decent read. As to me being "more of a talker than a doer", well I do when I think doing is appropriate, I talk when I think talking is appropriate; sometimes, as I think you are aware, contentious articles at Wikipedia could use more considered talking and less impulsive doing. You already know why I declined your offer to work in the sandbox, and as for my being ignored by editors it wasn't you I had in mind when I made that statement in critique of your decision to make a radical edit to the article. Dasondas 19:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas, re Talk:Circumcision, 84.44.171.230 is the perma-banned Tit-for-Tat aka Subversive Element aka Jan Jakea. I assume you didn't realise this. It's best to revert banned users' edits or ignore them. Jakew 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized this after the fact and left a note on Jay's talk page. Dasondas 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Please accept my apologies. Jakew 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize!! Thanks for getting involved! Dasondas 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best not to respond to him at all, and just let me know when he's posting. He's banned, so he shouldn't be encouraged in any way, and responding to him encourages him. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really just depends what's more convenient. Often I revert, but if someone has already responded, then I just ignore. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I am banned. Finally I know, you didn't reply on your own talk page. Actually, Jayjg, responding does encourage me - to be polite in return. Ignoring me also encourages me - to stay around and keep asking. And you both could be contemplating on your conversation styles a little bit. 87.78.150.42 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; El Jigue continues to spew his views/observations on Cuban related events [past events & present]. These views are PoV views. GoodDay 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dasondas, I've sent you an email.--Zleitzen 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your response 'Dasondas'. I have no complaints about El Jigue views, I too find them educational & interesting. However they should be on a Wiki-blog OR in his own IP address talk page (where we all can respond). Just wanted to point out, the 'talk pages' weren't the proper place for those discussions. However, since the consenses is to leave El Jigue's additions to the 'talk pages' alone, I'll do so. My way isn't everyone's way, I accept that and so will no longer complain. Thanks for responding. PS: May the people of Cuba (someday) be free. GoodDay 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been nice meeting you as well. GoodDay 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great, if 'El Jigue' would become a registerd user. If we could just persuade him. His personal registered 'talk page' would've been great for these discussions about Cuban related events. GoodDay 04:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dasondas. Turns out it isn't over. Check out Durova's Talk page ... -- Polaris999 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. According to the Spanish language map large sections of Brazil are Spanish speaking. If this is true you should change the Portuguese map and show the Spanish speaking areas. If it is not then please let the Spanish language page know.

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) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]