User talk:Tchadienne: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:47, 5 August 2006 editJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits Block← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:51, 5 August 2006 edit undoTchadienne (talk \| contribs)349 edits JzG. you dont understand, do you? Blocking me doesnt keep me from editing my talkpage. I'd of thought you'd of known that. tsk tskNext edit →
Line 102:		Line 102:
	:Looking at the sources a bit closer it does seem that you do have a case that they are reliable. I think there's a general assumption that blogs are unreliable since so many of them are written by average joes with an axe to grind, and this can mean they're discounted out of hand (as can be seen from the discussion at ] and my initial comments on the Guardian talk page). However, I do think there's a case for inclusion if the author is notable and/or knowledgable (I'll make a comment on WP:V to that effect later) and I think the examples you provided fall into that category. That being said, however, I do think the issue of anti-semitism would be better dealt with as part of a more comprehensive section on criticism/perceived bias of the Guardian as to do otherwise would give the issue undue prominence (it's far from the only criticism levelled at the paper) and could lead to the snowball effect mentioned by ] on the talk page. This, essentially, is the problem we've had with criticism sections over at ] which has resulted in the section being put on hiatus while a truly comprehensive secion is drafted. Like I said, I'd be willing to lend a hand doing the same on ], and it is an honest offer.		:Looking at the sources a bit closer it does seem that you do have a case that they are reliable. I think there's a general assumption that blogs are unreliable since so many of them are written by average joes with an axe to grind, and this can mean they're discounted out of hand (as can be seen from the discussion at ] and my initial comments on the Guardian talk page). However, I do think there's a case for inclusion if the author is notable and/or knowledgable (I'll make a comment on WP:V to that effect later) and I think the examples you provided fall into that category. That being said, however, I do think the issue of anti-semitism would be better dealt with as part of a more comprehensive section on criticism/perceived bias of the Guardian as to do otherwise would give the issue undue prominence (it's far from the only criticism levelled at the paper) and could lead to the snowball effect mentioned by ] on the talk page. This, essentially, is the problem we've had with criticism sections over at ] which has resulted in the section being put on hiatus while a truly comprehensive secion is drafted. Like I said, I'd be willing to lend a hand doing the same on ], and it is an honest offer.
	:As regards past disputes, I'm sure that may well play a part in the current situation but my own personal take on it would be that the best way to deal with other editors who you think may be acting in bad faith is to consistently maintain a higher standard of behaviour than those with whom there's conflict and look to the wider community for assistance; I've noticed that other editors tend to be swayed as much by behaviour as by arguments. In any case, the offer of assistance stands and I hope you didn't construe anything in my first post as a threat, that honestly was not my intention. --] ] 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)		:As regards past disputes, I'm sure that may well play a part in the current situation but my own personal take on it would be that the best way to deal with other editors who you think may be acting in bad faith is to consistently maintain a higher standard of behaviour than those with whom there's conflict and look to the wider community for assistance; I've noticed that other editors tend to be swayed as much by behaviour as by arguments. In any case, the offer of assistance stands and I hope you didn't construe anything in my first post as a threat, that honestly was not my intention. --] ] 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Patience exhausted==
	OK, I've tried to be nice about this but you've been utterly silly and confrontational in the face of politeness and many warnings. I am now going to take the matter further. You can't say you weren't warned. --] 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Block ==

	I have blocked you for disruption. Removing a warning not to remove warnings from your userpage is a blatant violation of ]. ] 18:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:51, 5 August 2006

Civility

Hi, I’m just dropping by to note that the debate in which you’re involved at the moment doesn’t seem to be going very well. Perhaps a more civil approach with a focus on the disputed object might be more productive. Have a nice day. —xyzzy_n 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism

Hey bro, i please yu something:D we made same article http://en.wikipedia.org/Alliance_for_the_Restoration_of_Peace_and_Counterterrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/Alliance_for_the_Restoration_of_Peace_and_Counter-Terrorism actually, we made different versions.... we'd have 2 unite them (make one article from 2 of them ), I dnt know how to do it:) bye,bye >User talk:Ipernar

Warned

You've already been warned and blocked once for reverting warnings on your talk page. Do it again and you will be blocked again. Sasquatch t|c 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not a warning. But go ahead and block me... since im already illegitimately blocked, somehow blocking me again for reverting your comment on my talkpage would be quite amusing.

Welcome!

Hello, Tchadienne, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tchadienne 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi, I never meant to offend you in any way, and I certainly never meant to preach to you or patronise you. If I did so, I apologise. If you'd ever like to chat I'm usually on IRC, nickname jacoplane... I'm actually rather interested in your insight in African affairs, but I guess I'll never get to converse with you about because of this animosity we've got going between us for some reason. I'm sorry you felt you had to abandon your old account, I hope it wasn't because of me. I hope you don't think I'm stalking you, if you do, I'll leave you alone. I just wasn't satisfied with the way we left our dispute, which is why I contacted you again. If you don't want to correspond with me again I'll understand and I'll leave you alone. Take care, jaco♫plane 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewess

See my comment at Talk:Banu Nadir. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:16

Yes, but not offensive for the reasons you claim. See the article's talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 17:28

Welcome back

Hi Tchadienne. Just wanted to give you a welcome back. I'm happy that all that happened to you hasn't make you lose interest for[REDACTED] (BTW, great name!). Ciao, and have care :-)--Aldux 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sudan, Chad & CAR

Hi Tchadienne, sorry I awnser only now, but I've been away from wiki for some days. Thanks for the link; I must admit I made a jump when I read the article, I had simply no idea such a thing could happen; as a rule the CAR has had little problems with both Sudan and Chad, even if they have long borders in common. That it's bad, there can be little doubt; but it's hard to understand why such a thing is happening; I don't see the point for muslim Chadian insurgents to attack CAR, and how they, or even Sudan, can believe to earn anything from such an action. Maybe the insurgents aren't anymore sure of Sudan's support, and are searching new logistic bases of support; even if I doubt they will find any in CAR, where muslims are few and not very militant. As for Sudan, I don't know if they're behind this; relations with CAR are quite good, so I don't see why they would provoke one of the few bordering countries that doesn't hate them.--Aldux 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the article at current events, in my opinion that the Sudanese invasion of Chad, civil war in Chad, and genocide in Darfur, are linked, is obvious to everybody who has eyes to see. That they were ever "initially four different conflicts" is questionable; the present Chadian civil war and the the Chad-Sudan conflict were clearly from the start connected to Darfur. Maybe you've been a bit hasty with CAR; we really know to little there to yet speak of a regional alliance, to understand if it was the real birth of a CAR rebel movement, or something that's going to rapidly disappear.--Aldux 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Your Feedback

Hello; I noticed you have recently contributed to the current events portal and thought you would be interested in looking at a proposal for redesigning the page. If you can, please take a look at a redesign proposal I created and provide some feedback on its talk page. So far, very little feedback has been received, and so the additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Misplaced Pages. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've helped correct your concerns on the Libya talkpage regarding lack of info on Qadafhi and Idi Amin, Jews in Libya. Could you please reconsider your opposition to Libya becoming a featured article. --Jaw101ie 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to both of your objections (Amin, the history of the Jews in Libya) in a note just under your comment on the Featured article debate. It would be interesting to hear your response, if only for the fact that further objections could help us build a better article. --(Mingus ah um 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

My Apologies

My sincerest pardon. I was wondering whether it was allowed or not (to strike comments). I thought that the comments were like a 'to do list' so after I did it, I striked it. I honestly did not know it was not allowed.

My apologies again,

Regards,

--Jaw101ie 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the Libya article has been improved and updated since I applied it for nomination. References, municipalites and a reasonable amount of copyediting has been done with more on the way. At the moment your vote seems to be neutral. Could you please reconsider?

Thank you very much,

--Jaw101ie 11:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chad-Sudan conflict

Please answer me how can you state that you started the article? If you see the history your error will be revealed. You started working 4 hours after its creation... see--TheFEARgod 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S: you can state that you WORKED ON IT but...--TheFEARgod 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to defend some rights by me and let you know it :) Forget it--TheFEARgod 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, see: Talk:Ethiopian involvement in Somalia for changes--TheFEARgod 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

An accord?

Probably N'Djamena Accord would be more careful, and wouldn't weight to many expectations on the the accord. The more I learn on the history of Chad, the more I become skeptical regards accords and ceasefires :-/. But unfortunately I'can't do it now; the Chadian Civil War and the Chadian-Libyan conflict are in preparation, and I also want to expand the biogs. of the presidents. --Aldux 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I noted you reverted my revert. So you think that the Janjaweed are an autonomous force, mostly independent from the Sudanese government? Just to understand your view.--Aldux 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A great idea, I've also found that the French[REDACTED] already had created a similar page. This is exactly the type of article we needed.--Aldux 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

Blogs are not reliable sources because they are personal webpages that have no editorial oversight. Anyone can place anything on a blog. The only exception is if it is a blog by a well-known expert or journalist. Jayjg 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi, just to let you know, "last rv of the day (according to

Note, this isn't an attempt to bully you (I just read your userpage), but I'm sure that you're aware that you can be blocked even if you don't violate the 3RR for edit warring and these kind of edit summaries will not help your case :) - FrancisTyers · 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of vandalism

Hi. I noticed you used the edit summary (undoing vandalism. NPOV) in your edit summary (). Please see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for the definition of vandalism. I take a very dim view of being called a vandal and will not tolerate it. Please do not repeat this mistake. As to your inclusion of the NPOV tag, I think you are in a minority of one on the matter. In my experience, these matters are best solved by civil discussions with other editors on the article's talk page, always remembering to assume good faith. In any case, please consider yourself warned. Thank you. --Guinnog 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Failure to persuade other editors of the merit of your edits is explicitly not grounds for adding a dispute tag to an article. If you reinsert the tag without giving real and credible evidence to back it, such as evidence of allegations of antisemitism against the Guardian by recognised authorities, you may be blocked for vandalism and disruption. Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian

As a relatively neutral bystander watching this whole fiasco unfold, I just thought I'd drop by and suggest that rather than continue attempting to put your edits into the article (which as things stand seems to be quickly reverted) it might be an idea to try to hammer out some sort of compromise on the talk page first. I certainly think there could be a case for a criticsm section, but such a section should be comprehensive rather than just concentrating on one issue, and should reflect widely held criticisms that have come from major, reliable sources (and, unfortunately, blogs don't count as you can find blogs that criticise everything in every way if you look hard enough). I'd be willing to help you out in developing a decent criticism section, should you decide to take the issue to the talk page, and I'd be willing to guess that a lot of the editors you're currently having difficulties with would too. --Daduzi 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the sources a bit closer it does seem that you do have a case that they are reliable. I think there's a general assumption that blogs are unreliable since so many of them are written by average joes with an axe to grind, and this can mean they're discounted out of hand (as can be seen from the discussion at WP:V and my initial comments on the Guardian talk page). However, I do think there's a case for inclusion if the author is notable and/or knowledgable (I'll make a comment on WP:V to that effect later) and I think the examples you provided fall into that category. That being said, however, I do think the issue of anti-semitism would be better dealt with as part of a more comprehensive section on criticism/perceived bias of the Guardian as to do otherwise would give the issue undue prominence (it's far from the only criticism levelled at the paper) and could lead to the snowball effect mentioned by User:Rd232 on the talk page. This, essentially, is the problem we've had with criticism sections over at BBC which has resulted in the section being put on hiatus while a truly comprehensive secion is drafted. Like I said, I'd be willing to lend a hand doing the same on The Guardian, and it is an honest offer.

As regards past disputes, I'm sure that may well play a part in the current situation but my own personal take on it would be that the best way to deal with other editors who you think may be acting in bad faith is to consistently maintain a higher standard of behaviour than those with whom there's conflict and look to the wider community for assistance; I've noticed that other editors tend to be swayed as much by behaviour as by arguments. In any case, the offer of assistance stands and I hope you didn't construe anything in my first post as a threat, that honestly was not my intention. --Daduzi 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)