User talk:Factomancer

Ommatoiulus moreletii

No worries, I was going to start that one myself but you beat me to it. Nice work! Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove is good

← George ^talk has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Baruch Goldstein

Thanks for your improvement to the Baruch Goldstein article. By adding these bits, you actually aid those people in publicizing them. I don't think that was your intention... --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Shuki, exposing evil for the world to see is the best way to fight it, like sunlight keeps out darkness. Hiding it from public view and normalizing it is doing these guys a favour. Factsontheground (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that 'exposing evil' is on the top of your list. At least keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia that strives for NPOV and does not tolerate many things including NN events. Even if this event really occurred, there are no celebrations, only a few seconds of one guy dancing (who is he?) and nothing to attribute to 'settlers' at all. Should we include every instance of Jews dancing to WP? --Shuki (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys ever get sick of playing that card? Factsontheground (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And what is that? To demand that your editing be NPOV and you not apply a double standard to everything about Israel and the Arabs you? --Shuki (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha. You know what I'm talking about. Factsontheground (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned User

Hi FotG. The comments and edits you are replacing on Munich (film) are actually from a banned user. You might actually have seen, in my edit summary, where I write "banned user." I don't have the diff to hand, but what you are doing, no doubt inadvertently, can be seen as meatpuppeting for a banned user. I'm also curious how you came to that particular article? In any case, if you wish to make the same edits the banned user did, and stand behind them, I'm fine with that. Just please don't restore talk from him. This has been a long-term aggravation for me; trust me when I tell you you don't want to become a part of it. Cheers. IronDuke 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. See [1] for a discussion of why we don't allow banned users to post. I didn't mean for the above to sound ominous. I doubt anything seriously bad would happen to you for proxying for a banned user, for good or ill. And how did you come to that page again? Did you say? Thanks. IronDuke 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Last question first: no no problem at all how you got to that article. Thanks for answering. Unfortunately, I can't go into details about this particular user/stalker. Suffice it to say, it's a tax I pay for editing here. IronDuke 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

spear civilians

Well spotted at Gaza War :) Bjmullan (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I tend to agree with GregorB that the article has been bowlderized and gives a POV presentation of the spying allegations after its rewrite. But I'm not interested in taking on the material again right now. Perhaps in the future, there could be an article on Israeli spying in the US that covers those allegations. But that would have to be developed in user space before making its debut and be based solely on RS discussing the issue to have ny chance of survival. Though even then, its unlikely. Instead, we get wonderful articles on non-existent subjects like Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) that are kept by bloc voting without regard to whether they are truly notable. Anyway, thanks for thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 14:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO

I will suggest that if you are going to cite WP:TPO as policy when reverting other people's contributions, that you at least familiarize yourself with the contents first. According to WP:TPO, comments can be removed appropriately for various reasons, including: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Breein1007 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy AfD

Please stop reverting Mbz1's edits. You're not accomplishing anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Factsontheground (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban re Mbz01

I don't blame you for starting this, but we need to separate the parties and calm this down, so...

(copied from ANI)

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

(end of copy)

Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions, but we need all the involved parties to stop poking each other for a bit.

Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good decision, George. Read and understood. The whole thing is a big distraction anyway. Don't forget to tell Breein1007 about the topic ban too, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Factsontheground (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Israeli settlement graph

Hello, Factomancer. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

Regarding this edit and this edit,

Please do not use talk pages for intimidating editors. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of warning Factsontheground now for two edits made 5 days ago, which preceded the SPI determination that the suspicious edit pattern was merely coincidence and that you and the IP are unrelated?

The edits were not AGF - but they're old. Dredging up 5 day old comments for a warning like this isn't helpful either.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is even not about AGF. I posted here before I removed the edits from the article's talk page because they have absolutely nothing to do with the article, never should have been posted there in a first place, but the user reinstalled them right back. Oh well...BTW what do you think, Georgewilliamherbert, should the messages stay in the article's talk page, or they should be removed simply because they do not belong there? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments were relevant to the article because a mysterious IP suddenly showed up with no editing history yet a precocious knowledge of Wikipedia policies and started edit warring on that article to restore Mbz1's version as well as attempting to discourage other editors such as George. Assuming it was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet was only common sense, and I still think it could be one.

By the way, Mbz1 and GWH, why should I assume the good faith of an editor that defended posting hate speech from a site like Masada 2000 in Wikipedia? I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech and I don't see why I should have to assume the good faith of somebody who has demonstrated none and has made repeated personal attacks against myself and other Palestinian editors for no apparent reason. Factsontheground (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)