706:
ever received in my time here. You must have spent a fair amount of time looking into my case and history before posting the comment; it was a display of kindness and diligence so rare I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing here before. It touched me deeply and still does. Yes, you had every reason to walk away from WP. But what I've noticed in the months since then is a subtle but evident playing out of karma. Nothing we could have forced, and perhaps nothing you'd call "justice", but still, it has been enough to keep me smiling for a few days now. Ah well. What did He say? 'If they hated me, they will hate you too.' Good company and all... Touch base if you ever drop back in. Til then, I'll never forget you. Merry cheers, my friend.
105:. I have to admit that I, too, suspected you were a sockpuppet of a banned account when you started the GA Review. But good on you for making such an effort. As I think is developing now, the article is being changed as a result of the points you raised. I hope you don't get discouraged by this incident and continue editing because you seem like you have a lot to add to the encyclopedia. Further, I just want to point out that on Knowledge (XXG) anything that relates at all to Israel/Palestine is especially contentious, and you just happened to walk right into the middle of it. In a food article (when I first started, I got temporarily banned over the falafel article without even violating
644:
82:
neighborhoods and delis. Croissants existed before the 1970's in specialty bakeries. But all remained niche ethnic specialties. Sometime in the 1970's in the US, falafel started expanding beyond the ethnic-food niche into more general circulation. This probably happened in different ways in different places. In
Detroit, I would guess it was popularized by Arab-Americans. In New York, it appears to have been popularized by Israeli-Americans. But I have no good evidence for any of this. In the absence of good sources, we should say nothing. --
234:
592:@Iridescent. It's seems you're trying to make this about me which is underhanded and in bad form. I have nothing to hide. The link you gave also makes it quite clear that I was not in violation. Indeed, it was the poster who had just come back from a block and was topic banned hours later who left that message. It was disingenuous of you attempting to use it to reflect badly on me. As you must be well aware, notices include, "
266:
189:
915:
424:. It certainly doesn't make him less guilty. So is the 1RVT open to interpretation by each and every editor whether they subjectively think they have or haven't broken it? My argument never pointed to any RfC but was solely based on his 3-hour later revert. Check your facts. I ask again - Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision or file a formal complaint?
538:"but they've been doing it for years"--well, maybe, but I am not aware of them being some major disruptive force for over a decade, or impeding some major restructure of an article, or imposing some POV slant that makes us all look bad. So I don't know about "if this is how Knowledge (XXG) works", but I do know that I did not consider this some capital offense.
721:
impression while the vitriolic comments of others have crumbled to dust. Weâve both dealt with the ugly side of
Knowledge (XXG). No doubt itâs because we have the desire to see truth float where some would prefer to see it sink. The fact that you are here gives a ray of hope and Iâm glad youâve kept the fires burning!
705:
Dear VerityCheck ~ I am so sorry to see you have disappeared, and sorrier still that you were given every reason to leave. You were kicked in the teeth by everyone at ANI and then again at my talk page. At the same time, you left for me - a compete and utter stranger - one of the nicest comments I've
599:
Discouraging me from filing a complaint by implying that I am some how at fault here is just adding insult to injury and an utter distraction from everything I have said concerning the real culprit here. I don't have any blocks on my record and that is simple enough to determine using the ubiquitous
164:
I have lived among Arabs for many years. I know the effect this editorial decision has on millions of readers. I believe that to deliberately, and for no significant educational benefit, insert religiously offensive images in a, possibly the, most important article to
Muslims is grossly insensitive.
438:
I know you never pointed to any RfC. If you had, you'd be in a stronger position. And that two admins recused isn't true, unless I missed something: Sandstein bowed out Black Kite clearly said he wouldn't apply a sanction even though formally this was a violation, a sentiment I agree with. I do not
69:
Thanks for your note. You have come up to speed impressively fast! Knowledge (XXG)'s policies aren't perfect, but they have been defined in response to real problems. The
Verifiability policy is in response to people putting up "common sense" or "well known facts" or "reasonable inferences" (aka
483:
Remember it was âa strawâ that broke the camel's back; in this case a violation concerning restoring an image of a building in Canada. It wasnât the first straw. If this is how
Knowledge (XXG) works, then it means I should walk away and stop editing. I'm not ready to accept that because I believe
537:
I'm not sure what you're asking, Veritycheck. I'm not going to disappear it, and "move" as in moving an article? You can copy it, I suppose. And I can't say I like this whole idea that we're going over the cliff inch by inch--and should therefore punish minor infractions severely. You keep saying
498:
And Seneca said: "We do not suddenly fall on death, but advance towards it by slight degrees; we die every day." Patience will out. If you were right this time, you will be âmore rightâ the next time. And if you were right this time, there will be a next time; and you will be better able to frame
465:
articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning. That takes great self-control in the face of some of the rudest people I have ever come into contact with. Throughout all, I continued to stay on the right side of active arbitration remedies. When an editor with 6
364:
editor now who has lost personal time going through this rigmarole of taking GHcool to task. Enough is enough. I would much rather volunteer my time contributing to
Knowledge (XXG) as Iâm sure the preceding other complainants would have as well. What's the exact problem here? How was this light
380:
If you consider that these blocks happened over a period of ten years, it already looks a bit different. And while of course a sin is a sin is a sin, the edit we're talking about is the addition of a picture. Not even a picture of a bleeding person or an abused dog, but of a building. And your
720:
Thank you so much for your heartfelt message to me. Iâve only just come across it here on my page. Nevertheless, your words have not faded and were here to greet me blowing away the last vestiges of bitterness after my absence. Your card and message touched me deeply and will leave a lasting
81:
That said, some things are hard to establish. It's quite clear that falafel and tabbouleh and hummus bi tahini existed in the US before the 1970's in Middle
Eastern restaurants. Similarly, bagels existed in the US before the 1980's (and the explosion of bagel chains)--but only in Ashkenazi
77:
I think you'll also find that success in writing good-quality articles requires finding fellow editors to work with. At this point, the
Falafel article has attracted people like Andrew Dalby who won't put up with nonsense like claiming that the Ynet article is solid research.
579:, which is perfectly 'legal' is terms of The Rules (blanking a warning constitutes proof that you're read it) but doesn't help, particularly when you're basing a case on someone else's history over 10 years but appear to be intentionally obscuring your own history. â
207:, and I hope it has not discouraged you from Knowledge (XXG) too thoroughly. In hindsight their behavior could have warranted an immediate block, but I opted to issue a final warning instead. Please let me know if their disruptive editing continues. See you around,
466:
blocks to his name feels that he does not need to play by the same rules as the rest of us walks away from his 7th violation scot-free, something is absolutely wrong. This is not a small thing. What message does this send, both to him and to us?
385:, which is not a solid RfC or anything else pointing to consensus, but just a version of "cause I said so". Now, some of our colleagues (not Sandstein, obviously) pointed out that sure, indeed this is a violation--but others pointed out that
278:
I can't ignore you recent contributions at my AE. When a complete stranger brightens up your whole week for no apparent reason, besides a love of truth (perhaps?), you just have to say something. Thank you for being.
109:
and with using the talk page). Which explains (but by no means excuses) the incredibly hostile reaction you've received, which I found rather appalling. Anyway, best of luck, and I hope you decide to stick around. --
960:
389:
this wasn't a good-faith report. Do you know why we have DS? Not to hit people over the head anytime we can, but to attempt and foster an atmosphere in which editors can work. This was a minor infraction, and if
815:
522:
Drmies, could I ask you to move this discussion to my user talk page? It represents but one of your many daily decisions, but to me, perhaps a little more. If you are agreeable, I would appreciate it.
944:. 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
365:
warning, "don't do it again", justified when taking into account the long history and numerous blocks? Shouldn't the
Results section, at the minimum, show if this was a violation? I am gobsmacked.
929:
165:
It displays contempt for our fellow humans. It is an insult. Obviously. And I think you have expressed the situation far better than anyone so far in this debate. Thank you. --
29:
Thanks for visiting my Talk Page. Please note I reserve the right to delete old comments or any that I find offensive. In the same spirit, I hold on to some for nostalgia.
643:
890:
569:
My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of ArabâIsraeli conflict articles, and editing them, has seen me do it without a single block or warning
350:
74:). You'll see that WP tolerates uncited assertions if they're not controversial, but the citation business is actually quite helpful in resolving disputes.
840:
we have some disagreement despite both trying to improve
Knowledge (XXG). Do you know where would be a good place to discuss this topic with more people?
567:
history to see just why you're being so apparently vindictive over this trivial matter. On a superficial glance over your recent history it appears that
484:
there was a failure here with this decision. This is why there is the need to escalate this. It's the principle, not just a building in Ontario.
889:
has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
747:
563:
With my "admin and former Arb" hat on, I'll also add that the longer you (Veritycheck) try to keep this going, the more people will look into
983:
353:
that amounted to less than a slap on the wrist was entirely inappropriate. Is there a remedy available to me to dispute this decision?
680:
571:
isn't actually true, and that what's actually the case is that you apparently feel that every warning you receive is invalid (there's
443:
knows more. I think the bottomline is that the set of circumstance here, in the opinion of two admins and an editor or two, simply do
292:
860:
141:
have been puffery and otherwise not encyclopedic, and I have trimmed them quite heavily. He reverts. Can you help? Thanks, --
979:
765:
203:
Hi Veritycheck. I wanted to apologize that you had to face unfounded hostilities from an editor in the section above regarding
953:
394:
felt that you wasted your time (BTW I understand: the paperwork is cumbersome), consider that half a dozen editors and admins
558:
71:
786:
The copyedit served to correct a grammar mistake as detailed in the edit summary; namely, during + noun, while + gerund.
965:
845:
769:
893:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
349:
For the 7th violation after 6 blocks all for reverts concerning topics related to the Palestine Israel conflict, a
856:
462:
461:
We apparently hold very different opinions here. My eight years of experience walking through the minefield of
941:
420:
Ten years of flagrantly breaking the rules makes his behaviour all the worse; the word that comes to mind is
504:
841:
675:
576:
287:
170:
898:
697:
204:
101:
Hey! I've been meaning to drop you a note for a little while, because I watched the discussion over at
923:
138:
761:
937:
500:
146:
87:
829:
715:
670:
282:
166:
54:
949:
972:
894:
864:
787:
722:
604:
543:
523:
485:
452:
425:
407:
382:
366:
330:
309:
30:
952:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
945:
233:
106:
580:
360:
excused themselves from giving a decision. The diffs show the violation clearly. I am the
244:
658:
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
781:
753:
440:
265:
188:
212:
142:
115:
83:
603:@Drmies Thank-you, I will copy this discussion to my talk page per your permission.
102:
49:
914:
539:
448:
403:
134:
240:
688:
439:
believe there is an appeal to a decision not to take any action, but maybe
987:
902:
872:
849:
795:
773:
730:
594:
It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
583:
547:
531:
508:
493:
456:
433:
411:
374:
317:
299:
248:
216:
174:
150:
119:
91:
59:
38:
886:
880:
208:
111:
956:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
933:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
837:
130:
655:
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
239:
For your civility and trying to follow WP's spirit and guidelines.
969:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
959:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
927:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
642:
940:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
751:
572:
161:
137:
article. In my opinion, many recent edits by the SPA
21:
This user is no longer very active on Knowledge (XXG).
652:"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
133:
discussion. Your good sense would be welcome on the
855:Thanks for engaging. If you'd like to change this
859:, I would be content to accept the results of an
402:may have considered a waste of time. Thank you.
160:I just wanted to let you know how much I admire
573:an example of this on your talkpage as I speak
8:
308:My pleasure! Truth one (won), Bullies ZERO.
629:
337:
806:
499:your argument. Pardon my interruption.
381:argument for reverting was to point at
324:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GHcool
568:
329:This discussion has been copied from
129:Thanks for your contributions to the
7:
924:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
696:This greeting (and season) promotes
942:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process
908:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
818:. McGraw Hill Professional. p. 242.
814:Collins, Tim (26 September 2008).
750:. This edit did not abide by them.
611:) 13:08, September 22, 2018â (UTC)
14:
663:Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
577:remove warnings without archiving
913:
264:
232:
225:Congrats - A cup of tea for you!
187:
963:and submit your choices on the
879:Good article reassessment for
584:07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
548:01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
532:23:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
509:23:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
494:22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
457:21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
434:20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
412:20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
375:20:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
318:12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
300:04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
151:19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
120:09:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
92:04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
60:01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
988:00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
903:15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
816:"Correct Your English Errors"
746:We have consensus "9" listed
249:01:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
217:17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
647:Merry Christmas everybody!!!
1006:
980:MediaWiki message delivery
873:20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
796:21:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
774:08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
731:01:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
175:10:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
850:07:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
263:
193:
186:
977:to your user talk page.
868:
791:
726:
313:
34:
39:10:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
648:
938:Arbitration Committee
921:Hello! Voting in the
646:
463:ArabâIsraeli conflict
398:participated in what
447:warrant a sanction.
272:The Special Barnstar
72:WP:Original Research
333:with his permission
257:A barnstar for you!
197:The Purple Barnstar
954:arbitration policy
649:
990:
891:reassessment page
842:Mateusz Konieczny
738:
737:
687:is wishing you a
665:
621:
620:
562:
559:talk page watcher
305:
304:
254:
253:
222:
221:
58:
48:I like it a lot.
997:
978:
976:
917:
820:
819:
811:
785:
758:
718:
700:
691:
685:
683:
678:
673:
661:
634:Extended content
630:
600:tool, block log.
556:
342:Extended content
338:
331:Drmies Talk page
297:
295:
290:
285:
268:
261:
260:
236:
229:
228:
191:
184:
183:
52:
25:Welcome visitors
18:
1005:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
970:
918:
910:
884:
834:
825:
824:
823:
813:
812:
808:
779:
754:
744:
739:
716:
708:
707:
703:
698:
690:Merry Christmas
689:
681:
676:
671:
669:
635:
627:
625:Merry Christmas
622:
422:repeat-offender
343:
326:
293:
288:
283:
281:
259:
227:
205:BelĂŠn RodrĂguez
182:
180:Purple barnstar
158:
127:
99:
67:
46:
27:
22:
19:
16:
12:
11:
5:
1003:
1001:
961:the candidates
930:eligible users
919:
912:
911:
909:
906:
883:
877:
876:
875:
833:
826:
822:
821:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
743:
740:
736:
735:
734:
733:
710:
704:
650:
641:
640:
637:
636:
633:
628:
626:
623:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
601:
597:
587:
586:
566:
551:
550:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
415:
414:
345:
344:
341:
336:
325:
322:
321:
320:
303:
302:
275:
274:
269:
258:
255:
252:
251:
237:
226:
223:
220:
219:
200:
199:
194:
192:
181:
178:
157:
154:
139:User:Pdacortex
126:
123:
98:
95:
66:
63:
45:
42:
26:
23:
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1002:
991:
989:
985:
981:
974:
968:
967:
962:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
934:
932:
931:
926:
925:
916:
907:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
865:Veritycheckâď¸
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
839:
831:
827:
817:
810:
807:
803:
797:
793:
789:
788:Veritycheckâď¸
783:
778:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
757:
752:
749:
741:
732:
728:
724:
723:Veritycheckâď¸
719:
713:
712:
711:
702:
701:
694:
692:
686:
684:
679:
674:
666:
664:
659:
656:
653:
645:
639:
638:
632:
631:
624:
610:
606:
605:Veritycheckâď¸
602:
598:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
578:
574:
570:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
524:Veritycheckâď¸
510:
506:
502:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
486:Veritycheckâď¸
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
464:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
426:Veritycheckâď¸
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
388:
384:
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
367:Veritycheckâď¸
363:
359:
354:
352:
347:
346:
340:
339:
335:
334:
332:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:Veritycheckâď¸
307:
306:
301:
298:
296:
291:
286:
277:
276:
273:
270:
267:
262:
256:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
231:
230:
224:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
198:
195:
190:
185:
179:
177:
176:
172:
168:
163:
162:this comment.
155:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
124:
122:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
97:Falafel, etc.
96:
94:
93:
89:
85:
79:
75:
73:
64:
62:
61:
56:
51:
43:
41:
40:
36:
32:
24:
964:
958:
935:
928:
922:
920:
885:
835:
809:
801:
755:
745:
717:petrarchan47
709:
695:
672:petrarchan47
668:
667:
662:
660:
657:
654:
651:
608:
593:
527:
521:
489:
444:
429:
421:
399:
395:
391:
386:
370:
361:
357:
355:
348:
328:
327:
284:petrarchan47
280:
271:
196:
167:Anthonyhcole
159:
128:
103:Talk:Falafel
100:
80:
76:
68:
47:
28:
17:SEMI-RETIRED
966:voting page
895:Iskandar323
836:As seen on
356:Two Admins
135:Aleppo soap
125:Aleppo soap
31:Veritycheck
950:topic bans
857:GA article
802:References
581:Iridescent
946:site bans
832:/ Falafel
782:Doc James
756:Doc James
742:Consensus
699:WikiLove.
441:Sandstein
65:Your note
887:Muhammad
881:Muhammad
830:WP:UNDUE
766:contribs
143:Macrakis
84:Macrakis
44:Username
973:NoACEMM
838:falafel
362:seventh
358:recused
351:warning
156:Thanks.
131:falafel
50:Toddst1
828:GWR /
575:) and
540:Drmies
449:Drmies
404:Drmies
107:WP:3RR
770:email
501:O3000
387:maybe
241:Zezen
984:talk
936:The
899:talk
869:talk
863:. ~
846:talk
792:talk
762:talk
748:here
727:talk
609:talk
565:your
544:talk
528:talk
505:talk
490:talk
453:talk
430:talk
408:talk
400:they
396:also
383:this
371:talk
314:talk
245:talk
213:talk
171:talk
147:talk
116:talk
88:talk
55:talk
35:talk
861:RfC
445:not
392:you
209:Mz7
112:Irn
986:)
975:}}
971:{{
948:,
901:)
871:)
848:)
794:)
772:)
768:¡
764:¡
729:)
677:ŕ¸ŕ¸¸
596:".
546:)
530:)
507:)
492:)
455:)
432:)
410:)
373:)
316:)
289:ŕ¸ŕ¸¸
247:)
215:)
173:)
149:)
118:)
90:)
37:)
982:(
897:(
867:(
844:(
790:(
784::
780:@
760:(
725:(
714:@
693:.
682:ŕ¸
607:(
561:)
557:(
542:(
526:(
503:(
488:(
451:(
428:(
406:(
369:(
312:(
294:ŕ¸
243:(
211:(
169:(
145:(
114:(
86:(
57:)
53:(
33:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
