• User talk:Viajero/Archive 1 < 6 November 2003
• User talk:Viajero/Archive 2 < 9 December 2003
• User talk:Viajero/Archive 3 < 21 January 2004

Please append new messages at the end

Sorry i'm not used to protecting pages - i remembered to add a note when i did Feminism but not Anti-Zionism :( PMA 18:53, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the principles listed on the peoples voice web site should be included in the wiki page but not the priciples on the elon peace plan site. we should not be editorializing in this way. rather we should treat all the peace proposals similarly. not give preference to one over another. such action is inherently a POV. OneVoice 16:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've proposed a possible solution to this wrangling over at Talk:The People's Voice. I'd like to hear your opinion on it. — No-One Jones (talk) 21:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have finished the first draft of the Saudi peace plan/initiative which I chose because it has been ignored in Wikipedia. The HTML comments contain the page outline that I will be using to create all the pages. More to come. OneVoice 16:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, regarding whether or not the decrease of 80% in refusal, draft dodging and insubordation is news was decided when the September 24th, 2003 and January 4, 2004 incidents of two groups refusing to serve was added to Current events. OneVoice 16:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then I'd like to thank myself for helping myself fixing Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My deepest gratitude to me. :-) BL 21:13, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Uff-da, Viajero, much as I respect your contributions, I'm unsuited in character to be an admin at Wikipedia. I'd soon burn out. It have little patience with "dirt-road Baptists" that seem to be in the ascendant. And I'm not even utterly convinced that NPOV is always the right balance! How do I say "no" nicely? Wetman 19:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome note. Few things:

• How do I change username?
• As for terrorism, I agree that is a loaded term, and in order to not create POV contraversies I use the neutral "miltants" when reporting about IDF conflicts with armed gunmen. BUT, delibertly killing civilians - such as in the buses suicide bombing this is clearly an act of terrorism - by all defeintions.

MathKnight 17:59, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

1. See Wikipedia:Changing username and Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.
2. Yes, in general we try to avoid gratuitously labelling people terrorists but we will refer to certain actions as terrorist acts. As you will discover, these things are not cast in stone here; often they need to be negotiated by people with various points of view with the aim of trying to find a neutral and mutually acceptable way of describing them.

-- Viajero 18:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks MathKnight 18:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my TALK page . Please understand that realy make me angry is that BL took another one article, erased it and redirect it to his altered article. This is unaccpetable. I suggested him to open a new article with an appropiate title instead of picking off another's work. He ignored. MathKnight 00:08, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll?168... 00:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Viajero, I'm not sure all the paragraphs about Nixon and his instructions belong in Pinochet's page. Probably they would be better in Allende's page, or another (probably long and controversial) about the government of Allende and the coup. They show a precedent but they do not show any relation betwen Pinochet and Nixon.--AstroNomer 20:21, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed, a clever sob. His vocabulary reminds me of someone else.. "sabotaging", "vandalizing" and "terrorising". The only puzzle piece missing is the "reverting bald faced lies" if you know that I mean. BL 15:50, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

George Francis Cruickshank had only been on VfD for 4 days. As a result, Anthony has now listed it on VfU. Angela. 22:46, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Viajero....did Soul kitch's vote? Did you remove another person's votes (in this case Soul kitch)? If so, on what basis? Will you be removing other people's votes in the future? Do you recognize a basis (the same basis?) by which other people can remove your vote? Please clarify. OneVoice 03:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These [14] contributions are the ones that you intended to point out to me. ??? I not not claiming that this person is a model to be held up, but rather they appear to be a "real account". Did you remove another person's votes (in this case Soul kitch)? If so, on what basis? Will you be removing other people's votes in the future? Do you recognize a basis (the same basis?) by which other people can remove your vote? Please clarify. OneVoice 14:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it'll escalate. He's claiming on his talk page to have left now. Angela. 23:15, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. He's back editing as 148.241.2.17. Angela. 00:49, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just letting you know you accidentally also reverted my uncontroversial edit of Golan Heights. I don't believe you want to start edit wars with the wrong person. -- Dissident 01:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I’m taking a lunch break. “Be happy in your work.” --Uncle Ed 17:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your behaviour seems on the surface a bit poor in the matters of Is-Pal conflict. You seem to be using your powers to revert without explanation, and that is in my view bad. You seem to be in a mode by which you claim authority to dictate what material is or is not valid, and I want you to moderate yourself. Thanks. -戴&#30505sv 21:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I dont mean to insult your journalizmo skills - I simply wanted to say something objective that you may have forgotten, in your routine reverting - that edit wars are not useful - protect the page if things are getting out of hand - dont tag-team revert with someone just because they happen to agree with you. OneVoice does not seem insincere in wanting to discuss the issues - at least to my eyes - at this point, it seems like you and Zero are being unreasonable. A great flaw of polarists is they forget that people change, and learn. Whether your comments simply disguise an agenda or not, its impossible to tell. All I saw were some legitimate edits (some not) made by OneVoice and you guys treating them all like vandalism. We had this same discussion dealing with several users over the years, where people were using their frustration as justification for treating all edits by a certain contributor as flawed. Unless you want to ban the two as vandals, then deal with their contributions on a per-edit basis. I am reanimating the defunct Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli conflict page started by Elain. Keeping the very controversial pages under protected page policy might be the better way to go. -戴&#30505sv 05:15, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Bmills 11:31, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 15:31, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I kind of assumed that Haiti had been updated, I never actually bothered to check. ;) Of course, instead of removing it from Current Events, you could have just added info to the Haiti article. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting the Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict page. OneVoice 19:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed account. I see your point, and hope that all respected parties continue to remain respectable. As someone who first came to the WP with the same issues - a lack of the Palestinian view on these articles I have no disagreement with your argument, and am pleased to see a greater balance in WP's content. But this works both ways as well, and we must remember to remain honest. You said: "We are simply trying to ensure that an honest effort is made to represent the complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian reality..." I agree with this, but again, its often actions, not principle that reflects back upon the position you are taking. "...and to avoid grotesque caricatures and oversimplifications which are currently rampant in the American media..." This too is a caricature and an oversimplification — would you say that American media is any worse about discussing these issues than for example Bolivian media is? Your caricature fails to explain that "American (corporate) media" is miserable about reporting all issues —not just this one. "("Israelis = victims", "Palestinians = terrorists")." Yes, I agree with Erik's notion of getting rid of the term "terrorism" entirely - it appeals only to the undereducated, and morally situational. -戴&#30505sv 20:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, again - OV has made a point on the A-Z article at The Oasis. I wanted to bring it to your attn. I think The Oasis idea might work as a kind of Village Pump for the WP:AIC project. -Be well, 戴&#30505sv 07:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, I note that you have refused to work with us at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to defuse the frequent edit wars regarding these articles at Wikipedia. Could you tell us why? Perhaps we can address your concerns. OneVoice 13:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Viajero. I'm afraid you have the wrong man. I've just wasted 4 hours buggerising about with page protections, it's past 1AM here, and I want to get up really early in the morning to drive 300 kilometres north-west to see if I can't get a nice picture for the Freckled Duck article. They are very rare but I've had a tip-off about where to find them. (And it's going to be 43 degrees C tommorow! Yuk! In that heat, the earlier I start the better.)

I'd need to spend quite some time going over the page history in order to decide to protect Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and if so, which version to protect (more so as I do my best to remain as unfamiliar with those issues as possible and might have to do quite a bit of careful background reading), and it's way past my bedtime already. But there are another 150-something admins here, and I'm sure that one or another of them can look at the page. Sorry, but I'm off to bed now. Best regards -- Tannin 14:18, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re Peter Beattie, there is no "dispute" to "resolve," there is just idiotic juvenile vandalism that needs to be reverted. Please go back to the article and remove the "jj" from the end and then protect it again if you wish. Adam 14:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done! -- Viajero 14:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, Zero0000 and yourself seem to have decided that one particular news source is disallowed at Wikipedia. On what basis have you reached this decision. I am surprised to hear that two people are empowered to make such a determination. Could you help me to understand. OneVoice 15:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did not try to sneak it in....I put the event back in current events, then noticed that I had missed the wikification of Palestinian and added that...there was an edit confict...were you deleting the event again?...and reconciled the edit conflict...I also added an item from the NYT...please check the page history to verify this. OneVoice 16:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Untrue. this edit [1] has this edit summary: (missed a wikification) -- Viajero 16:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, you will not find two entries in the edit history due to the conflict. you will see that I undid you deletion and did a [|single wikification]. That is all the evidence that exists because the log does not recored edit conflicts. OneVoice 17:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An edit is an edit. The point is you gave it a misleading edit summary -- and you did this twice. This is IMO a transgression of Wikiquette. Take responsibility for your actions. -- Viajero 17:12, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Come on, you guys, there's no need to fight about this. Last time I checked there were two references: one from Haaretz and the other from IsraelNN. Isn't that good enough? --Uncle Ed 17:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm back, but not under optimal circumstances.

Some crackpot new user, who calls the faculty at the UC Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies 'Marxists who laugh at their victims,' is trolling the Sandinista article. He's making paranoid pronouncements in response to criticism of his polemic (now standing as the article).

Anyway, if he removes the neutrality notice again, would you be interested in protecting the page ?

This is a better course of action than dealing with him and rewriting the article. Since he might as well me User:JoeM with a better grasp of trivia, I'll just wait it out and hope that he can get himself banned. 172 23:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm so glad you started Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau - incredible the stuff we don't have articles on yet! --Camembert

V, I'm working on an article about the Kfar Etzion massacre at User talk:Zero0000/temp. Your comments would be welcome. --Zero 03:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Our edits on Palestinian Authority and Palestinian refugees have been complementary, working together to improve these articls. I hope that this is our new way of working together here. OneVoice 13:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)