User talk:Unomi/Archive/2010Mar

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to you comment on my talk page

Hi,

Quick response to your comment here [1]

I will respond on this a.s as I've the time to do this. Frankly, it seems out of topic on the NPOV board. Thanks,--Gilisa (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, but getting there

Very soon you will become just another dædαlus. I would like to ask you do not edit my user pages ever again. And please do not forget to add this message to your "neutral" list of my offenses.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't blame others for you not following policy. Unomi (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If under "others" you mean dædαlus, shabazz, factsontheground, vexorg and you, I've nothing more to add. Goodbye. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting weirder by the minute.. You acted in clear violation of policy when you removed the mfd box. I reinstated the box, as procedure warrants. You removed it again with an ES which seemed to imply that you thought the page deleted. If you really want it deleted just go to the mfd discussion and ask to have it deleted. But don't blame others, me, for you not following policy. The mfd box clearly states do not remove this box, do not blank the page. User page policy does not allow those kinds of pages. Unomi (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Jainism

I had made the changes which removed the part which you felt was POV. Are you agreeable to my changes?--Anish (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anish, I think it is a lot better, thanks. I hope that the sources I listed will be of use. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....I will definately use these sources. Taking your lead, I will search for more sources and improve the article.Thanks again. --Anish (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether your preferred solution was to delete this entire section or just part of it? Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred if the whole section was rewritten based on better sources, Sam Harris is not a good source for that article, imo. Unomi (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous America star

For tireless contributions to the encylopedia. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The evidences

to your question here are presented in my contributions. When was the last time I edited I/P conflict articles , do not count the one I wrote myself, when was the last time I edited a talk page of I/P conflict article, when was the last time I ... but actually who cares. The article about Kennedy I wrote, and me were attacked with unfair and misleading comments, fishing SPI was initiated, I was called a sock at the article discussion page and at the deletion request! "Wikipedians in the Wikipedia Neutrality Project" you say? Interesting. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The ANI thread is not about content, it is about behavior. At the last ANI thread I showed that in the 2 days after the one prior to that, from 17-18 march you engaged in multiple attempts at baiting and well poisoning. Since then there are plenty of examples of you continuing this kind of behavior. I am somewhat surprised that you haven't been banned yet, but I surmise it is just a matter of time, unless you rethink your battleground mentality approach to how you interact with other editors. Unomi (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew it was no use. To respond your surprise why I am not banned yet, I'd say: if more editors were as "neutral" as you are, I would have probably been, but as for right now common sense still prevails, do not know for how long. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Unomi (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That time your "neutrality" did not work :)

[2].--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, neutrality doesn't garner one many friends I am afraid. The reality doesn't change though, the source was bad. Wikifan hadn't read the ITIC document, and Sandstein attributed to me things that I had not said regarding requesting a block and misrepresented the case as being a content dispute. But so it goes :) Unomi (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar interest in Israeli articles

It fascinates me when I see a totally uninvolved editor (with experience of at least / almost a year) jump into the deep end of the I-P conflict articles and then attempt to be bold about introducing such changes without any discussion. --Shuki (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a long sordid past of boldly stating the truth ;) It is true I never took much interest in the I/P articles until I came across the recent flurry of AN/I's. I tend to study the edit histories of those involved and sources on the matter. To me, international law and the consensus opinion of serious sources is clear, and our articles should reflect them, it is not really more complicated or sinister than that. Unomi (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)