User talk:Will314159/Archive 1

Template:Archive

Could I suggest you use 4 tildes ~~~~ to sign your name? Though I don't think there is official policy on this, it makes it easier to spot the signature on the page; also it makes it easier for other contributors to find out something about you, which I think this is fair (although I suppose some might consider that stalking). Thanks! --CSTAR 00:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Juan Cole article

Being a new user, I am not familiar with the WP chain of command or process of appeal. I believe you are a higher up administrator. If you are not, then please put me in contact with someone who is.

This is not a matter of taking sides but for the good of the WP community. The following comment gives you the flavor of what is going on in a nutshell. You have visited the site, so you have some familiarity with the problem.

"Stub it and then block the stub. The damage is a continuing damage as new readers come to the site. In fact each day the damage progresses. It's just a matter of time until a national or international media picks up the news. Like they did the Cuba article. I can see the bylline. "NeoKon Likudniks hijack Juan Cole WP article and get it locked against balancing edits. Tar him as anti-semite b/c of his forceful and effective criticism of repressive Israeli occupation of Palestinians and American heavy handed Iraq occupation. They are also concerned about his moderating stance toward the Iran war stampede." Take Care!--Will314159 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)" The problem is the article is locked in a prejudical mode, no consensus can be achieved, yet the administrator in charge, who won't identify himself, won't stub the protected article and leaves the offending article up. By the way, I see your technical skill are awesome. I am using the signature icon at the top or the four tildes but my name is not coming up as a blue link. I see in the edit mode a complicated way of doing it using more brackets a vertical bar "USER" and a colon. Is there a simpler way. I usually use Firefox or opera? is that the problem. Take Care!--Will314159 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured that there are admins (inlcuding Jimbo) who are aware of the article and the conflict. We've had bad press in the past and I'm sure we will do so again in the future. The page protection as it stands is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Clearly, the wrong version was protected. However, admins cannot just ignore consensus and blank the article, unless an official Wikipedia:Office Actions is taken. Personally, I haven't really read all the comments on the talk page yet so I am not entirely clear what the heart of the conflict is, but I will do so soon. Don't worry though, I have seen many articles where a conflict like this has erupted, and the end result is almost always that a more balanced article appears given time.

Regarding your signature, I'm not sure what could be causing the problem: normally typing ~~~~ should post your name and a date stamp. I suggest you play around in the Wikipedia:Sandbox to see if you can get it to work. If you have any more problems please don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers, jaco♫plane 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I read some of your recent posts to a few administrators lately, and I wanted to address a few things about it. To answer your question, you can find more about administrators on Wikipedia, and the roles that they play at Wikipedia:Administrator. To be brief, no administrator has any particular authority over another administrator - in fact, an administrator is not considered to have any special authority over regular users either. The have additional capabilities associated with their accounts, like protecting and deleting pages, but these abilities tend to be emphasized in a modest or humble manner.

What really governs best practices on Wikipedia are mostly level-headed, well reasoned, and directed discussions. Administrators are in some sense servants of the community, and they are generally promoted on the basis of their ability to uphold community values with their trust and judgement. It's rather difficult to explain precisely how everything works, but an important aspect is to observe carefully - there is a lot of implied dynamic underneath the editing which takes place, and it takes a while to tune into it.

As for the article, it may well be the case that the "wrong version" is being protected. This sometimes happens, because the protecting administrator is often neutral to the editing dispute. However, I can see it has been protected for nearly two weeks. If a clear consensus has been reached, I would be willing to unprotect the page. Something to the effect of a section where everyone involved leaves a note saying "sure, let's unprotect the page" would be sufficient. However, at the moment it does not seem to be quite the case yet.

Sometimes a page can be unprotected in a "mediated fashion" where all active editors agree not to edit while discussions on the talk page occur. This allows anonymous editors (and other registered users) to join in and make minor edits to the article without fundamentally disrupting the page discussions. However, at the moment, I don't have the time to oversee it, so it is probably best to wait a little bit longer. I hope this helps. --HappyCamper 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales is sort of the "head honcho" - he's the guy the founded the entire project, and has a lot of influence. Well, there is one reason why there is reluctance to go with your suggestion - the article as it stands is the result of 2 years worth of collaborations - even though it has problems at the moment, the interaction recorded in its page history is very important. It would be unlikely for another article to magically spring up after it is deleted - it would have to wait a really long time before anything substantial would be written.

Ah, you are following LQT and Heim theory! That's wonderful! Not everyday I hear that. You have to be a bit careful about these theories, especially Heim theory. It is all too easy to make the theory sound convoluted, especially when the mathematics can be so cryptic. Do feel free to come by again if you need help. Cheers! --HappyCamper 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole, Karsh, and general advice

Welcome to Wikipedia, Will. I thought I'd chime in with a couple pieces of unsolicited advice, which you can take for whatever it's worth.

One thing that might help with the Juan Cole dispute is to take a week or two off and work on some pages that aren't as controversial. I appreciate that you have stuff you think should be expressed on the page -- believe me, I've been there, and still am WRT a bunch of pages. However, as I got into the wiki policies, I've gotten to appreciate them a lot more. It's a lot of work and a serious pain in the rear to work through all the wiki good faith consensus building, but once you get used to it, you'll find that (1) most disputes really can be brought to concensus, albiet sometimes slowly and painfully; and (2) even on those that can't, if you approach arguments in the wiki way, you'll find you have a lot of allies.
- Working through some pages where you're not as personally invested is a good way to get a feel for the system. If you pick some pages that have disputes and try to help resolve them, or just some pages that need improvement to be encyclopedic and clear, I think you can come back to the Cole page in a week or two and have a lot more success. (One suggestion would be the various pages related to American law. A lot of them need a lot of work, IMHO).
IMHO, you're overselling Karsh. As I read the article, (1) He agrees that Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 67, but (2) argues that Israel didn't occupy Israel proper in 47, and (3) believes that the Isreali occupation of any particular part of the PA ended when Israel turn control of that area over to the PA and withdrew its troops. (So he agrees that the parts that Israel still controls are under occupation). I don't know enough about international law to know whether Karsh is right or wrong, but IMHO it oversimplifies to say that he denies the occupation.

Thanks, and I hope the Cole dispute hasn't soured you to wiki, TheronJ 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I'll take a look at your Hess piece. TheronJ 18:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

juan cole--reply

juan cole re doug feith i know i am outnumbered as far as truth getting out. So you guys delete, and I put it back in. There"ll be a window of time when the truth appears. "who are these officials?" read the discussion pages or douglas feith condoleeza rice and john wilkerson, secy state colin polwell's chief of staff Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza RiceThen-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own. When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." [1]

"Who are these officials?" was designed to prompt you to identify them in the article and give references. If someone wrote "Important academics think Cole is misguided" without identifying the academics or attaching references, you'd probably remove it, no? I prefer specificity--better to say "X agrees with Cole's view that Feith is Y" than to just say "X agrees with Cole's views about Feith". As for your opening salvo, there is a huge spectrum of opinions on matters related to this article, and I'm leery of anyone who thinks he has a command of the "truth". Precis 14:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are you guys so afraid of it. truth is a dangerous thing.

juan cole

re doug feith i know i am outnumbered as far as truth getting out. So you guys delete, and I put it back in. There"ll be a window of time when the truth appears. "who are these officials?" read the discussion pages or douglas feith condoleeza rice and john wilkerson, secy state colin polwell's chief of staff Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza RiceThen-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own. When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." [1] User page Discussion

Awaiting your scifi stuff on Cole

on the cole page...Elizmr 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i propose to refluff your unfluff

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/726493.html "When will we understand that only the 1967 lines are the borders to defend the "Jewish and democratic state" from bestiality? And who, aside from us, really cares if we become bestial? Or maybe we don't care anymore?" Yossi Sarid --Will314159 17:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

removing well sourced verifiable information from the Cole article...

...because you don't like it runs counter to WP:NPOV. Please consider following Wikipedia guidelines. Elizmr 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr: you certainly don't follow the guideline when you remove biographical "fluff." You delete what suits you per you whims. "re doug feith i know i am outnumbered as far as truth getting out. So you guys delete, and I put it back in. There"ll be a window of time when the truth appears. "who are these officials?" read the discussion pages or douglas feith condoleeza rice and john wilkerson, secy state colin polwell's chief of staff Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza RiceThen-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own. When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." [1] Dead link [2] Take CAre! --will314159 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, with respect, deleting stuff that you don't like because you think Elizmr wrongly deleted something else is a violation of WP:POINT and also wrong. IMHO, the best thing for us to do is solve the various disputes on the Cole controversy one at a time, but if you want the "biographical fluff" back in, start up a discussion on the talk page and I'll be glad to take a look at it. Thanks, TheronJ 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from my user page: Will--the paragraph I removed was about JC's love for science fiction, and I thought is was kind of fluff and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, but when you objected I suggested you put it back. You did not bother to do this. What YOU took out, on the other hand, were a couple of cites from notable, verifiable, authorative sources which constituted the only opposing POV in a paragraph on a controversial point you didn't happen to agree with. What you left in were conspiracy theories promulgated on a blog. What you took out was not fluff and did certainly add something to the discussion (although not something which supported your point of view) There is a big difference here and I am sure you are intelligent to see it; by saying you don't see it I'm afraid you discredit yourself as an editor. Elizmr 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

also, of note, I did not remove anything from the article on Feith or any other important issue. Elizmr 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all came from the same Jewish Week article. The section is on Cole controversy. What makes the controversy is not that Yale did not hire hime b/ the extraordinary steps Rubin and friend did to extra-academize the appointment steps with op-ed pieces and direct mail to donors. What was put it in was the heart of the dispute. It is you that is constantly removing well sourced verifiable information from the Cole article for one pretextual reason or another.. Take Care! Will314159 01:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to write libelous bullcrap about me like the above, you need to give examples. I have never taken anything out of the Cole article in an unreasonable way. I edited out some scifi stuff because I thought it wasn't really needed but was happy to put it back. I may not agree with you, but I am a fair balanced editor. Elizmr 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wholesale destruction/vandalism of an innoucous biographical paragraph in a sea of controversy is not "fair and balanced editing" but betrays a zeal to dehumanize Cole because the mild mannered professor is an able critic of your POV. And youd did it w/o first talking about in a cavalier kind of way. Why should I have to put back in what you vandalize? Then you"ll report a 3RR violation b/c apparently it's not limited to the same revert but any reverts. Methinks you had laid a 3RR trap. Such is how trust is sowed by report then warn. Take Care! --Will 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3

Will, you might want to familiarize yourself with this policy too, which you have violated. Elizmr 23:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr. Thanx I just read it. the guidline say warn, then report. I see you follow the rule inversely. Report, then warn. The underlying matter has now been resolved per Theronj' compromise and thus mooted but I understand your desire to report. Let's see how the calculator stacks up. I haven't been using WP time, we all will have to get used to it.

Revision as of 07:10, 15 June 2006 (edit) Will314159 (Talk | contribs) (→Faculty position at Yale University - self serving fluff adds nothing to discu) Newer edit →

Revision as of 00:58, 15 June 2006 (edit) Will314159 (Talk | contribs) (→Faculty position at Yale University - ss fluff) Newer edit →

Revision as of 15:40, 14 June 2006 (edit) Will314159 (Talk | contribs) (→Faculty position at Yale University - fluff)

OK I see now. Three times in a 24 hour period, doesn't have to be in the same day. Take Care! --Will 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been correcting what is essentially your vandalism. Elizmr 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical response of one who values her POV more that others and is so willing to delete others POV, even though it is an external link to an Al-Jazeera op-ed on a relevant issue at controversy. I believe JimboWales has warned you about your POV blinders. Take Care! Will314159 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, if you are going to attack me on my user page, you might at least get your facts straight.

first off Jimbo Wales did not warn me about my excessive zeal for my POV blinders. Here is what he said, "Every editor has an obligation to write as neutrally as possible. We should never say "Oh, I don't like this guy, so I will only add negative information, and someone from the other side can be responsible for adding positive information." That is not the way you edit, and that's a good thing! Take pride in it!--Jimbo Wales 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

secondly, you continue to mix up aljazeera, which is a media outlet of record with [1], which is not. The cite you add does not conform to wikipedia policies on appropriate sources. This is why I have deleted it. It has nothing to do with my POV. Elizmr 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the policy (WP:3RR) states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. People are often mistaken by the 3RR name. Actually, you need four reverts in 24h to be a culprit. I'm not going to count whether you had four reverts or not, just correcting the misconception. Friendly Neighbour 07:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you reverted something else about five times in one day, but I'm not going to report you because I am at work and too busy. BUT PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INNACURATE COMMENTS ABOUT MY EDITING. You cannot back any of them up and they are just frivilous. Elizmr 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't understand rules you go pasting on people's talk pages. Morevoer, your counting is deficient.

Elizmr: I prefer that if you attack me that you do it on my user page and not in the discussion or talk page of various articles. Here is one example of your attacks: "Nice link, Will. The author describes Cole as a, "mild mannered middle east expert" and his critic as, "a deranged, vindictive rodent who ought to be fed to a boa constrictor." How's that for balanced commentary? I honestly don't know what motivates you to post ridiculous stuff like this as if it is informative. You like Cole, you really really like Cole; you hate Israel, you really really hate Israel, we get it, OK??? Elizmr 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Elizmr. I don't think you get it at all. Most of the people on this page are out to "get" Cole. I probably am the only non-Jew editing this article. I have to respect those of the faith that have the wisdom to appreciate that political NAS cheapens real AS when it comes along. I have no problem at all w/ an Israel that"ll accept the Taba or Geneva accords and accept Peace and full trade w/ its neighbors per the Beirut resolution signed by 22 Arab nations. I do have a problem w/ open ended war for the sake of continued settlements and America getting sucked into open ended war by the Israeli lobby. All this NAS stuff is another strategem to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank settlements by other means. You implicitly asked for my opinion. As far as Cole, he is a little too strident, he'd make more points if he'd pull back a bit. Take Care! --Will 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Elizmr Redux, This conversation would have been better placed on a user page or outside WP, but you chose the forum. I see now and reject your middle premise. You like Cole therefore you hate Israel, double double. I reject both the middle term and your vision of the necessity of a repressive, expansionist Israel. Triple, I reject America's involvement in financing and participating in it. visit www.gush-shalom.org Take Care! --Will 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)" Take Care! --Will 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:MaggaeMae.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MaggaeMae.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

fixed tag Take Care! --Will^(talk) 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are repeatedly reverting other editors' work in the Views and Criticisms of Juan Cole article. If you persist, you will be reported, and blocked. Making these edits while not signed into your account, as you've made the last 3, will not help you as it can be easily determined that you are behind that IP address. Specifically, do not change the following: (1) Joyner is a columnist, not a naval post-grad schoold professor. (2) The Criticisms section lists criticisms first, Cole's response after. Leave it as it has been in the article for week. You have been warned. Isarig 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using a different browser which didn't automatically log me in. I was just restoring your vandalism. You escaped the 3RR b/c i posted the wrong refernce. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that falsely accusing me of 3RR and being called on it by an admin would teach you a lesson, but apparently not. Joyner is best known for his blog, and that's the way he was described prior to your reverts. If you continue to revert it, you will be blocked. Ditto for the order of the criticism seciton which was in place for weeks before your reverts. Isarig 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig. you got spared b/c I goofed and made the wrong entry. It was my first report. Consider yourself lucky. But b/c you are addicted to reverting, there will be a next time. Best Wishes. 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)