User talk:-Ril-
- Comments about my signature go here
I have split my talk page into 3 sections. Please respect the sections as I will ignore and delete anything not respecting them. Thanks, ~~~~
This page, nor any of the subsections, is not to be used for the preservation of articles, or talk pages, about to be deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD.
- PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS PAGE, USE THE LINKS ABOVE
- unless you are blocking me, in which case it is the only page on which I can respond
Blocked
I'm sorry to do this but I've blocked you for 24 hours for vandalism, violation of WP:POINT and edit warring. This is due to your edits in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. violet/riga (t) 11:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
How is that vandalism? Those images are entirely suited to the Wikiproject. One must be aware of what it is that the project is discussing, just referring to "indecency" abstractly is too vague, illustrative examples are required.
The project is discussing "indecency" and those are images some would consider "indecent". They exist in Wikipedia, and are already used elsewhere, so I fail to see how adding them constitutes vandalism. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
If anyone is reading this, and wondering what is being referred to, see this version.
The images in question are:
_-_Return_of_Spring_(1886).jpg?lang=en)
Oh, on a related issue, how is this edit followed immediately by this edit (note the edit summary) not a violation of WP:POINT ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- It is primarily a WP:POINT, but I would classify it as vandalism, yes. The images are obviously not needed there and you are just trying to disrupt the project. Just wait until the VfD is over. As for Noitall, that really couldn't be called "disruption". violet/riga (t) 12:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Why are they "obviously" not needed. I feel that they "obviously" are. But that is a content dispute, not vandalism. Regarding someone else's opinion over content disputes as "vandalism" is explicitely considered a personal attack (according to WP:NPA). This simply does not qualify as vandalism under any of Wikipedia's vandalism policies. I would like to see you produce the policy that allows you to block me for adding such images to location where they are in context. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I call "Childish vandalism", "Attention-seeking vandalism" and "Image vandalism". I also call WP:POINT, as explained above. violet/riga (t) 12:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear -Ril-,
I have reviewed your edits [1] [2] [3] where you have added inlined, sexually charged images to the "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I find these edits to be in bad faith, and consider them to be vandalism indistinguishable from a type we see all too often. While the images may be relevant to the subject, the captions you used, the fact that they were inlined rather than linked, the fact that you pursued a sterile edit war to be sure that they remained on the page, and your lack of other participation in the page all speak to the fact that this was a mere act of vandalism rather than an attempt at reasoned discussion.
Based on this vandalism, and your substantial prior history of problems with the community 1, 2, [3], I am making your block indefinite pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding now underway and pending any further discussion by the community, who may ban users at its discretion.
- You have absolutely no authority to do so, and especially not considering your prior involvement in this matter. This appears corrupt in the extreme. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I also note that you have inlined the images here. I have de-inlined the images in accordance with the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, and I am protecting your talk page so that you may not add them again. If you have any comments you wish to add to this matter, you may e-mail them to me and I will add them here promptly.
For further community discussion of this matter, see /ban.
Uncle Ed's opinion
I'm not sure why you asked my opinion, as I am not in charge on anything. I'm not a VestedContributor. But I think you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
Your point might be a good one, but you're making it in the wrong way. If you want to debate the inclusion of porn-style images in what is intended to be a general-purpose encyclopedia, you are welcome to do so, but shoving those images under everyone's nose in the course of the debate is what got you blocked. I'd have blocked you myself, if UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) hadn't beat me to it.
What you're doing is like someone saying, "You idiot, can't you see I'm not attacking you?" (which of course is a violation of WP:NPA)
Ril, or Lir (if I don't miss my guess), if you have a constructive purpose in mind, you know how to bring it up. You don't have to get yourself banned in the process. But you do have to admit that Jimbo and the committees he appointed have the right to enforce rules of civility on the servers which the Wikimedia board controls. If you don't like it, make a fork; maybe user:Wikinerd will help you. But while you're here, you have to follow the rules. Uncle Ed 00:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not Lir. Its amazing how many people don't have the skill to look beyond a simple superficial connection and actually pay attention to the details. Try learning higher criticism and lower criticism and once you have gained those skills, it should be totally obvious that I am not Lir. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reminder
I would like to remind you that as per the arbitration committee decision at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril- you are required to change your signature to something that can be clearly distinguised as you and to stop using ~~~~ as your signature. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Pursuit
Hi,-Ril-.
I understand what you say. I wrote my opinion in "discussions" not in "articles". You know Linguistics and History. Ι don't want to bicker with you. Your comments (if well-disposed) are weightly for me. Please, don't "pursue" me.
Friendly,--IonnKorr 21:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg/Employment
I have no idea what he does, other than that he said he works in management; for all I know, he could manage a shoe store.
I had noticed long ago, after I looked at his edit history to see what could be going on with him that he was always quick to revert, often without making any effort at understanging the change he was undoing, that he often spends over 8 hours a day making around 15 edits an hour, for days in a row, week after week. This suggested to me that he either didn't work or that his job included editing Wikipedia.
Add to this that he is an unrepentent and aggressive Israel-POV pusher, and that some of the things he tries to do along this line show a level of savviness that probably very few amateurs would have, and it raised questions with me.
Wikipedia is something like an effort to put up a bunch of free-use, blank billboards along interstate highways, with the notion that artists and poets and philosophers will fill them up with beautiful things. And, obviously, what would really happen is that liquor and perfume and gambling companies would take them over, and expend some effort to preventing anyone else from disturbing their prefered content. Wikipedia, I think I saw, is now in the top ten most visited internet sites; any organization with public relations concerns that doesn't see Wikipedia's potential for both good and bad should fire its management.
There are a lot of organizations that actively promote pro-Israeli positions, and many of them are pretty well financed: AIPAC, JINSA, and two different JCPA's are some of the more important ones. Eventually, one or more of these will take an interest in Wikipedia, if they haven't already.
It is very likely that Jayjg is completely independent in his POV-pushing on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of aspects to his participation on Wikipedia that would be very consistent with him being a paid Israel-promoter here. And SlimVirgin's over-played protest against even asking him about it strikes me as being either suspect or just plain nutty.
Marsden 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- You misunderstand wikipedia. I once thought it was a positive thing, a repository for knowledge; but what it turns out to be is a trick, a scam to present a one sided view of the facts, and have the world believe them. I think it more likely that Jayjg is a retired non-secular zionist, than working for a well financed pro-israeli pov-pushing organisation, but that is certainly a possibility. --Victim of signature fascism 14:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, by his own account he works "in management." At this point, given the volume and timing of his edits (to say nothing of his participation in ArbCom), given all the rancor over asking him about it, and given the careful crafting and screening of the question he eventually answered, I take it for granted that he does work for some sort of Hasbara outlet. Maybe he doesn't, but I think that for the purpose of trying to understand why he does what he does and to predict his reactions to different things, assuming that he does makes for more consistent understanding.
- What I'm still up in the air about is, did Jimbo Wales get some sort of compensation for appointing him to ArbCom? Wales is apparently an adherent of Ayn Rand's "philosophy," which is all about "selfishness" and opposed to "community responsibility." So why start Wikipedia? One way to profit from it would be to make use of all of the costless volunteer effort to create something that people use, and then essentially to sell control of the content to various interested parties.
SIIEG
Hi -Ril-, thanks for the invitation, but I'm unsure of the purpose of that group and I find the name unfortunate. But I appreciate your asking me anyway. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocked
Hi -Ril- —
Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert an article to your preferred version more than three times in 24 hours (see WP:3RR). You reverted four times today at Canaan.
Siege, err, SIIEG rather
I shall not be joining, the people there are full of hate and wish to propogate that agenda. I can't shower you with their quotes if you want proof. As a group it has gone far beyond having a NPOV purpose. Thanks though. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Proposed merge
I propose merging Islamist terrorism into Militant Islam , Dar al-Harb into Dar al Islam & Offensive jihad into Combative jihad, please comment if you have thoughts on the matter . Thanks . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard
I probably won't be an active participant, but I will watchlist the page. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ril. Thanks for letting me know about that. However, I actually have quite a strong objection to this project as currently constituted. This lies in its inclusion of the Palestine conflict as an "Islam and Judaism controversy". It's nothing of the sort: it's an ethnic conflict over territory. The original Zionists weren't particularly motivated by Judaism and early Palestinian resistance to Zionism was simply a matter of self-protection, even if at time, as with Izz al-Din al-Qassam, it took on an Islamic colouring. It is still essentially a territorial conflict even though many of the most extreme elements on both sides are nowadays rather more religiously motivated. There are plenty of Christians (and atheists for that matter) involved as well. So while I understand your motivation, partcularly given that the same editors are often interested in controversies regarding Islam and those regarding Israel and Palestine, I think it's quite a problematic concept. Palmiro | Talk 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- The debates tend to involve exactly the same editors, and in the larger world, exactly the same people, who claim religious motivation for what they do. So, personally, I see it as extremely strongly connected. Many people don't think transvestitism or transexual-ism has anything to do with people who are LGB (e.g. statistically transvestites are mostly heterosexual), but its still the LGBT noticeboard. --Victim of signature fascism 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, some of the people involved claim religious motivation, but 1. it isn't a religious problem; prior to the development of Zionism, there was no issue of the sort in Palestine despite the presence of both Muslim and (albeit small) Jewish communities; 2. it isn't a question between Islam and Judaism but between Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, and Israelis and/or Zionists; 3. most of the people involved cite national rather than religious motivations in the first place. How many controversies are there that are really Islamo-Judaic? A few purely religious questions and the status of the Temple Mount. But there are a whole host of controversies about aspects of Islam (where defenders of Israel, many of them Christian, frequently engage against Islam) that have little or nothing to do with Judaism, and get a lot of hot editing on this site.
- If you want to maintain this project to cover these issues, I would suggest renaming it to "Middle Eastern and Islamic topics noticeboard" or somethig similar. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- The debates tend to involve exactly the same editors, and in the larger world, exactly the same people, who claim religious motivation for what they do. So, personally, I see it as extremely strongly connected. Many people don't think transvestitism or transexual-ism has anything to do with people who are LGB (e.g. statistically transvestites are mostly heterosexual), but its still the LGBT noticeboard. --Victim of signature fascism 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ril, thanks for the invitation. I already left a message there. Unfortunately it had to be about [4]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- That is actually the original title of the article. Since Islamist Terrorism (or whatever it is) is discussed under the title "Terrorism", and since the episodes discussed in the article are clearly terrorist (e.g. deliberately bombing civilians), I don't see how "Zionist political violence" is anything except a POV attempt to sweep it under the carpet. --Victim of signature fascism 01:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ril, thanks for the invitation. I already left a message there. Unfortunately it had to be about [4]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Talrias' RfC
He filed it himself. I think such situations forego the need for two users to certify it. Pointless I know, but I think that's the way that sort if thing is normally done. --GraemeL (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've already adjusted the detail in question. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)