User talk:Uncle.bungle

Franklin/Scandal

It appears that the article has not been moved, but rather that most of it has been spun off into a new article. I don't think there's any hard rule about not having abbreviations on article titles. The spin-off seems fairly reasonable to me, since little of the article was about Franklin himself, and most was about the scandal. Do you feel differently? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, honestly. I just didn't know if it was done correctly so I asked the only admin I know. I'm gonna do my usual short intro to move the TOC back up, and double check links, etc. Thanks again for the advice. --Uncle Bungle 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New anti-semitism

Interesting addition to the article, hopefully it won't just get edited out. See you on the talk page! :-) illWill 17:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIPAC

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

205.188.116.5

Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Maple

Sure. I'm not in Welland right now, but will be starting in mid-August. I'll try and get something in. I've actually seen the maple before, but I doubt any pictures of artistic/informational value were taken. (I keep on meaning to write the remaining Welland Canal articles, but never get around to doing so. I have the data, I just need to sit down with it. Hopefully in mid-August as well.) --Qviri (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Anti-Zionism

It may very well need a clean up but that clearly is not what you are doing, you have rewriten the entire article to be more in line with a particular pov. Reversion was the appropriate action.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If others would like to comment then they should go for it, none of my actions prevented them from doing so. I was asked to look at the article and that is exactly what I did, what I saw was helpful and productive edits mixed in with an inappropriate amount of pov and conjecture. I will stick to my argument that reversion in such a situation is appropriate. I can understand if it is difficult to see your work rmeoved in such a manner, but it did not fit in with wikipedia policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ask jolene

I don't know anything about the site, I was only writing it as a peripheral matter to another article, please stop wikistalking me as it is beginning to become tiresome. I really do not want to go through dispute resolution and AN/I as I would hope you would be mature enough to not follow me around out of revenge for some percieved spite you think I inflicted upon you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:wikistalking, there have been multiple precedents of users being blocked after following around another user who they disagreed with on an unrelated topic. Although I tend to disagree with you I never thought you could be this petty.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I assure you that you're not being "wikistalked". All the edits I make are with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. If you have any specific contention with an edit I've made, or my conduct, I'm open to discussion. Thank you and best regards. --Uncle Bungle 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suppose anyone will believe that you just happened to come across Gilbert Gottfried and ask jolene by coincidence? I was not planing to make a big deal out of this unless you persisted, but if you insult my intelligence by insisting that you did not come to those articles by looking at my contributions, then I fear I will be left with little choice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not intending to cause annoyance or distress to you or anyone else. My edits have been clearly justified in the summary, relating to specific WP policies. If you feel that my edits are not well-intentioned, then please take whatever action you deem necessary. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand the harassment policy. You can feel that your edits were justified all you want, however it is against wikipedia policy to look through another user's contributions in an effort to find edits that you can revert. It makes it all the worse that it is a user that you have been in several recent conflicts with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that my actions are in any way unjustified and will defend myself against any allegations made. My edits have all be made in good faith, and regardless of my browsing habbits, the intention or result is not harassment, annoyance, or distress. I have not been Wikistalking you, otherwise I would be editing a lot more articles. I will continue to monitor the articles on my watchlist, and edit any others I see fit within the guidelines of wikipedia policy. I do not appriciate these baseless accusations. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, baseless accusation? So you basically admit that you went into my user contribution log and looked for stuff you could revert even if you had never touched either the article or even the wider subject it was in, but you swear that it was not harassment and to suggest it was is "baseless", wow I'm not sure if I should laugh out loud or feel sorry for a little person who was not given the gift of reason or common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your remarks offensive. Please refrain from making any further edits on my talk page with regards to this matter. I have stated my position, and intentions. If you feel I am in error, I kindly ask that you pursue other avenues. Thank you for your kind co-operation in this matter. Regards. --Uncle Bungle 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to accuse me of levying baseless accusations against you on my talk page, I continued to explain why that did not make any sense on your talk page. If you would stop then I would as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Mckinney

Hello Uncle Bugle, I am letting you know that you are in danger of violating the 3RR policy, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can be blocked from editing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, thank you for your concern. Please see Talk:Cynthia_McKinney. Just to let you know that reverting poorly sources controversial material is an exception to the 3RR policy. Again, thank you. --Uncle Bungle 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Uncle Bugle, I'm just letting you know that gaming the system is a blockable offence, you reverted the 4th time just a matter of minutes after the 24 hours of the 3RR expired, I would advise you to revert yourself to prevent a possible temporary block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gaming the system, the timing was co-incidental. The statement is potentially libelous and I would have reverted it sooner if I were online sooner. --Uncle Bungle 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Start

Look I think we got off to a rough start, I generally pride myself with being able to have a good relationship with editors of differing viewpoints as long as they are reasonable. You seem to be reasonable so lets just both accept that we acted disrespectful and unreasonable towards one another and be polite to each from now on. Deal?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go digging for all the evidence, you know your talk history. If these were official proceedings, the situation would be different.

I am not the first person you've attacked personally User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg/Archive_7#Civility (here). You've been warned several times in the past about the 3RR, and once officially blocked for it. You skirt the 3RR, and then warn me about the same. You reverted my edits to anti-Zionism, an article I've worked on in the past, and refused to engage in discussion (which is all I really wanted). You fought me bitterly for days over a simple fact tag on Zionist political violence, and called my argument laughable.

I sincerely think you have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, but you truly need to learn to work better with others. This last week has been extremely trying for me, and has really sucked the joy out of Wikipedia.

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, with the exception of the article allready on my watch list (which I have a long standing interest in), I am going to deliberately avoid articles which you are also editing. Should I witness any of the above behaviour in the future, I'll have no choice but to report it, as you've been repeatedly warned. Thank you and regards. --Uncle Bungle 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me this last week of interaction with you has been some of my least enjoyable time on wikipedia, I did not mention this on the last message because I was trying to be polite, you however showed no such restraint, I believe that what prompted you to send that ugly reply is the same thing that prompted you to begin a campaign of wikistalking. You have no idea of the context of those old disputes that you so happily pointed to as evidence that you were in the right. I would be happy to never come into contact with you again, but I thought such a wish was unlikely so I at least thought I would try to admit my own mistakes and attempt to call a truce. Your reply leads me to suggest that you look at your own advice that "you truly need to learn to work better with others". I hope that you (as I know I will do) will truly avoid conflict with me in the future, but if I feel I am being wikistalked again, I feel I will be left with little option other than to report you just as you would report me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

believe that what prompted you please do not presume to know what prompts me to do anything. My reply was ugly, yes, and I thought hard before saving it, but the words that I wrote needed to be written. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. --Uncle Bungle 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think you "needed" to write such a thing after I reached my hand out in friendship makes what I wrote all the more applicable. It also leads me to believe that you are either unable to understand or simply do not care about your own wrongs this past week[[1]] - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the edit histories speak for themselves. --Uncle Bungle 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways this is not going anywhere so please consider this conversation over and do not write any more messages on my talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the conversation over ages ago, and wrote my last reply only here, as a followup for anyone who reads my talk page history in the future. I asked you in the past to not post on my page any more regarding Ask Jolene, and you disregarded my request. You came out of nowhere, would not discuss my edits, insulted me, and became offended when I called you out on it. Agreed, this is over. --Uncle Bungle 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of Mordechai Vanunu

Just a friendly note: You're not going to let them bamboozle/beat you down, are you? This business about categories needing to be ... what was it, both verifiable and "truthy"? I forget, but anyhow, these jokers are just making up the rules as they go along, as usual. I can't believe they're kicking up this much of a fuss over the mere categorization of a controversial figure. Don't think it's a case of rampant Zionism here, maybe? Nah. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To you and I it is obvious whistle blowing, but the rules for categorization are clear, and we're bound by them. It's not a total defeat, however see here. With regards to "rampant Zionism", be careful with statements like that because it get you into trouble. I'll still get a link to Whistleblower in the lead, which is better than a cat at the bottom of the page, IMO. --Uncle Bungle 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Political Violence

Do NOT start an edit war. --Eiyuu Kou 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight before tossing wild accusations. --Uncle Bungle 22:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your solution to the edit warring over on Allegations of Apartheid. Brilliant solution it seems like everyone could live with. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability/Relevance

Relevance is certainly an issue in Wikipedia articles; people often complain about removal of "properly sourced material", but that's pretty silly, as "properly sourced" is just one hurdle material must overcome to be included in a Wikipedia article. There's no point in discussing pottery in an article on penguins. Another issue, which you allude to, is the quality of the sources; different sources, even if reliable, have different degrees of reliability. Thus, for example, a newspaper might have a certain degree of reliability, but an academic writing in their field of expertise on the same subject would have more reliability. Another issue relating to quality of sources is whether or not someone is writing in their field of expertise; thus a chemistry professor might be a reliable source when it comes to chemistry, but not a reliable source when it comes to religion or history. In addition, presentation can matter; something stated as fact requires stronger sourcing that something stated as opinion. A variation on this is the "proponents say X, opponents say Y" section of an article; in that case, one might have somewhat looser requirements for inclusion, since the article is only documenting what different sides of an issue or debate say, rather than trying to state that one side or another is correct. In the latter case, we would still have to have reliable sources, though; we can't include every argument found on every blog or personal website.

Another issue that often arises with quotations is the issue of original research; people seem to like to pick various quotations from an individual, and put them in their article, usually with the intent of finding the most "damning" ones. This, of course, is original research; who is to say that these particular quotations are significant? In this case one needs to find reliable secondary sources that indicate that these quotations are significant.

It's hard to say which specific guidelines or policies apply to a specific situation without seeing specific examples; can you provide some? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the "Apartheid" articles is that the term itself is used as little more than a loose epithet; so, the question arises, what expertise does one really need to hurl an epithet? For example, on Allegations of Israeli apartheid I've argued that the real experts are Adam&Moodley and Pogrund; the former are academics whose field of expertise is the precise subject, the latter was an anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, and an "anti-occupation" activist in Israel. Yet I've been consistently shouted down by those who insist that if the Canadian Union of Public Employees says something on the topic, based on who knows what voting procedure, then it's significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Natan-Zada

In response to your post on my talk page, to Talk about West Bank and Palestinians is to accept only one Point of View, according to which the land west of Jordan, and East of a pre-67 demarcation line belongs to the Arab people who live on it, while the Jews living there are settlers who invaded the land to try to steal it from the Palestinians. While it is a very popular point of view, and certainly one that the US government and current Israeli government is promoting, is is not the only point of view, and wikipedia cannot pick and choose POV's to hold by.

Eden Natan-Zada

In response to your post on my talk page, to Talk about West Bank and Palestinians is to accept only one Point of View, according to which the land west of Jordan, and East of a pre-67 demarcation line belongs to the Arab people who live on it, while the Jews living there are settlers who invaded the land to try to steal it from the Palestinians. While it is a very popular point of view, and certainly one that the US government and current Israeli government is promoting, is is not the only point of view, and wikipedia cannot pick and choose POV's to hold by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom777 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Many of these pages are not satisfactory, but editing them is not helped by being dragged, sometimes with malicious intent to draw one into a revert-battle, into a tedious bunfight in which the 'adversary' thinks he has a unilateral hold on the truth irrespective of what the written record says. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am flattered that you choose to follow me

While you are having fun stalking me please note some major mistakes. Several times statements were treated as uncited when the source was present. Also, please note that my change on Developed country was a revert--I added that section a while ago and it was noted originally that Pakistan would be removed from the list on June 2008. Somewhere during editing, someone changed it (a similar thing happened to the Greece footnote). However, please refrain from rude comments like those when you clearly do not know the whole story. Even so, very quick and simple research (i.e. one try at Google) can be done on your part before you revert, add a needless fact tag, or make a rude comment. And by the way, if you looked at my edit carefully, it was the Jewish exodus from Arab lands that I removed along with other ones, some of which were intertwined with the greater picture of the joint Arab invasion of the Jewish state (1948 Arab-Israeli War), which I kept. This is really simple stuff. Please think before making another rude and unnecessary comment. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for resizing the image - I'd saved without preview and was about to do it myself! Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

Hi, I added the tortilla lithograph to another article that had no previous illustration and where it appears to be very encyclopedic. Would you like to review nixtamalization? Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC, again

Regarding the George Washington map, the file I worked from is very high resolution but it isn't taken directly from the original--it's taken from a reproduction the Massachusetts Historical Society made in the late 1920s, probably a photolithograph. The reproduction duplicated 180 years of decomposition and was printed on a paper with a distinct vertical shape to the grain. Also, the map wasn't lying perfectly flat when they reproduced it. So instead of correcting individual lines (as we would with a document laid on a scanner bed), there are whole areas of shading that connect logically to those fold lines. Running through those shaded areas we have map lines and text. So in order to get in and do as you suggest, it would be necessary to go up to 800% resolution and retrace the outlines of a very large number of pen strokes--not just where the fold lines themselves intersected, but in all the related areas where the light fell differently. And as you can probably imagine, that's very slow work. I went in and did work like that for this restoration and this one, but those were digitized from the original documents rather than from a reproduction and the paper in both of those cases had a randomized grain. In this instance you'd also have to line up the vertical striping. I don't think there's a way to avoid that dilemma because the original ink varies so much in tone: adjusting the contrast enough to diminish the striping also renders some of the text illegible. You're welcome to a copy of the .tif if you'd like to play with it, though. I found this an interesting challenge. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova, my ignorance on the technical details is exactly why I asked first. Excellent job, by the way, looks great. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Larry Franklin (musician)

I have nominated Larry Franklin (musician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Franklin (musician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links

[2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]