The Biography Barnstar
		To Haberstr — In recognition of your excellent and tireless efforts in improving the biography of Stephen Crane. María gets one too! —Yamara ✉ 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respect the fact that I am currently and heavily editing this article. Although it is true that the article itself has not been "touched" in a bit, I have been working diligently on it elsewhere; several of your edits were not only against what I have planned and what I believe to be scholarly correct, but they also went against MOS formatting. For example, headers are not all in caps as you changed it, and you seem to have confused the timeline in the lead. I would appreciate it if you held off making large edits such as did without first discussing it. María (habla conmigo) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Haberstr. I really wish you would voice your concerns at the talk page before making major changes to the Crane article. I reverted your edits for several reasons: first, the lead is at a more than acceptable length per WP:LEAD. The introductory section is meant to be an overview of the entire article, which it currently is. You entirely removed information from several sections of the article, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It could stand to be even longer, in fact, but until I receive word from the current ongoing peer review that says otherwise, I'm willing to leave it as it is for now. Second, you have in the past removed my french spacing and I have since reinstated it for a reason: it is in no way incorrect. Per the MOS: "There are no guidelines on whether to use one space or two (French spacing) after the end of a sentence, but the issue is not important, because the difference is visible only in edit boxes; i.e. it is ignored by browsers when displaying the article." I would appreciate it if you did not remove the two spaces after full stops. Thirdly, while I am not entirely wedded to the current Red Badge quote used, from all accounts that I could find, I chose to include one of the most well known passages from the book. You said in your edit summary that "HG Wells selected this passage"; where, exactly?

I don't mean to own this article, but I truly want it to retain a certain level of quality that it has achieved. As you can see on the talk page, it has recently been promoted to Good Article status. However, I aim to bring it to Featured Article status within a month's time, during which it will improve even further. You seem knowledgeable about Crane, which I respect, so if you can suggest how to improve the article (in line with the MOS) I will be more than happy to work with you, and not against you. We both seemingly have a common goal, but trust that I have experience in writing quality Wikipedia articles and I know what I'm doing. :) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wells quote is from the 'obituary' he wrote shortly after Crane's death. You can find it if you go back about a year and look at an old Crane wikipedia article. The following accusation is false: I have not "entirely removed information from several sections of the article." I changed the introduction, into something resembling the typical size and focus of nearly all wikipedia literary intros (see Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, and so on). None are the size of yours, and the one I found that was similar in size, on Steinbeck, focused on the things of great importance and the legacy, and not on minor autobiographical matters. In any case, since you apparently 'own' the article, it will be extraordinary that the Stephen Crane entry basically doesn't recognize his greatness as a short-story writer, his 'painterly' way with prose, and, perhaps his most salient feature, what H.G. Wells said about him, that he was the harbinger of a new world in writing. Another thing you excised from the text.

Every article is different; F. Scott Fitzgerald is only B-class, Ernest Hemingway barely is a GA, and James Joyce was written a few years ago when the MOS looked quite different than it does now. For high quality literary bios with extensive leads, see Mary Shelley, Emily Dickinson and Edgar Allan Poe. I think most of your points have been incorporated into the text to some degree; for example, similarities between Crane's style and Impressionism paintings is mentioned in "literary genre". What else do you think should be mentioned about Crane's short stories? As for the Wells quote, are you referring to the one from Stephen Crane from an English Standpoint? If so, part of the original quote that was in the article is currently in the "Legacy" section. It reads: "His work was described by Wells as 'the first expression of the opening mind of a new period, or, at least, the early emphatic phase of a new initiative.'" I want to make it clear that I am willing to work with you... María (habla conmigo) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wells, in the article you cite, quotes from the Red Badge and that's what I used to replace your quote. That you don't see the weakness, the trivia, in your introduction is worrisome. (Perhaps an indication you've assigned yourself the 'author' role and feel you have the 'right' to reject any edit, and throw out any substance, for your own preferences.) Others brief intros (they are the vast majority, because they align with common sense about what an intro should do and be): Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, William Faulkner, Saul Bellow, and Norman Mailer. My Crane intro was much longer than the preceding, it was roughly 250 words, so I was attempting to compromise with your 400 word intro. But as I said in the main Crane talk page, perhaps others will more objectively look at the two intros and gently tell us which is better.Haberstr (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I ask that you read WP:LEAD. All of the articles you have listed are of a far lower quality than Crane's article currently is. Instead of comparing lead sections, we should base our edits on Wikipedia guidelines. Because the article's length is currently at 55kb, three or four lengthy paragraphs in the lead is more than acceptable. If it will put you at ease, however, I will explicitly ask those who comment at the peer review of their opinions. Please also assume good faith; I am not rejecting any edit for my own preferences. I truly have this article's best interest at heart as I am hoping that you do. María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The MOS offers guidance on number of paragraphs, but it is your word count that seems too long, 397 words. Mine was 266 words. Restricting ourselves to GA or former featured articles on modern US/British literary figures, here are the word counts I found after looking at (I think) all the very famous British/American authors: Emily Dickinson (319), Nathaniel Hawthorne (270), Ernest Hemingway (113), Henry James (275), James Joyce (179), Edgar Allan Poe (352), George Bernard Shaw (304), J.D. Salinger (284), Mary Shelley (506), Walt Whitman (250). My revision does not violate any rules and is in the middle of good article norms. By the way, the "lengthy paragraphs" quote you believe is in WP:LEAD is not there. They do say this: Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole.

My concern is, why so rapidly revise a perfectly acceptable, normal edit? And, why remove H.G. Wells commentary on Crane's writing style, which removes any reference to Crane's use of color imagery? By the way, before you came in and changed it, there was one space between sentences (see October, 2007) before you began your major expansion. As the Manual of Style states, you're not supposed to come in and make wholesale changes between perfectly acceptable alternatives. I was standardizing spacing to the way it was before you came. Finally, I don't want this dispute to get in the way of saying, again, thank you for the expansion and all your efforts toward improving the Stephen Crane entry. You've done a good job, in my humble opinion, particularly in the main, biographical section of the article. I would like to improve both the final literary evaluation section(s) and the introduction, but not if it involves a 'war'. Haberstr (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe Avi Shlaim The Guardian 7 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine/print?2 Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas. ... The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

^5 on "suicide bombings" change; but "executed" brings to mind decapitation. PinkWorld (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)PinkReply[reply]

I changed "executed" to 'launched'. Anyway, this is a large project. The Hamas article is currently in a complete mess. I've barely gotten into the intro section. Lots of unsourced and POV stuff. Thanks for link to the article, it's got some good historical background.Haberstr (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly feel a bit cowed by jayjg. He sounds very POV, but he is a senior WIki editor? And I feel that he and others insist on pushing the notoriety for suicide bombings thing. In any case, I have found some mroe interesting stuff. I will put it into txt files and toss it online. Most of it deals with general Israel-Palestine issues - what little of it deals specifically with Hamas I already posted in the talk page there. Be back with links when everything's posted. PinkWorld (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)PinkReply[reply]

What specifically has jayjg edited or said that has cowed you? He doesn't seem particularly active in the Hamas edits, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.Haberstr (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. The files might be rough, but I hope to continue working on them. http://www.geocities.com/pinkownworld/TemporaryArchives/Palestine PinkWorld (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)PinkReply[reply]

Thank you for your work. I wish that I saw you more in the talk pages (look who's talking: I have not even been around Wikipedia lately). I went GoogleBooking today for Hamas quips and got the following:
Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad
http://books.google.com/books?id=CG-AjU3rraQC&printsec=frontcover
By Matthew Levitt, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Dennis Ross
Contributor Dennis Ross
Edition: illustrated
Published by Yale University Press, 2007
ISBN 0300122586, 9780300122589
324 pages

Page 119
The al-Tadhoman Charitable Society and the Nablus charity committee highlight Hamas' ability to institutionalize grassroots dependency on the organization's institutions. ... [These two institutions] run profitable businesses. The charities provide jobs through businesses which they own or in which they are partners, including the Yasfa dairy company owned by the Nablus charity committee and the Nablus Mall in which al-Tadhoman is a part owner. They also run several social service branches, including a medical clinic at the al-Rawdahmosque, the al-Tadhoman school, an orphanage, a kindergarten, the al-Ansar sports club, and a club for adults that functions as a community center and a home for the elderly.31

... For example, a worker who received his salary from the Yasfa dairy company (which belongs to the charitee committee) does his shopping at the Nablus Mall (which belongs to the dawa). His children go to the kindergarten or school belonging to the Islamic Riyadh al-Salihin ["kindergartens of the righteous"] network and when he needs a doctor he is treated free of charge at al-Tadhoman clinic, which was also built by the charity committee.32

Other Hamas charities own similar businesses and operate similarly insular Hamas support systems. The Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron, for example, not only runs orphanages, schools, Koran memorization centers, and other typical dawa services, it also owns real estate in Hebron and runs a dairy farm. Hamas also owns a honey bee farm in Tulkarm, a company that operates heavy equipment used in quarries in Jenin, as well as other West Bank businesses, including textile workshops, bakeries, and a discount supermarket.33

Page 120
...of June 2002 four thousand people in the Nablus area were reportedly receiving 100 Jordanian dinars a month from Hamas charities.34

Page 231
To be sure, Palestinians face dire social welfare needs unaddressed by the infamously corrupt Palestinian Authority, creating an opportunity Hamas eagerly exploits. In January 2006 Hamas rode a wave of frustration over these and other inequities to victory at the polls.

One country: a bold proposal to end the Israeli-Palestinian impasse
http://books.google.com/books?id=tIEcSEUmJ0wC&printsec=frontcover
By Ali Abunimah
Edition: illustrated, annotated
Published by Macmillan, 2006
ISBN 0805080341, 9780805080346
227 pages

Page 50
During the Oslo years, a Hamas bombing was far more likely to bring the region's leaders rushing to Sharm al-Sheikh Page 51 for a summit than the countless protests, strikes, and sit-ins against the growing settlements or in support of thousands of prisoners.

Page 165
Even among Hamas supporters, 77 percent said they wanted a negotiated settlement.7 After the election, Hamas leaders stated their readiness to end the armed struggle if Israel withdrew to the 1967 lines. Khaled Meshal, the senior leader based in Damascus Meshal, the senior leader based in Damascus (who narrowly escaped an Israeli assassination bid in Amman in 1997), wrote in the Guardian and the Los Times, "Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion 'the people of the book' who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political."8 In what was a major step in terms of Hamas's
Page 166
historic position, Meshal told the BBC that his organization would talk to Israel and come to terms, if it "recognises the rights of the Palestinians" and acts "to show and confirm its willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Mousa Abu Marzook, another member of the organization's leadership, hinted that recognition of Israel was a political question, not one of immutable theology: "Where are the borders of the Israel we are supposed to recognize?" he challenged. "Are the settlements included in the borders? Is the return of refugees acceptable to Israel? Until these questions are answered, is not possible to propose" recognition.10 In a Washington Post op-ed, Abu Marzook also addressed Israelis directly: "We ask them to reflect on the peace that our peoples once enjoyed and the protection that Muslims gave the Jewish community worldwide. We will exert good-faith efforts to remove the bitterness that Israel's occupation has succeeded in creating, alienating a generation of Palestinians. We call on them not to condemn posterity to endless bloodshed and a conflict in which dominance is illusory. There must come a day when we will live together, side by side once again."

The Hebrew University's Avraham Sela and Tel Aviv University's Shaul Mishal, the two leading Israeli experts on Hamas, observed in their 2000 study, The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence, that the organization is not a prisoner of its own dogmas" and "does not shut itself behind absolute truths, nor does it subordinate its activities and decisions to the...
Pages 167-168 restricted today

Page 169
The Hamas leadership clearly recognizes this and has shown little inclination to implement far-reaching social changes along religious lines."17 Taking into account the Palestinian population within Israel and the diaspora, where people are generally more secular than in some parts of the occupied territories, no party would be able to impose a single ideology on everyone and would rapidly lose credibility if it did.

Page 186
Groups like Hamas, which to Palestinians are part of a legitimate national resistance, are viewed by Washington as enemies.

Documents: working papers, 2006 ordinary session (second part), 10 - 13 April 2006, Vol. 3: Documents 10743, 10824-10902
http://books.google.com/books?id=R2REc2zGJjcC&printsec=frontcover
By Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly
Published by Council of Europe, 2006
ISBN 9287160066, 9789287160065
378 pages

Page 282
1. ... The overwhelming victory of Hamas, which obtained the ability to form a majority government on its own...

2. However taken aback, all observers including the Parliamentary Assembly delegation have been unanimous in their assessment that the elections were fair and free; they ran smoothly and the Palestinian people have expressed their preferences in a democratic and peaceful way.2 The impressive turnout of 77% of the total number of registered voters removes any possible doubts concerning the legitimacy of the voters' choice.

4. ... Its action is divided into two main areas of operation: social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions on the one hand, and militant operations carried out by Hamas' underground Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades on the other.

5. Hamas has conducted many attacks on Israel including large-scale suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets. The most deadly was the bombing of a Netanya Hotel in March 2002, in which 30 people were killed and over 140 were wounded. Overall, from November 2000 (beginning of the second intifada) to April 2004, as many as 377 Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed and 2 076 wounded in 425 attacks claimed by Hamas.1

8. At the same time, since its formation, Hamas has conducted numerous social actions. Its popularity certainly stems in part from its welfare and social actions. Its popularity certainly stems in part from its welfare and social services to Palestinians, including school and hospital construction. The organisation devotes much of its estimated US$70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programmes, and funding schools, orphanages, mosques, health care clinics, soup kitchens and sports leagues.

9. Hamas is also well regarded by Palestinians for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption particularly in comparison to Fatah.

1 According to the final results, Hamas won 44% of votes which assured 56% of seats (74 out of 132), and Fatah won 42% of the vote and 34% of seats (45).

2 See Document AS/BUR/AH PAL (2006) 2 (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe report on the observation of elections).

1 The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains a comprehensive list of terrorist attacks on its website.

Page 283 11. ... Hamas offered a 10-year truce (hudna), in return for a complete withdrawal by Israel to the borders from 1967, and an establishment of a Palestinian state. Hamas leaders announced that they could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The truce has been observed but with several exceptions including the attack on the bus station in April 2005 where seven people were wounded, and several attacks on Israeli motorists killing in total six people.

12. Hamas boycotted the 1996 parliamentary and 2005 presidential elections but it did participate in the 2005 municipal elections in Gaza and the West Bank winning control over one third of Palestinian municipal districts.

13. The call for the destruction of Israel has been dropped from its electoral manifesto. Similarly, during the election campaign, the organisation toned down the criticism of Israel and only stated that they were prepared to use "armed resistance to end the occupation". ...

14. In an interview for a Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta published on 13 February 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop the armed struggle against Israel if it recognised the 1967 borders and withdrew its forces from occupied territories including the West Bank and eastern part of Jerusalem.However, Mashal continued to refuse to acknowledge the road map adopted by the Quartet (the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and the Russian Federation ) in 2003, claiming that "nobody respects it".

25. The result of the election is regarded by many observers as a major setback for governments attempting to mediate the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some observers, however, say Hamas is following the same pragmatic path towards a relationship with Israel that the PLO and Fatah followed in the 1980s and 1990s. The mere fact of their taking seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council - a body formed in
Page 284
the framework of the Oslo process - can be considered as a de facto recognition of Israel.

Sorry for the length - I just got home from the library and have not save this to a document to upload yet.

Regarding Jayjg, it's not a specific statement of his so much as it is the sheer volume of his postings on the talk page when he wants to support the inclusion of that POV assertion regarding notoriety and suicide bombings. I think that the ref section might still be taken over by his list. Don't we have WikiSource or something for things like that? I still don't know how to use various aspects of WIkipedia, but I think that there is some place where people can place large swaths of refernce material. PinkWorld (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)PinkReply[reply]

Hi Haberstr. The article, which was mostly written by me with the collaboration of a number of editors, was stable for quite a while before you came along (I'm assuming good faith, that it has nothing to do with our recent disagreement at the Hamas article) and made wholesale and drastic changes to the article with barely any discussion on the talkpage. The fact that you made the drastic changes in the article with a number of quick successive edits is obviously irrelevant. Please see WP:BRD, stop edit-warring, and discuss at the article's talkpage the specific changes you would like to make. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you have good faith on the surface, but I'll be straightforward. Are you sure you're the ideal person to be editing Hamas material for a general encyclopedia? You've stated on your talk page that you hate the group with a passion. In contrast to that raw emotion, I just want to have a balanced, diverse perspective, fact and consensus-grounded, encyclopedic-like article on Hamas (on any topic, actually), so people can come to Wikipedia and not get a pure "he was a b-a-a-a-d man" as their basic impression of a Hamas figure. And that's how various Wikipedia entries on Hamas and other 'bad' (from an official US/Israeli perspective) Middle Eastern figures strike me. The Hamas entry itself I have largely repaired; people who want to find bad stuff about Hamas or its leading figures can still find that there. On the other hand, the Hamas perspective on itself, and a diversity of nuanced Middle Eastern and Arab perspectives on the group are also beginning to be seen there. I'm not sure you want to be part of making authentic 'encyclopedia-like' articles about Hamas. That's my impression.

On the specifics of the Rayan article, the changes I've made to this very small article are non-controversial and supported by the factual consensus. For example, whether or not Rayan was warned is not a fact; there is disagrement among RS on the matter. Rayan is not the top Hamas cleric, he is _arguably_ the top Hamas cleric, according to the source you provided. Do Gazans call his mosque "Mosque of the Martyrs"? Find a RS for that, I tried and could not.Haberstr (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate Hamas with a passion and I can't imagine how any civilized person wouldn't. Everything in the article is sourced besides for the names of his kids, which you inserted. The fact that Rayan was warned is supported by multiple reliable sources and a Hamas spokesperson. I would love to go over the article with you and discuss specific changes. So please revert to the previous version so that we can discuss each specific change you would like to make at the article't talk page. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An encyclopedia article should not represent the 'why' of why you "and any civilized person" hate Hamas and its various leaders, but that's what you've created. Very many civilzed people do not hate Hamas; it won the Palestinian elections in 2006, for example. I'm against suicide bombings and Islamic fundamentalism, though I don't hate the latter; I look at Hamas as a more complicated entity, and its leaders as more complicated than those two things. This is a very short article. I'll revert and start changing back to my version. I'm going to assume for now that you don't have a problem with the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On second thought, I'm not going to do a wholesale revert, because the main thing I did was reorganize the first main section so that same items were in the same paragraph. You had mixed in his educational/clerical/professorial story with his military story, incoherently. As much as possible they should be separated, if it doesn't do violence to the basic chronology of his story. For example, you stuck into the middle of his clerical story the contention from the New York Daily News that Rayan "enjoyed" going out on patrols with his militia men. Whatever the validity of that contention, it should be in the second paragraph and not the first. Why don't you just add back in the 'factoid' that he enjoyed going out on patrols with his men? And add in your other 'factoid' that the mosque where he frequently preached was nicknamed "Mosque of Martyrs"? It seems to me it's your job to add your unsourced or single biased source stuff back. But do it in the proper paragraph and notice and respect the improved overall organization.Haberstr (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editors that wrote the Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot articles presumably hated their subject as well, but nevertheless were able to churn out a "neutral" article. Same with Rayan. I hate the person (and all people that don't value human life), but the article is still "neutral" article. The article was vetted by a number of editors before it was on the DYK section of the main page. You're being inconsistent by saying on the one hand that the article represents why I hate the man while saying that the changes you made were minute. In any case, all this is irrelevant. I would like to discuss the changes you wish to make but I cannot with the huge overhaul you made to the article. It would be much easier and would show lots of good faith on your part if you reverted to the previous stable version so that we can discuss piece by piece (at the article's talkpage) the changes you you're proposing. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you apparently think he's the equivalent of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler. Anyway, as I said, the main thing I did was r-order sentences so the article became coherent. Other than that, I made minor changes, mainly pulling back from and qualifying your definitive statements.Haberstr (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brewcrewer is alleging that you are refusing discussion at Nizar Rayan [1]. I have tried to explain to him that he needs to make clear what is problematic in the changes you have made on the talk page. He insists that he has already done so in edit summaries. I feel this is insufficient; however, I would ask you to come to the talk page and make explicit your willingness to discuss so that Brewcrewer will deign to give us an explanation of his wholesale reverts. Thanks for your cooperation. Tiamut^talk 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the very prompt response. May I make a suggestion for the future? Perhaps the next time you want to copy and paste the two versions to compare them side by side, you could use a larger font for your commentary on each paragraph. When people are quickly scanning the page, they can miss your comments and fall for Brewcrewer's line that you did not discuss what was wrong with his version, when in fact you did, in great detail, paragraph by paragraph. I'm not sure if Brewcrewer failed to read your postings closely or is purposefully misrepresenting the situation. However by clearly differentiating between your commentary and the article text, others will be able to read and hear you more clearly. Very good work by the way. Keep your cool. That goes for me too. ;) Tiamut^talk 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I have wasted too many hours discussing nothing with him though. If there is no change in his approach to editing over the next 24 hours, I will have to take this to either WP:AE or WP:ANI. He seems to have stopped wholesale reverting for now, but I wish he would just answer the question about what is wrong with the new additions, rather than constantly asking what is wrong with the way it was (which you have already explained in depth). Anyway, here's hoping things move forward there. Have a good night. Tiamut^talk 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again, and let's continue to be patient (I'm telling myself).Haberstr (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		For making modest steps towards turning the article on Nizar Rayan into something readable and WP:NPOV. You seem to have a knack with biographies. Keep up the good work! Tiamuttalk 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember you can comment over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:History_of_Terrorism if you care about what happens to this template. Interesting comment on your user page "I've started revising the embarrassingly disorganized and unbalanced (against the non-Israeli point of view) Middle East political articles". Good luck with that. You might want to check out the ongoing and re-ocurring 'disputed' vs 'occupied' debate at talk:israel if you haven't already. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did comment there. And it has been interesting being involved in the I/P stuff here. Frustrating too.Haberstr (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi: Apologies in advance for the spam -- I've started a RFC concerning the WP:TERRORIST guideline. The other users I've notified are all contributors to previous discussions, but I thought you might be interested based on our interaction at Talk:History of terrorism. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry for imposing. Best, Ray^Talk 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RFPP is where you go to request protection of a page. If the editor is following you around and harassing you though, you may be better served to take the incident to WP:ANI and request a block/rangeblock of the IP. I am not sure how dynamic the IP is, but it may be hard to nail the individual behind the IP down. I would personally request protection at RFPP and take it to ANI if the harassment continues. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soviet propaganda poster, who is your enemy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you state your opinions on User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie page. Kasaalan (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -->

Dear anonymous user: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -->Haberstr (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have started a discussion at WP:ANI about the disruption at History of terrorism that you may be involved in. Quantpole (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain on the Qutb talk page why you are reverting my edits. I've given my explanation for the edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respond to my question. Why did you feel the need to delete it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone from the Qutb article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is on the page should be a consensual compromise between your point of view and that of the person with whom you have been having a very very long and detailed disagreement with on the talk page. Your rendition of Qutb's point of view makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'" That doesn't seem supported by the facts, but that he would support or would've supported a dictatorship in some contexts seems accurate to me, and perhaps roughly halfway between the two points of view taking up most of the talkpage.Haberstr (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the article section:

"Whether he espoused dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all,.... Qutb argued (at that time) that it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.`[21]" (italics added)

... i.e. the wording clearly does not "makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'" --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revision leads the reader to think that, at that time, Qutb advocated dictatorship as his general preference, rather than as what he something he compared positively to one or more of the options he felt were available at that historic moment in Egypt. Also, wouldn't anyone with a brain state that a just dictatorship is better (okay, and more Islamic) than a tyrannous dictatorship? That's not an important enough 'insight' into Qutb's thinking to warrant placement in a limited or even large encyclopedia space. So, your 'dictatorship' sentence about Qutb seems pointless unless it implies something to you that doesn't seem to be there on its face.Haberstr (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't you making some rather big assumptions about what Qutb believed? Why do you assume that (at this time) he was only calling for a just dictatorship rather than a tyrannical dictatorship?

Here is a quote from the book: Radical Islam : Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, Sivan, Emmanuel, Yale University, 1985

While [Abul Ala] Maudoodi exerted himself to prove that Islam is democratic as evidenced by the institution of shura... Sayyid Qutb was skeptical of that approach already in the early 1950s. In an `open letter` to General [Muhammad] Naguib published two weeks after the July 1952 Revolution, he excoriated the constitution of the ancien regime as a vehicle of moral corruption; no purge was possible, he argued, without a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.` (Source: letter in al-Akhbar, August 8, 1952.)

Do you have any reason to believe that he didn't want a just pious dictatorship to eliminate the remnants of what he saw as the corrupt and incompetent pro-Western constitutional monarchy?

That's not an important enough 'insight' into Qutb's thinking to warrant placement in a limited or even large encyclopedia space.

That's why you deleted it??? it wasn't important and you wanted to conserve space? It's one, maybe two lines long!!! It explains why he wanted a dictatorship - to "purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy" - and what kind he wanted - one "that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.`!!! --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your rendition of what Qutb thinks makes it seem like he wants dictatorship for all times and places rather than, hypothetically, as better than the monarchy in a single country at a single point in its history. Revise accordingly.Haberstr (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? Look at the italicized parts. "Whether he espoused dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all,.... Qutb argued (at that time) that it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.`[21]" (italics added)

How can they indicate "he wants dictatorship for all times and places"????

YOUR speculation ("Whether he espoused dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all,.... ") comes first (why?), when it likely (if unsupported by more than your OR) should not be there at all.Haberstr (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please answer the question. What evidence do you have that the wording you deleted suggests "he wants dictatorship for all times and places"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am answering the question: your structuring into your sentence your own expansive speculation, cited to no one. Can't you see that's a very wide-ranging bit of speculation? Cite it to someone or leave it out. Would you allow this into an article, say, on Abraham Lincoln, without any cite: "Whether he espoused the inherent inferiority negroes or more or less believed them equal to the caucasians, we can only speculate." No, you would not. Have a respected cite for seemingly wild speculation.Haberstr (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what you deleted (or at least not the deletion I was asking about). You deleted it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone from the Qutb article. Why?--BoogaLouie (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is on the page should be a consensual compromise between your point of view and that of the person with whom you have been having a very very long and detailed disagreement with on the talk page. Your rendition of Qutb's point of view makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'" That doesn't seem supported by the facts, but that he would support or would've supported a dictatorship in some contexts seems accurate to me, and perhaps roughly halfway between the two points of view taking up most of the talkpage.Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can repeat yourself but I am not going to stop asking you until you've answered my question. Why did you delete "it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone`" from the Qutb article?

Your rendition of Qutb's point of view makes it seems as if he contends that in all times and contexts he supports instituting "a 'just dictatorship' that would 'grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.'"

No it does not. The wording in the section makes sure of that

"Whether he espoused dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all,.... Qutb argued (at that time) that it was necessary to purge the `moral corruption` of the overthrown monarchy with a `just dictatorship` that would `grant political liberties to the virtuous alone.`[21]" (italics added)

You don't like that wording: your structuring into your sentence your own expansive speculation, cited to no one. Can't you see that's a very wide-ranging bit of speculation? Cite it to someone or leave it out. Would you allow this into an article, say, on Abraham Lincoln, without any cite: "Whether he espoused the inherent inferiority negroes or more or less believed them equal to the caucasians, we can only speculate." No, you would not. Have a respected cite for seemingly wild speculation.

So why didn't you delete the "expansive speculation" instead of factiod on dictatorship with a scholarly source? And where is the "very wide-ranging bit of speculation" anyway? The dictatorship and no-government-at-all espousals are both cited in the article. The point does not end with "we can only speculate." It ends with: "Sayyid Qutb's mature political views always centered on Islam."

What is on the page should be a consensual compromise between your point of view and that of the person with whom you have been having a very very long and detailed disagre. You're deleting information from a scholarly source to help the process of consensual compromise along? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you made a lot of very good edits to Nizar Rayan incorporating some of what Brewcrewer added and discarding the rest. He is reverting to reinstate his version form June 7, 2009, claiming he can do so because no one explained what was wrong with his version. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion? (I know I wouldn't, given past experiences with this article, but I thought I'd let you know anyway). Tiamut^talk 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, its okay if you're busy, since things have died down for the time being. Just wanted you to know what was happening in case you wanted to join in. Hope you are doing well. Tiamut^talk 11:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I'll try to take a look but I'm a little busy in real life these days, so please forgive if there is little I can do. Perhaps dropping a note at WP:IPCOLL or WP:PALESTINE will help to bring in some extra eyes. Happy editing Haberstr. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, a request for informal mediation was made at the Mediation Cabal regarding the history of terrorism article you have edited recently. I have asked at the [Talk:History of terrorism#Informal Mediation|talk page]] of the article whether anyone is interested in participating but I haven't had any responses. If you feel that mediation will help with the article and wish to participate, please let me know. I've been watching the article for a while now, and haven't seen much activity until today (when some potentially sensitive changes were made). If I have at least two people interested in participating in mediation I'll begin the process, otherwise I'll close the case. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm interested, not particularly hopeful but interested.Haberstr (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I'm waiting for Sherzo to respond as to whether or not to participate in the mediation. They seem to be an infrequent editor and may not respond for awhile. If I don't hear anything for a few days I'll close the mediation for lack of interest. -- Atama頭 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:History of terrorism#One month block 2009-12-12 --PBS (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I happen to think that the history of terrorism is a very bad article, and I have made that clear on the talk page (search on "Any kind of periodization"). It is full of editorial OR and POV's. A much better way to write these articles is to approach it as a survey of different authors approaches similar to the approach in the article Insurgency.

After my rewrite of the terror bombing article which from the start had been nothing but OR and a POV minefield. I had intended the rewrite to be a the seed bed for the development in a new direction. But instead paragraphs were added that did nothing but list what the editors who added them thought were examples of terror bombing (using data mining techniques -- trawl the internet to find a line in a book or an article -- to support their positions) which did nothing but recreate the POV list.

Terror bombing now links to a section in Strategic bombing most of the information that was in terror bombing is now in that article and the article contains a list of bombing incidents/campaigns which can be labelled either way see Terror bombing#Strategic bombing events. The article is far from perfect but using a NPOV title helps in the writing of a NPOV articles. Why not develop that article? -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accuracy matters. No one considers the bombing of Guernica a 'strategic bombing event'. That should've been the end of trying to meld 'terror' into 'strategic'. "Alleged terrorist bombings" is the best we can do to create NPOV. It simply disorganizes the encyclopedia, it doesn't solve anything or 'reduce POV' to falsely classify alleged terrorist bombings as, instead, (apparently) alleged strategic bombing. I guess unwittingly you're just redefining 'strategic' as 'terrorist'. Actually, I'm not sure what you're doing, but logically, based on content, the title of 'strategic bombing' should be changed to 'strategic and alleged terror bombing' or something unwieldly like that. And that should tell you that two distinct topics (one 'nice' and the other 'controversial') are accidentally on purpose in the same encyclopedia item. Oh well, I think I understand and appreciate your motives, but it just won't work.Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I definitely don't assert any sort of ownership over the present history of terrorism article. But, see section 2 [2], where I've condensed things and deleted sub-sub-section titles with groups' names on them. Condensation is the way to go, but it is a time-consuming process, and particularly hard and unrewarding when every such condensation is resisted ferociously by lovers of the old "history of terrorist groups" article.Haberstr (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Japanese day care students performing at their sports day.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should really get into the habit of using edit summaries, even on edits you believe to be uncontroversial. Bold red text on my watchlist without an edit summary is an auto-revert, it's unfair of you to expect other editors to try and read your mind. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try; it was a complex edit that could not be described in one edit summary.Haberstr (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend in that situation something along the lines of "see talk." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've reviewed History of terrorism against the GA criteria. Unfortunately the article's not quite there yet. I've left some comments at the review page. Regards, --BelovedFreak 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments. By the way, I disagreed with the excessive use of bold but it is/was a concession to the several editors who wanted to retain some emphasis on groups connected to terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Haberstr. I wanted to ask your opinion on this page: Adolf A. Berle. I had put him under the name Adolph A. Berle because it was the name that he used at the end of his life. In his article 'Property, Production and Revolution' (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 1, which was in the Columbia Law Review, his 'home journal' this was the spelling. My guess is that after WW2, the spelling "Adolf" was no longer so popular. But I suppose the "right" spelling would be whatever he preferred. What do you think? Wikidea 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for talking to me about this. Checking Amazon, his first name was often spelt "Adolf" after WWII, on various book covers and so on. He also often apparently used "A.A. Berle." In any case, I think it's best to go with the spelling that was and is by far the one most commonly used to refer to Berle. I wonder, in fact, whether the exception you note was an error committed by a law student editor. Is there some writing or statement by Berle himself (or his family) that he wanted to change the spelling of his first name?Haberstr (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must explain heavy additions to the article, especially when removing cited material. My edits were thorough and precise, you removed numerous sentences that were supported by the WSJ source and added words that came from no references (in other words, original research). These types of edits are a problem. Your reasoning, "delete heavy POV by Wikifan12345, but will revise with subsequent NPOV revisions" is not acceptable

Keep in mind I/P is under general sanctions and edit warring will result in a topic-ban. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hamas article is an encyclopedia article rather than "the complete case against Hamas." The latter attitude is what has generated the now 145,240 bytes article you demand. Let's use good judgment regarding what an encyclopedia article attempts to do: for example, use examples to make a point rather than writing down EVERY example that makes exactly the same point about Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has nothing to do with me Haberstr. You removed cited material because you simply didn't like it. Like you said, the Hamas article is an encyclopedic article. If you want to promote a more personal view of Hamas please create a blog. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

canvassing [3][4] in order to raise an army of your own? Hope&Act3! (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notified PeterSymonds, the user who has implemented the 'established users only' block on the Hamas article, of the fairly obvious "Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" (direct quote of Wikifan12345) effort here. If you agree with Wikifan's perspective on encyclopedia writing, please take that POV approach to a more receptive 'encyclopedia'. If you disagree with what Wikifan is attempting to do here, please help me talk him/her down into NPOV and non-redundant editing of this article.Haberstr (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haberstr, you are canvassing. Trying to ban editors you are having content disputes with and then accusing others of not assuming good faith is suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The settlements in the Golan are also illegal under international law and they are not in the Palestinian territories. The place needs to be Israeli-occupied territories, not Occupied Palestinian Territories. Also, a world body has in fact said that all settlements are illegal. See the International Court of Justice's unanimous opinion in the Wall case. nableezy - 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. You haven't provided a reason for why you resist the official name adopted by the UN for the territories, i.e., "Occupied Palestinian Territories." Also, there is no universally accepted international authority on legality of anything, including the legality of Israel's occupation of Palestine. And that includes statements by the ICJ. Whether this is good or bad is another matter, but that's just the way it is, and the Wikipedia encyclopedia needs to be reality-based.Haberstr (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Golan is not a part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories", it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Israeli settlements in the Golan have the same status of those in the West Bank, they are illegally established in occupied territory. By writing that only those settlements in the oPt are illegal you imply those in the Golan are legal. What Wikipedia needs to do is reflect the weight given to positions by reliable sources. It is a super-majority view that the settlements are illegal under international law. That Israel disputes this is noted. nableezy - 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I agree, it should be "Israeli-occupied territories."Haberstr (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia these days, and the time that I do have I'd rather not expend engaging in circular discussions. So I'm sorry I can't be of much help at the moment. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take care of your loved ones and have fun, Tiamut. And watch the Hamas fireworks from the sidelines if that's fun . . .Haberstr (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your efforts at long-term abuse, but a report you have recently submitted, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikifan12345, does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Please note that only users that have abused Wikipedia over a long duration of time - meaning they are clearly here to disrupt Wikipedia - should be reported. An indefinite block/ban is also required to establish that the user has been abusive. If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to message me on my talk page. Netalarm^talk 04:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Haberstr. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to History of terrorism. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. Thank you. Marokwitz (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marokwitz, please read the following from WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."Haberstr (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haberstr, nice to meet you on your userpage. I noticed straw poll(s). Please consider not to revert, however feel free to do so if you think more discussion is required. Consensus reality sometime is strange, consensus could change and WP:WTF like that ;). Frankly though, we have to consider, at the end of day, that editing is a collaboration effort. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Love the video you link to. Will continue to bend-over-backwards collegially edit in that spirit.Haberstr (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The motif phrase "laugh, and the world laughs with you; weep, and you weep alone", from Solitude by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, is referenced several times throughout the movie. I appreciate your Wikipedian spirit. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if you read the history and discussion of this entry, but I have been pestering them on my own so far, and appreciate your support...

My edits were a matter of principle, not of great knowledge, so it would be good to have someone else around for their next attempt to recover this self created entry. for some reason I think this is really important, and a fitting community retribution for any institution cocky enough to abuse wikipedia to promote their agenda, assuming they can get away with anything.

by their timely edits, I just know their discomfort over this entry running away on them is excruciating and embarassing, and I'm happy for it.

also know there are israelis out there supporting your kind of input regarding the political situation there.

don't know if this is the place to write this, but can't see any other way to voice my appreciation. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeav (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'll keep defending Wikipedia as a balanced, free-from-bias encyclopedia, and I'm glad you are doing the same.Haberstr (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at The Fiscal Times entry now. They appear to take it more seriously. Look at the recent history, and the user Moonriddengirl that did most of the editing. Professional hack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.113.210 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Several persons have been working on a new version of "Ben Heine" wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Heine), with more accurate information and several notable references. It has been submitted in the TalkPage but Qwyrxian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwyrxian) deleted the section. "Fram" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fram) and a few other admins keep reposting the old version of Heine's biography and keep deleting the new text without paying attention to the artist's evolution.

Please, can you have a look to the new version and tell me what's wrong? Here is the new text a contributor recently suggested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cute-snoopy#Suggestion_of_an_updated_article_about_Ben_Heine Would you be so kind to help and try reposting the article? My attempts have been in vain...

No important, true or accurate elements from the old version have been deleted. Only THE STRUCTURE has changed. It's not forbidden by Wikipedia's policy to change the structure of an article and it is highly recommended to add notable references and information corresponding to an artist's evolution, which is the case here.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute-snoopy (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for caring about Wikipedia. I will take a look.Haberstr (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haberstr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

caught by previous IP address assignee's open proxy block

Decline reason:

It is not permitted to edit Wikipedia via an open proxy. Nevertheless, you will need to follow the instructions provided when you attempt to edit - the unblock will need to address why you're editing using such. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Barbaro.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of all suicide bombings, not just those with civilian targets. My mistake.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Haberstr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"Editing from 86.36.66.12 has been blocked." Help! The same thing happened a year ago. I'm not running an "open proxy"; I'm not sure what that is even after reading its Wikipedia page. How do I kill it off?!? Or, apparently, "another customer from [my] ISP who was previously assigned [my] IP address was running an open proxy." Also, in reference to "The only way such a block can be lifted is if it can be determined that it is no longer an open proxy, or was erroneously identified as one." Is there anything I can do to assist in the preceding? Secondly, in reference to "If you believe this to be the case, say so in your unblock request and the administrator will refer it to the open proxies project." I believe it may be the case, though I am not an expert, and I request that an administrator refer this problem to the open proxies project.Haberstr (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblock has happened... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing we can do about a block on an IP address unless we know what IP address is involved. I suggest you amend your unblock request to provide us with that information. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks James, I have amended it.Haberstr (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a report to the WikiProject on open proxies. I hope this will be dealt with soon, but it may take a while, so please be patient. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your June, 2012 comments at Talk:Eric Schneiderman regarding the lack of "Personal Life" section in that article. If you still feel that the article needs a "Personal Life" section and have any information to contribute, I would encourage you to be bold and add it. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not accusing you of being harsh at Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand, I was stating that Kafziel's post was harsh. I thought that was quite clear. Otherwise it makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! For the tea and the explanation.Haberstr (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Stephen Crane know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 5, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Stephen Crane (1871–1900) was an American novelist, short story writer, poet and journalist. Prolific throughout his short life, he wrote notable works in the Realist tradition as well as early examples of American Naturalism and Impressionism. Crane's first novel was the 1893 Bowery tale Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. He won international acclaim for his 1895 Civil War novel The Red Badge of Courage, written without any battle experience. Late that year he accepted an offer to cover the Spanish–American War as a war correspondent. As he waited in Jacksonville, Florida, for passage to Cuba, he met Cora Taylor, the madam of a brothel, with whom he would have a lasting relationship. Plagued by financial difficulties and ill health, Crane died of tuberculosis at the age of 28. Although recognized primarily for The Red Badge of Courage, Crane is also known for short stories such as "The Open Boat", "The Blue Hotel", "The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky", and The Monster. His writing made a deep impression on 20th-century writers, most prominent among them Ernest Hemingway, and is thought to have inspired the Modernists and the Imagists. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Please stop editing Iranian presidential election, 2013 in your personal. We have used many examples for creating it but you edit it with no models in the wikipedia. Please stop that. Thanks. Tabarez (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my response on the article's talk page. The article is a mess and I'm helping make it coherent and in conformity with standard Wikipedia format.Haberstr (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again! Please check the talk page. Tabarez (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iranian presidential election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iranian presidential election, 2013 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• all eight approved candidates were "considered hardline conservatives," with reformist candidates (notably former president [[Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani]] having been barred from standing.<ref>[http://

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edition. I can not understand your summary of the edition were you told "or it is POV". Can you please explain it in the talk page of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote down compromise wording. The West has many propagandistic terms for Iran's leadership (like 'moderate', 'hardliner', and 'conservative'), and then you sometimes see that those descriptions don't match how local and regional people think of those politicians. We should be careful using the description used in the West as if it is _the_ uncontroversial description. Attributing the description is best.Haberstr (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see User talk:82.41.39.174 I have blocked the account. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capt Jack Doicy for an explanation. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.Haberstr (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a lot of pages on my watch list so I might miss changes to History of terrorism, if you think the same editor turns up with another account please let me know on my talk page and I will take a look. -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Barbaro, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'modified lead to point out that the 'alleged' nature of much of what 'occurred' '- that was one of your edit summaries - what does it mean? Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, there was an extra word accidentally in there. It should've said: "modified lead to point out the 'alleged' nature of much of what 'occurred'." I hope what I meant is clear enough now.Haberstr (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have partially reverted your recent edit to the lead [5], specifically the part that is mentioned in the edit summary(haven't had the time to look at the rest). I already started a discussion regarding the death toll, on the talk page, so that we can reach a consensus regarding this section, avoiding partisan edits and cases such as this where you make changes without knowing why they were made or with consensus to back you up. Thanks.--PLNR (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering that you just made a long post on Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks how "In fact, the article doesn't even mention that the rebels have allies, or that that status might bias the work product of their intelligence and propaganda services". Would you care to explain why you removed a similar entry from here. --PLNR (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no RS for that assertion. I have been told that to call any country an ally of the rebels, I need an RS. So, of course, there should be a similar rule for claims that Russia is an ally of the Syrian government. If you find an RS for the allies claims regarding the U.S. and Russia (and any other country the entry would claim is an ally of one side or the other), then you can put the "allies" claims back in. Make sure you do things in a balanced way, not requiring things of one 'side' that you don't require of the other.Haberstr (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at 2013 Ghouta attacks. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)) below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked Haberstr for a "normal" breach of WP:3RR. Although I could have blocked them under the sanctions, those sanctions are relatively new, so I chose not to. I did officially warn them. To make it clearer, in addition to the existing notice on the talk page, I will create an edit notice for the article. There's way too much battling going on in the article, and, strictly speaking, a warning is not required."))Haberstr (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haberstr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: I was not in an edit war. New information from an RS was posted on the talk page roughly a day before I used this new fact as the basis for attaching "alleged" to the Ghouta incident. On the talk page I indicated I would use this new information to show the new RS uncertainty about the incident. No one objected. My change was reverted and then I was accused of being in an edit war. I did not 're-revert'. I'm sure you know the following two sentences: "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed."Haberstr (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The issue is not whether the edits were controversial or not. There are four requirements to the rule: 1) were edits "reverts" in the sense that they in whole or in part removed another editor's contributions to the article and were not consecutive with no intervening edits from another editor (yes - see the diffs provided at User talk:Bbb23#Haberstr's block), 2) were the reverts within 24 hours (yes - see the times for the diffs provided), 3) were the reverts to the page (yes, obviously), and 4) do any of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO apply (no - "uncontroversial" is not an exception). Given that you had already been warned for violating 3RR shortly before the edits that led to the block, Bbb23's block and the related amount of time the block will last for is reasonable. Singularity42 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

((unblock|reason=In part I'm just asking for more clarity on what I've done 'wrong', and partly this involves the four-part rule above. I can't find that in the 'revert', '3RR' or 'edit warring' wikipedia entries. If you could direct me to where that rule is explained, I would appreciate it. Also, Wikipedia defines 'revert' as follows: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.[clarification needed]" Almost any edit, then, is a revert, since almost any act of editing means 'reversing' (which apparently means 'modifying' as well as 'undoing' or 'reversing') the 'actions' (i.e., edits) of other editors. Does this mean that unless my edit is covered under the exemptions, I basically can edit an article's material (that I have not authored myself) only three times during any 24 hour period? I find that discouraging, but if so I will simply try to be a much less active, less bold editor. By the way, one more thing: the talk pages regarding 'left-right controversy' topics are generally useless, because consensus is never reached on any critical matter. In the particular case of the Ghouta attacks, PLNR can't be reached by rational argument. As evidence, look at the accusations he/she makes in "Bias."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#bias] If you understand the context, you'll recognize the accusations are simply nonsense. (Sometimes I think the point of such nonsensical attacks is simply to slow and disrupt sincere, NPOV editors, to get us focusing far more attention on the talk page than on editing the actual Wikipedia entry.) Kindness and politeness and 'assuming good faith' don't work: like a likely majority at certain types of articles, he/she has an agenda and he/she's sticking to it no matter what.[[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr#top|talk]]) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)))

• I'll presume to speak for Singularity (if I'm wrong, they can correct me). There is no 4-point rule in the policy. Singularity just broke down the policy into four criteria that have to be met (I kind of liked it myself). As for your question about how many reverts you can make, yup, generally speaking not more than three in a 24-hour window. That's not really as bad as it sounds because usually when one is editing an article, all one's edits are consecutive. The fact that there are intervening edits by other users generally means there might be a problem. It's true that on occasion two or more editors are editing collaboratively to improve the article, even if they are changing each other's edits, but those kinds of situations are rarely reported to AN3. Still, you should be aware any time you are editing an article how many "reverts" you've made. In this situation, you have even less of a defense because you were warned, and you simply chose to ignore it and continue editing, thereby reverting even more. That showed not boldness but poor judgment. Finally, for this particular article, from now on, you won't be permitted to make more than one revert in any given 24-hour window. If that troubles you, you shouldn't edit these kinds of articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, all I did was break WP:3RR into its four main points (what's a revert, no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, have to be to the same page, and the exceptions don't apply). Singularity42 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've disabled the last unblock request; the block has expired. Kuru (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you reply on that article, so i thought if you can identify and verify the legit citation to the family names that are supposedly originally Jewish Lebanese.--Karim666 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't insert that chart, but this[6] seems to be a legitimate academic source. Hope it's helpful.Haberstr (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is also relevant, from Al Akhbar[7]: "Lebanon’s Jews were Arabic-speaking and French-educated and had surnames in common with other Lebanese families – a significant indication of how intertwined the community was with its fellow compatriots. Srour, Sayegh, Haddad, Hamadani, and Majdalani are family names common among Christians, Muslims, and Jews."

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Haberstr. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Michael Barbaro.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: ((subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Barbaro)), paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of terrorism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 520di#evans_520di7p512n52 ''David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition''], [(i) Introduction.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Barbaro, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Haberstr. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Michael Barbaro".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: ((subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Barbaro)), paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please make a note with an edit notification and datestamp when you make major changes to your own comments on an article talk page. There's no problem, of course, with minor copyedits. There is a major difference when you change your position by changing the policy or guideline you're invoking per this change. Even if it was simply a matter of not having proofed what you'd written, it makes a major difference to how a threaded discussion is perceived. Thank you, in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you just move the article and then salt the original page so that it couldn't be moved back??? You know that's an express line to an indefinite block, don't you?  Volunteer Marek  15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want something deleted, then advocate for its deletion using the given processes. You shouldn't do what you did by moving the page. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My editing attempts to correct the strong POV bias in both the names of and content of Wikipedia articles on the current Ukraine crisis. Do you at least understand that "2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is a ridiculously embarrassing and anti-Wikipedia entry title? Finally, please assume good faith. Do you seriously think I am _trying_ to impose what you call "bad titles" onto Wikipedia entries? That's bad faith. Haberstr (talk)

If it is so "ridiculously embarrassing", it should be easy to obtain consensus for such a move, which you did not do. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased. Because there is a team of four or five working together it is impossible for one editor to stop their POV push, even their most ludicrous step, the allegation by the Ukraine prime minister that became Russian invasion of Ukraine. No government other than Ukraine is calling the alleged Russian actions an invasion.Haberstr (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where it is said that both sides must agree on this situation being an invasion to call it one? What evidence do you have of "an organized and successful effort". I am organized with no one. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say you were part of an organized effort, but certainly RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, and Iryna Harpy are. I'll just mark this down as NPOV editor once more gets in trouble for attempting to make Ukraine conflict article NPOV. And, yes, when an invasion is alleged by one side in a conflict and there is no direct evidence of such an invasion, when all RS categorize the 'invasion' as an allegation by one side and or a small number of individuals, and when all RS instead describe Russian intervention as 'intervention' or the equivalent, then the title of that entry should include the uncertainty regarding the 'invasion' (probably by inserting the word "Alleged" (as I tried to do) into the title).Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take your accusations to an ANI, or I'll take this before a WP:RFC/USER for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and blatant WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page p:rotection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not involved in an edit war. I properly placed a POV tag onto an embarrassingly POV Ukraine conflict article. Instead of following the Wikipedia policy of discussion and an attempt at consensus, the tag was almost immediately removed. I restored it. Is that what you contend is an 'edit war'? Have you notified the editor who removed the tag that he or she instigated an edit war? If not, why not?Haberstr (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you should learn to WP:HEAR what other people are saying to you. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear biased editing from RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, and Iryna Harpy.Haberstr (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple editors are reverting your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple editors have been pushed away from editing Ukraine-related entries because of the obvious POV-push by a well-organized team of editors. And yet very quickly under every talk page entry on my POV tag, there were allies to my point of view. There is a _great_ deal of upset over the POV takeover of all Ukraine articles. The last straw should be the embarrassing Russian invasion of Ukraine (August 2014). Haberstr (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The processes outlined at WP:DRN are all available to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall joining a "well-organized team of editors". Just because I or others agree with something doesn't mean there is a coordinated effort afoot. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly didn't sign up to any form of "team" other than the Wikipedia project. Haberstr, if you are going to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, I think it's high time you took your allegations to an AN/I quickly. At this rate, you're going to have collated an exhaustive list of POV conspirators who've never even encountered each other before. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cat is out of the bag, Iryna. Talk to your colleague Volunteer Marek.Haberstr (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh?  Volunteer Marek  05:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make mine a double "Huh"? Where's the cat? What bag? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haberstr's edits are good. The article has problems and we are having a hard time removing the pov as certain editors are working in concert. Good work Haberstr.--Russiansunited (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haberstr's edits are very good and necessary. I wonder how thee can even be an article about a supposed "Russian invasion of Ukraine": the US invaded first by sending about 900 black water thugs there. Officially they are private soldiers, in reality, we all know they are paid through channels, by the US government. --Mondschein English (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[8].  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."Haberstr (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." You seem to have problems understanding what is neutral. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have recently noticed that you has been Canvassing in an attempt to gain support for your case in Arbitration Requests. Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I wanted to let you know so that you could make sure to follow the guidelines relating to WP:Canvassing. SantiLak (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."Haberstr (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." You seem to have problems understanding what is neutral. NeilN said it best. SantiLak (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I responded to your request for a statement. I would add IMO that the chance that the wording of this article saves a single life in Ukraine is remote. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am sorry, I did not check Wikipedia for a couple of days, I have been very busy at work. How did it go? Did they find you "guilty"? LOL I have to laugh about a lot of these ridiculous power trips a lot of people seem to have on Wikipedia. Look, I did not even know there was an article about the supposed "Russian invasion of Ukraine": in Crimea Russian soldiers were already there per previous deals between Russia and Ukraine, and they were simply told to be on alert in case the Ukrainian gov in Kiev did not like the results of the referendums and tried to do something. In Eastern Ukraine there are mercenaries from all over fighting for Kiev, and also American soldiers in the form of Black Water, and so if there a couple of hundreds Russians there I think it is just fair.

That being said: you are up against people who *live* on Wikipedia, like those who *live* on political forums and they are making sure that the point of view of the White House is represented and also not disputed by anybody. I suspect many might be employed by the US gov. Who knows... I find it very hard to believe that so many people would be opposed to the truth unless they were far-right wing fanatics or they were being paid by some private agency, which is paid by some government agency, which is paid by the White House with tax payer money. You are up against a brick wall. Sorry. I made a small edit once: it was reverted within seconds and I was told not to do it again within minutes.

Wikipedia could be a free, balanced source of information, but the English Wikipedia, on some key international issues, seems to be controlled by the US government, through the chain of people I mentioned above, just like the English speaking media sources are.

Good luck and let me know how I can help, if I still can.

--Mondschein English (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that many editors can start to focus on editors, and they loose focus on the subjects of the articles they edit. Keep your head up, you are doing a good job! Just stay focused, keep working hard, and all will be well. I appreciate your hard work! Thank you! Ism schism (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second what's been written by Ism schism, above. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Independent Greeks page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the History of terrorism page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RPG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The changes you introduced in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Williams&oldid=646038589 resulted in

The named reference NOAdv1 was invoked but never defined

Please fix this problem. 67.100.127.86 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reinserting violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV into the article. See the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plainly you are doing that. In the Katrina 'floating body' paragraph, you're deleting the NPOV balance by not allowing in the reporting of the maps that show many bodies in the general area of the hotel.Haberstr (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit with the maps violates WP:SYNTH. What links are you talking about in the Iraq edit? You're not making any sense. [9]. And not including Williams' own words is just bizarre. It's the whole reason he's in trouble right now. The lede para was not at all clear and I improved it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In encyclopedia subsections we accurately summarize what people say, rather than giving the full quotation. You seem to want to write an entire entry on Williams' troubles. Go for it! But in the Brian Williams entry, you are violating WP:UNDUE. I tried my best to expand other sections so the two controversy subsections don't stick out as WP:UNDUE sore thumbs, but there are limits. I've explained the removed links and damaged references problem back at the article's talk page. And please, no more of the SYNTH accusation (see my comments on the talk page). Or, if you think it is a legitimate charge, then please quote the sentences backing you up from the WP:SYNTH page.Haberstr (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you kindly. I enjoyed it a great deal. :-)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[10] Did you support this action? I am not sure from your comment that you did? I believe the article should be restored as Crimean Crisis is different from incorporation to Russian Federation which happened after the crisis itself.I would welcome your view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I didn't, but it's not unreasonable to unite the two entries. The problem is the name. The overall crisis is the '2014 Crimean Crisis', and the incorporation into Russia was the end result, more or less.Haberstr (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine. If you think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the name of the article, please do propose a requested move discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you? I won't do it since it is a waste of time communicating with the POV editors (whether they are aware of their bias or not) who are in the majority.Haberstr (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that's the case. I'll admit my perspective on this issue is pretty well opposite yours, but I have (honestly) yet to see a good argument, grounded in policy, for doing something different than what User:My very best wishes and User:RGloucester did with the 2014 Crimean crisis page. If you can make a good argument, that's great and I hope we can have a fruitful discussion. I'm just tired of parrying the same baseless complaints, over and over again, by people who can't actually back up their arguments beyond the ubiquitous WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reasonable argument is that we could choose to merge to 2014 Crimean Crisis or to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation but the POV editors decided they didn't want to have that democratic discussion. I'm tired of the constant accusations against NPOV editors by the anti-Russia editors. We're trying to create a balanced page that doesn't read like a prosecutor's accusatory narrative against Russia and Putin. That's obvious. We want both sides of the story, except in cases where facts, usually eye-witnessed by an unbiased RS source, are facts. It has NOTHING to do with I just don't like it, so please stop disparaging me and other editors with that rude description. ASSUME GOOD FAITH.Haberstr (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a separate discussion, though, and it's a movereq. I could say the same: I'm tired of the pro-Russia editors trying to push Putin's propaganda, which I think is utterly anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia and the cause of presenting factual information in an encyclopedic manner. What I would like to see is for the more reasonable among us to work together in crafting something that both accurately reflects reality (through reliance on reliable secondary sources, avoiding unreliable media such as YouTube dispatches, blogs, Russian state media, etc.) and avoids making what you call "a prosecutor's accusatory narrative" in the process (which is not something I am blind to, having done my fair share of reverting pro-Ukraine POV edits when necessary as well). It sounds like your concern, unlike that of User:MyMoloboaccount, is based not on removing the superfluous content fork from the equation, but on consolidating everything under the title of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. If you feel that 2014 Crimean crisis is a better name for a single article, make the movereq and be prepared to defend your reasoning. Who knows? If your argument wins me over, I might even support it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So one side is pushing "Putin's propaganda"? Does that include me? Can you give an example? Please be specific or stop tossing out such 'assuming bad faith' charges. In addition to the Western version of the story, is presenting the 'Russian' version of what happened, when it does not contradict the real facts (not the allegations and guesses), pushing "Putin's propaganda"? The bottom line is that the transition in Crimea was complex, and involved thousands of Crimean citizens, in addition to the assistance -- whether it was minor and peripheral or central and essential (the preceding is under dispute and uncertain) -- provided by Russia. That sense of the involvement of multiple parties is almost completely absent from the present entry.Haberstr (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it's not a separate discussion, it's exactly the discussion and possible outcome that the un-democratic move, merging without discussion and a vote, precluded.Haberstr (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I see it, Russia's point of view is represented in the article and associated content -- including statements from Russian officials, accounts from Russian observers, etc. I also think the notion that all Western media is somehow carrying water for Obama/Merkel/Poroshenko and negatively slanted toward Russia is entirely false and unsupported -- a canard trotted out by those who think media outlets controlled by the Kremlin and Putin's loyalists should somehow be presented with the same or higher standing as actual reliable sources (the kind that aren't subject to editorial controls by an autocratic regime with troops occupying Georgian and Ukrainian territory). Presenting "both sides" with the kind of false equivalency and undue weight is neither honest nor truly balanced, because the Russian state media apparatus is making a counterfactual case. The preponderance of reliable sources report on the overwhelming evidence that it was Russian troops, not a fifth column that mysteriously apparated from nowhere complete with Russian military uniforms, armaments, supplies, vehicles, and training, that were the "little green men" in Crimea and Donbass; that Russian troops, armor, and artillery have reinforced the separatist positions along the Russian border, and in some cases participated in frontline offensives; that a missile battery under the control of Russian or pro-Russia forces is far and away the most likely culprit behind the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17; etc., etc., etc. Giving equal weight to Russian propaganda that tries to deny and downplay Russia's hand in Ukraine (while, of course, reminding Kiev and other European capitals that Russian tanks could be rolling through the streets within days, if Russia were so inclined, wink-wink) is a form of false balance that is, in itself, biased. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget the Russian point of view, that's not what this is about. It's about facts. RS show that Sunday, February 23 was a complex day when thousands of Crimeans protested a coup-installed government they were afraid of and the revocation of the language law, which delegitimized the Russian language. That has nothing to do with 'pro-Russian' bias or 'the Russian point of view'. It's simply a fact, that's what happened. But instead, in paragraph 2 of the current lead, the complex situation is presented as Putin conspiring in the early morning and then later that day his puppets are stirring up trouble. Hilarious except that it's presented as Wikipedia fact. I'm not interested in discussing each allegation in your long paragraph, but please look back at the original RS sources and be faithful to the difference between allegations and facts.Haberstr (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were the one who brought up the "both sides of the story" argument, but fine. I agree that the Antimaidan protests in Crimea are notable (as are Putin's political machinations, which ultimately brought about the peninsula's annexation), and while I'm pretty sure they are covered in a decent amount of detail within the body of the article (and on checking, are mentioned in the intro right after the Putin stuff), I am personally very open to the discussion of whether/how they should be presented in the intro -- which, you seem to have noticed, could use some post-merge workshopping. But that's probably a topic for Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly we're just talking here, but why be 'conclusory' in your writing? Many things brought about Crimea's annexation, and included in the mix are Russia's machinations. How could we possibly know what to prioritize or place first? There was fear in Crimea of the rightist, Ukrainian nationalist militias associated with Maidan, the assertive actions by many pro-Russians in Crimea, "Putin's" machinations, the foolish revocation of the language law on February 23, a (thankful) lack of violent assertiveness by the Ukraine military, and the actions taken by Crimea's legislators and rulers. There's more I'm sure, but all of the preceding need to be prominent in any NPOV picture.Haberstr (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If all of the above can be reliably sourced and presented with due weight, it should be included in the article. As I said, I'm quite open to discussing in more detail how to present it, which in my view would be largely contingent upon what reliable sources say about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will gradually introduce changes based on the above when supported by RS, and we'll see what happens.Haberstr (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that my gradual NPOV contributions have been entirely wiped out by Volunteer Marek, who appears to be a volunteer on a team of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalist propagandists.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started a dispute request regarding Crimean Crisis article, which you have been involved with. [11] Feel to comment. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were reported here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haberstr, though the request has been closed with protection, some of your edits at Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation cause concern. At the 3RR board you said "I am attempting to place a POV tag at the top of the article. Other users repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy by removing it". There is no God-given right to place POV tags on articles. The POV tag, like any other article content, is subject to editor consensus. If you continue to use highly partisan language in your edit summaries and criticize other editors, "the anti-Russia editors are too numerous here", you may be subject to admin action, under WP:EW or WP:ARBEE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed, you are wrong. Please read again the POV tag, noting in particular the final sentence: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." This language states as clearly as can be that the tag should be removed when the neutrality dispute is resolved. The language does not state that the placement of the tag is "subject to editor consensus," but nearly the opposite, that removal of the tag is subject to editor consensus. POV tags are placed when neutrality is in dispute, not when there is a consensus that neutrality is in dispute, and they should not be removed "until the dispute is resolved."Haberstr (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will restrain myself, but there is a great deal of contentious language at the article, most of it by the anti-Russia editors. In fact the current incident is part of their campaign to prevent NPOV at the article by harassing and insulting NPOV editors, thus creating a toxic environment at the article and its talk page. What are neutral Wikipedia editors and administrators going to do about the preceding facts? I thought so.Haberstr (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the current incident is part of their campaign to prevent NPOV..." What "incident" are you talking about? This 3RR report? My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The language in the POV tag template is not policy, it's just something someone once put in. The page WP:NPOV *is* policy and there it clearly states that spurious unsubstantiated tags can be and should be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC

No, you're wrong: the tag's words are carefully constructed to instruct editors on what they are supposed to do in reference to a tag. My tags were always substantiated, so I don't know why you bring that up.Haberstr (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the page WP:NPOV says nothing about removing tags. Were you lying, or have I misinterpreted you?Haberstr (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I find particularly troubling is that these comments by Haberstr suggests that he purposefully and intentionally started the edit war in order to get the page protected and have the "protection" tag put on article, as a substitute for the POV tag. It seems they thought: "I can't get consensus for the POV tag, so I will start an edit war, this will lead to page protection and a nasty protection tag, which is just as good as the POV tag and that way I win". This is obviously extremely bad faithed and is an example of disruptive gaming of the rules.

@User:EdJohnston - please recall your comments at this AE report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is troubling is that you don't have a shred of evidence to support your accusation of bad faith. Yes, I'm somewhat pleased that some sort of tag is now above the article. What does that have to do with bad faith? Think and find evidence before you accuse.Haberstr (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "shred of evidence" is your own gleeful statement about how the edit war you started got the page protected. Diff provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain that? How is me being somewhat happy that something happened evidence for me causing something to happen? If I'm happy that my football team won a game, is that evidence that I caused my football team to win? Please, help me out here, I want to get inside your thinking a bit more.Haberstr (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Volunteer Marek that the problems with the neutrality of User:Haberstr's edits seem to be continuing. The comments people made in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive156#Haberstr last September still seem to apply. A second rerun of this issue at the same noticeboard risks producing a block or a topic ban. If Haberstr really sees no problem at all with his recent edits, a new AE filing might be considered. But if anyone does file at AE, the behavior of all participants may be looked into. Haberstr is just the person getting the most attention right now because of his bellicose statements on talk pages, and his belief that a gang ("anti-Russia editors") is working against him. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My problem was that I made too many edits in a short space of time, thereby violating the 3RR rule. I think you're running fairly far afield and becoming somewhat tendentious in your paragraph, frankly. Haberstr (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Haberstr, again (and Tobby72). Though I haven't looked into this report yet, the time may be approaching to consider sanctions of some parties under WP:ARBEE. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT demographics of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexis Papahelas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zapatista. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoe Konstantopoulou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Popular Unity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian conflict and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Tobby72 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ukrainian conflict arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and removed. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To: Iryna Harpy

Cc: Tobby72, Haberstr, Moscow Connection

Iryna, your recent posting on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation contains personal attacks on WP users Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection. You accused these WP users of "POV pushing", "disruptive editing", and presenting arguments with "no good faith".

Wikipedia article talk pages are for constructive discussion of article content, not for accusations against individuals. Are you trying to discourage comments about content from people whose views differ from your own? If you are not trying to discourage comments, please make this clear as soon as possible, by withdrawing the personal attacks you have made. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking note of this phenomenon in a calm and cooperative manner. She shares this Wikipedia-destructive accusatory approach with several other pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia Wikipedians, whose anti-NPOV and censorship-happy approach contradicts everything Wikipedia is supposed to stand for.Haberstr (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe one way of looking at it, is as an instance of WP:OWN#Multiple-editor ownership. " The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership." ... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin).  Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

It looks like you're trying to tip-toe around the 24 bright line rule, which in itself is an attempt to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy. The tag-teaming with the brand new account is also suspicious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am editing. In other words I am behaving exactly as you behave, Marek. I assume you are editing in good faith, and you should assume I am editing in good faith. Please stop these repetitive false accusations, which are entirely based on assumption of bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened an RFC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DeRay Mckesson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Black (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Haberstr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

- MrX 12:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC) - MrX 12:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haberstr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because I live in Beijing, China, and can't access or edit Wikipedia otherwise. I have a very long history of non-controversial, mainstream-sourced editing. Frankly, I don't understand the point of the policy as applied to me, since anyone can see from my edits that it is always 'me' who is editing. Haberstr (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

From WP:IPEC:

How to request

Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a CheckUser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case.

SQLQuery me! 05:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dear Haberstr: I notice that you started a major revision of the History of terrorism article back in 2009. Did you ever reintegrate the material per WP:UP#COPIES? If so, you may want to blank the page.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Haberstr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Haberstr! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]