User talk:Severino/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Severino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Severino/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia: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!  —Khoikhoi 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should very seriously consider your own point-of-view before quickly moving to overwrite others' work. Wikipedia is not a place for the rewriting of history to a particular bent; it is for a neutral, open version of it. In the Rhodesian Bush War article, the terms "guerilla fighter" and "nationalists" are compromises between more extreme terms such as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Calling police work "oppressive" is also decidedly to your own point-of-view. michael ^talk 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a place for the rewriting of history to a particular bent"

correct. nevertheless, the Rhodesian Bush War-article is composed the way it is. --Severino 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Severino for considering me. But, I suppose, it would be better if you refer to this page for vandalism and blocking issues. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, shyam! --Severino 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Severino! I have noticed that you keep making edits to Talk:Districts of Israel without proposing any changes to the article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and a talk page is not a discussion forum. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

the only changes i made was to clarify to whom i addressed in the posting and to answer to somebody who derived political claims from a religious book. --Severino (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Tzipi Livni appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

this article (and others) have apparently not been written from a NPOV. what was IZL if not a terrorist group? --Severino (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have objected just as strongly if you'd called them "freedom fighters". I don't hold a brief for them or their opponents, but I know a breach of Wikipedia policy when I see one. Would you prefer to keep within guidelines, or would you prefer me to take this to WP:ANI? Your call. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

is this a threat ? :-) --Severino (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Severino. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Severino. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, thank you for the hint. --Severino (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...instead of reverting back in comments that attack and editor, and fail to address edits. Polite editors actually send a message to the user's discussion page, instead of assuming they are wrong - which is precisley the error you - as a relative newcomer to the Project - made.
You asked: "where did he call you a racist? answer to proposals and questions rather than to threaten!)" First of all, I am not going to respond to attacks in an article discussion that are better addressed on my user page or in article discussion. I am unsure how to make matters any clearer than that. As for the racism accusations - again, checking edit histories would have really, really helped you out here. Babak/Kamran/whatever seem to think that any edit which differs from his own is anti-Iranian. As Iranians are a separate ethnic grouping, calling someone such, or stating that they have an anti-Iranian agenda, is the same as calling them a racist. As the user's pointed attack on the article discussion page is part and parcel of that behavior, I reverted it out, and will do so again. Those instances include the following:

• '"No Arcayne your problem is the Iranian part of it"
• "it seemd (sic) that you had an agenda to let anti-Iranianism look less bad than it was
  

Of course, I am leaving out the comments attacking me on my own user talk page and elsewhere. Frankly, most of it is immaterial at this point. The article is called anti-Iranian sentiment, not Arcayne. Discussions aren't intended to be addressing other users or their "agendas"; they are considered pointy attack posts. They don't get to remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

the fact that i have not made a lot of edits in the article does not make me a newcomer there as i have followed the development since a long time. about the kaveh farroukh edits: you did not state one good reason for your repeated reverting of babak...'s edit concerning farrouks national identity. maybe someone develops the idea then that you have an anti-iranian agenda. and even if that is unjustified, the final decision if someone will be blocked, will not be taken by you. --Severino (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have big problems with Arcayne's type of editings. At times he deletes a whole section. After asking many times what is the problem, he says that he does not the sources or do not trust them and other vague reasons. He also says oh no it was not against Iranians, but against Muslims, while the sources say clearly it was against Iranians, and that Iranians were singled out in te Netherlands. The sources are there and any one could see them. After he reverts and rereverts he annoys other editors and so , eveyone, at least I, say a good bye to the edit, and do not waste my time. Another problem is that is seems that there is a line in Arcayne's edit. In the article Googoosh as well as Kaveh Farrokh is anti-iranian sentiments article, he deletes the word Iran(ian) before Azeri. It can be that he does not know Iranian Azeri's but it is a well known agenda of some political groups, who are creating, at least in internet irredentism in Iran. This case Iranian Azerbaijan, and are fuelling the idea that it belongs to the republic of Azerbaijan. I do not see much sense in Arcaye's statements that Googoosh is not from the Iranian Azerbaijan but from the republic of Azerbaijan. Tracking his edits you will see such behavior of his is only with regard to the Iranian articles. I have not seen him opposing the statements in anti-Arabism or Anti-Turkish sentiments, on similar grounds that they are Muslims. Arcayne is very selective and targets only the Anti-Iranism article on that ground. Moreover his behavior is very annoying in that he yells and deletes and accuses and screams. By the way I have never accuses him of Racism or something. It is only his strategy to divert the discussion--Babakexorramdin (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this assortment of vague grievances is good, as it helps me to understand just how incorrectly you have either misinterpreted my posts, or are simply filtering them out somehow. Allow me to pierce the filter: I don't give fig where you are from. I don't care what version of God you pray to, or even if you choose to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really, really don't.

What I do care about is bad edits, or POV edits, or improperly sourced edits. These sorts of things drive me absolutely batshit, Babak/Kamran/whatever. I am not going to delete something simply because it is about Iran, but neither am I going to champion the cause of Iranian/Persian issues - or allow others to soapbox it while I have a working keyboard. I have not yelled or screamed at you, nor have I deleted any information that you have found reliable, verifiable citation for. Not once. That bears repeating, Babak: the information removed because it either did not say what you wanted it to say, or was largely uncited. Anti-Muslim snetiment is not the same as anti-Iranianism. Most westerners don't know the difference, much like a lot of Azeris cannot tell the difference between Irish and English or Appallachians and Cajuns; clearly, a mob didn't target the salon in your reference because they were Iranians; they targeted it because it was Middle-Eastern. I am not the only editor who noted this; however, you choose to claim I am the one with an agenda. Right.

I dig that you feel (or feel that your culture is) put upon, Babak; I am not the source of that pressure, and never have been. I follow Wikipedia polices and guidelines. If you are unwilling to edit in accordance with those often difficult rules, then you are going to find opposition to your edits often - as you have already found from other editors.

And I will say this once more, and please believe me when I say that you should consider it very seriously: please stop accusing me of having an anti-Iranian agenda. It is equivalent to an accusation of racism in the predominant culture of the West, and it damages my reputation. When i say that you will be blocked for calling me such, understand that while I cannot personally block you, there are plenty of folk on the AN/I noticeboard who can. So I ask you - for the fourth time - stop it. Address the edits, and not the editor. Follow our rules and guidelines. Do this, and all will be copacetic. Do it not, and there will be repercussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

arcayne in spite of everything you seem to be a very prudential person. maybe you can give here a (vague?) reason for your edits concerning iranian azeris? after all,this seems to be the trigger of the conflict with babak.--Severino (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again I have to respeat myself I did not call Arcayne a racist or something. Actually I never accuse people of racism, and he better stops threaten me. My problem is with his editing habits. He interepretes things in his way and then remocves sourced material, because it is not what he interpreted. If he is saying that his edits on Iranian Azeris in not based on bad intentions, THEN the only other explanation is that he has no profound knowledge about this issue. In that cas eit is better than he does not get involved in these issues, because his editing beahvior is truely annoying.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was respondin g to another one of your edits and saw your unanswered questions, Sev. I am unsure what you are referring to regarding Azeri edits. I have noticed that there appears a to be a lot of pov ethnic editing going on in a number of articles, adding without substantiation the tag of Azeri. With citation, I usually have no problem with info being added, so long as it is encyclopedic, reliable, and not of undue weight. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

long overdue, indeed ;-)--Severino (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Peace, man... I'm sorry I got into it with you today. TheRealHoldwater (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you an Antisemite. I would never call anyone an antisenmite just because they held that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not a WP:RS source and at the same time is arguing that self-published blogs of a person widely regarded as an antisemite should be included in WP. I would need more information than that. So, I'm sorry if you were either offended or flattered. Doright (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

no, i was not offended. maybe i WOULD have been offended, if an impartial, credible wikipedia user, who is heedful about possible discrimination, double standards and so forth against WHICHEVER collective (and especially on the talk pages of the gaza war article one can find some) would denote something like that (without reason and good arguments, like here).--Severino (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please enrich this page by addind more relevent matter to it. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

er...is there a reason you ask ME?--Severino (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that, before you cast aspersions as to my willingness to discuss, you might want to actually check the discussion page. It was discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your point about people sharing their personal experiences without it being relevant to the article. I used a personal experience to help argue a point about original research so I didn't see a comparison there. So I really don't know why my post was dragged into that. But you had to do what you had to do. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm British where a prime minister is head of the gov. Inadvertent mistake thanks for putting it right...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. The sources brought are unacceptable in most any article, let alone the biography of a living person. Furthermore, encyclopedia articles are not current event sheets, and not every thought, word, or action by people is to be documented; only the notable ones in their lives. Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

littman's participation on conferences like these and his contacts with de winter and the like are PRETTY notable, although it might be embarrasing for some.--Severino (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I semi-protected the article. This is a link spammer trying to get his film linked. See [1] and [2]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Littman (historian). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit is very poor and one user is already blocked as a result of repeatedly inserting it, I for one am tired of discussing such content, there is no consuensus to insert it, have a look at the RS noticeboard and if you still want to insert something then start a RFC on the talkpage and make your case there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine I have no problem with your removing the human rights activist, I missed it or I would not have replaced it, it is something that is claimed and poorly supported, if people want to reinsert it they can find stronger citations to support it my interest is solely in keeping out content that poorly cited and controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if there is uncited content and it is not controversial then you should really only tag it with a citation needed tag and wait and see if people find a citation, if it is controversial you could move the content to the talkpage for discussion, you appear to be starting a new edit war as regards the content you just removed again, that would also be less confrontational if you simply tagged it with a citation required tag. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

in principle i have to agree. but, you know, it's sometimes a matter of the point of view if a content is controversial or not. feel free to move the content back and tag it.--Severino (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no point of view about this person, are you involved? Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

usually i do edits only in articles about a subject/a person i know / i have an opinion about; rarely i change formal stuff. so again, i agree if you move the content back as long as it's tagged then.--Severino (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that might be a good faith edit for you to consider but I am not going to do it. I enjoy protecting the articles of living people when they are under attack by negative forces. As wiki editors we should attempt to edit articles in a neutral way, editing the article of a person that we dislike or have strong personal opinions of is clearly going to hard to do it in a way that is beneficial to the wikipedia, which is what as editors we should be here to do.Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

usually people do have an opinion of (a relation to) the subject/the person they write about here! having knowledge of the subject/the person is a precondition to make edits i'd say. that doesn't mean that "feelings" or something like that, as you insinuate it here, are involved. editing articles in a neutral way also means to balance it out when important facts are omitted.--Severino (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You think that this person is anti Muslim? Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

it's not about what i or others here think.--Severino (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about Israel and its diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel. Material about Zimbabwe's relations with Yasser Arafat and the PLO, and the infighting in Zimbabwe between Zimbabwean leaders does not belong here. Please open a new article about Palestinian-Zimbabwe relations if you are looking for a place to put it. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what NPOV means. At the Littman article here, you deleted the phrase humanitarian. Claiming it was POV. POV is when the wikipedia author inserts a POV of his/hers that is not reflected in the reference. It does not mean that every or any adjective may be removed, because it reflects a judgment of the news source. I would suggest you revert yourself. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

we don't need to adopt anything here just because a source says so. and on the other hand keep important information out of the article with flimsy justification. --Severino (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severino,

Supreme Delicious recently removed his own addition as per the discussion hereTalk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Does_this_belong_in_the_Israel_Military_Accounts_section.3F and a request to remove it since it is in the wrong place.

Please undo your undo of his undo :)

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ok :) --Severino (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

oh i realized now that you asked me to undo it. before i read that you asked me for permission to do so. but you have done it already and its ok.--Severino (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the addition I made to your talk page asking about the edit you made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=366267348 did not save. I have since added a section to the main discussion, and welcome you to join us :)

Here is the current discussion page section: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Does_this_edit_add_POV.3F did not save. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thus the apologies. There was no intention to make you look bad and your name has not come up at all in the discussion ... just the article. Also it was specifically mentioned that the edit correctly used verbage directly from the source, so I don't think anyone feels you were trying to insert bias. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Severino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.