''Important note:'' To preserve context, my replies (if any) will be posted here, and ''not on your Talk page'', so add this page to your watch. Similarly, if I post a message to ''your Talk'', please reply on your Talk, not here. Thanks. * This main page is for recent communications regarding collaboration on article contents. Old messages will be periodically moved to archive subpages. * All messages not related to specific article contents (such as general comments, rants and praises) will be promptly moved to appropriate subpage. Currently, most of these messages are archived in :User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. :If your message is of this type, please post it directly there. Thank you. User:HistoryBuffEr ---- == Occupation of Palestine == Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally:%20Rephrasing%20the%20question -- User:Jmabel 01:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) Hi Buff, here's a proposal I outlined at Talk:Occupation of Palestine.Please tell me what you think about it. I very much oppose the creation of alternative articles. True, it will be very difficult to write a single article that will still be readable and not just a point-counterpoint list. But the whole point of the NPOV policy is to avoid the proliferation of alternative articles. If it happens for Israel//Palestine, then it will set a precedent to be imitated on all controversial topics. Also, if there are alternative Israel//Palestine articles, they will each tend to become far more POV than they are now. I think that we need to write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work, and it would require a lot of editors on this topic to open their minds and change their intransigeant stance, but if we succeed, it would be a very big achievement, and (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous now) I think it might actually contribute to a genuine peace process. On the other hand you are right that it is much easier to start fresh. Also, all attempts to improve tha current Israel//Palestine articles are pretty futile, because they always descend into bickering about details. We really need to focus on the bigger picture, that's essential to writing a readable and enlightening article. I think Buff has given us a good outline of points of that bigger picture. So here is what I suggest: #Those who share a similar critique of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict article get together and make a thorough analysis of where that article fails ; #We make a list of the main points where the article fails, as well as a list of what we can keep ; #Those who agree with the criticisms list get together and start a draft for a completely new article (at this point, those who disagree with the criticisms would not be allowed to pick it apart through the usual bickering about the details) ; #This new draft article would be based on Buffs outline above as well as the two lists from the current article ; #Only after we finish with the new draft do we ask those who defend the ''status quo'' of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to contribute and edit the draft, and adapt the broad narrative to incorporate their views - but edits by those (from both sides) who do not try to engage constructively will be rigorously reverted ; #When the draft has stabilised somewhat, we make it into the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. In a nutshell, the strategy I propose for writing a NPOV Israel//Palestine consists of: * hammering out a narrative supported by a broad consensus - when we have achieved that it won't be too difficult to deal with the details * thereby marginalising those who refuse productive co-operation and try to destroy a consensus-based narrative (which has always been the aim of the NPOV policy) Tell me what you think of this. - User:Pir 13:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Your plan sounds fine. I'm not sure that it'll work as it can be quickly derailed by extremists -- Wikipedia allows anyone to veto articles, regardless of facts or consensus. I'll post more on the article Talk page. User:HistoryBuffEr 19:20, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) Hello Buff, if you really want to write a decent article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you need to accept that your oponents view need to be included too. You will certainly be unable to force your view of the truth on Wikipedia. If I was you, I'd start by writing a complete draft article on your own user page, negotiate with the Zionist faction so that it is acceptable to them and then replace the main article with the new one. Alternatively, one solution might be to have two alternative versions of the same article, although the former would be preferable. Good luck! - User:Pir 16:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Actually, as they redirected the article several times, history of what happened is missing. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Occupation_of_Palestine&redirect=no Original Talk:Occupation of Palestine] for what really happened: I invited everyone to create an NPOV version. :In short: I copied text from Occupation of Palestine to new Occupations of Palestine and posted a blank skeleton to Occupation of Palestine for everyone to edit. However, instead of filling in the blanks, the extremists redirected the article to Occupations of Palestine several times, then created a new article Struggle over Palestine and redirected Occupation of Palestine there, then reverted and redirected several more times. :The reason Occupation of Palestine has my (quick and dirty) draft in it is that I was adding that between their redirects and reverts hoping to encourage other editors to join in editing. I have also posted the article on "Pages needed attention" for this purpose. :The article is now redirected by User:Gadykozma and protected by someone who left no trace. Some admin should reverse this one-sided decision on a controversial article. :User:HistoryBuffEr 17:58, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) == "Zionist" dispute == I have edited the paragraph refering to the term Zionist in the article [[Holocaust denial examined]. Please review since you have stated a problem with the phrasing in the past. Also, please read the Wikipedia help pages on what the NPOV tag actually means and where it should be used -- the article necessarily has a POV in because of its titling. Actual rebuttals should either be in an article on Holocaust denial or as "however"s in the article body itself. --User:MtB 20:59, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) FWIW, I'd like to point out that you yourself use the term "Zionistas" as a type of insult. Would you prefer that the Wikipedia be updated to reflect your personal terminology? As in "Heh, these paranoid Zionistas need to make up their mind whether it's the whole world that is after them or it's just one sock-puppet." :Thanks, your rephrasing makes the "Zionist" usage description more balanced. I'll remove my NPOV objection, subject to your version remaining in the article. :P.S: Like many others, I use the term "Zionist" (usually with "extremist" as a suffix) as a matter-of-fact description for those with extreme nationalist Israel-first/only views; the adjective "extreme/ist" should be assumed where omitted for brevity (though with the future of 2 peoples at stake, Zionism is becoming an inherently extremist ideology.) :User:HistoryBuffEr 22:05, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC) == NPOV dispute == Could you take a look at the edit history and talk page of Cultural and historical background of Jesus? User:CheeseDreams 23:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Unfortunately, your case is not an exception. :Once a partisan creates a POV titled article s/he has framed the issue and trying to NPOV it within the article is a battle already lost. POV titled articles should be Redirected to an NPOV article (or Deleted), but those same partisans are likely to block that. As everyone has veto power here, what is "neutral" is decided by the most determined -- usually the extremists. NPOV for most here means, of course, their own POV. In short: :The commandment #1 here is: \"Zealots shall inherit Wikipedia\", so the choice is: become one or give up. :User:HistoryBuffEr 17:58, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) == Munich Massacre == I have attempted a compromise version of Munich Massacre that incorporates the best parts of both versions. Improvements are welcome, but I would like to humbly ask that you not do a blanket revert, as you would be reverting good edits as well as bad. Thanks! User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)
== Welcome to Ziopedia (tm), a reverse Robin Hood venture == Before donating your time or money to this project consider these points: * '''You'd be wasting your time: This project has attracted many because anyone can contribute (but see some fine-print below.) However, a reference work written by \"anyone\" is a contradiction in terms. * You'd be helping promote a racist/imperial worldview: The owner of this outfit and the majority of his lieutenants (board, arbs and admins) are pro-Zionists. In the last 3 months, four editors who tried to add the neutral-point-of view balance to Israel-related aticles were banned from Wikipedia (another one is expected to be banned soon.) In the same time-frame, four editors who were persistently biasing articles in favor of Israel were let go free (one has even had his previous sentence reduced.) Simply skim any of the articles related to Israel and draw your own conclusion. Most non-science articles exhibit clear bias: neocon, right-wing, USA, Western. * You'd be merely enriching a private venture rather than some common good:''' Below the thin PR veneer of a community run public/non-profit org, this venture is actually owned and run by one person. Read that again. Prior to asking for public donations, the owner financed this project by selling titillating images of women's flesh. There is no indication that the owner's nature has since changed. On the contrary, he recently opposed posting a link for donations for tsunami victims on the home page. This project was not created for the public benefit, but for the owner to some day cash in on the huge quantity of "stuff" created for free by others. Despite the questionable quality, he is likely to benefit: the sheer volume is at least worth something in terms of potential (low-Q) eyeballs for ads. The public, however, is unlikely to ever benefit from this shovel-ware collection of mostly random musings which often change without notice or discernible cause. Worse yet, even if all of the above appeals to you because you are part of the cabal, you are still doomed because Ziopedia will never become a credible source of information. Period. User:HistoryBuffEr 06:10, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with HistoryBuffEr:
HistoryBuffEr
HistoryBuffEr
HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons
HistoryBuffEr
''Important note:'' To preserve context, my replies (if any) will be posted here, and ''not on your Talk page'', so add this page to your watch. Similarly, if I post a message to ''your Talk'', please reply on your Talk, not here. Thanks. * This main page is for recent communications regarding collaboration on article contents. Old messages will be periodically moved to archive subpages. * All messages not related to specific article contents (such as general comments, rants and praises) will be promptly moved to appropriate subpage. Currently, most of these messages are archived in :User_talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons. :If your message is of this type, please post it directly there. Thank you. User:HistoryBuffEr ---- == Occupation of Palestine == Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally:%20Rephrasing%20the%20question -- User:Jmabel 01:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) Hi Buff, here's a proposal I outlined at Talk:Occupation of Palestine.Please tell me what you think about it. I very much oppose the creation of alternative articles. True, it will be very difficult to write a single article that will still be readable and not just a point-counterpoint list. But the whole point of the NPOV policy is to avoid the proliferation of alternative articles. If it happens for Israel//Palestine, then it will set a precedent to be imitated on all controversial topics. Also, if there are alternative Israel//Palestine articles, they will each tend to become far more POV than they are now. I think that we need to write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work, and it would require a lot of editors on this topic to open their minds and change their intransigeant stance, but if we succeed, it would be a very big achievement, and (at the risk of sounding a bit pompous now) I think it might actually contribute to a genuine peace process. On the other hand you are right that it is much easier to start fresh. Also, all attempts to improve tha current Israel//Palestine articles are pretty futile, because they always descend into bickering about details. We really need to focus on the bigger picture, that's essential to writing a readable and enlightening article. I think Buff has given us a good outline of points of that bigger picture. So here is what I suggest: #Those who share a similar critique of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict article get together and make a thorough analysis of where that article fails ; #We make a list of the main points where the article fails, as well as a list of what we can keep ; #Those who agree with the criticisms list get together and start a draft for a completely new article (at this point, those who disagree with the criticisms would not be allowed to pick it apart through the usual bickering about the details) ; #This new draft article would be based on Buffs outline above as well as the two lists from the current article ; #Only after we finish with the new draft do we ask those who defend the ''status quo'' of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to contribute and edit the draft, and adapt the broad narrative to incorporate their views - but edits by those (from both sides) who do not try to engage constructively will be rigorously reverted ; #When the draft has stabilised somewhat, we make it into the new Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. In a nutshell, the strategy I propose for writing a NPOV Israel//Palestine consists of: * hammering out a narrative supported by a broad consensus - when we have achieved that it won't be too difficult to deal with the details * thereby marginalising those who refuse productive co-operation and try to destroy a consensus-based narrative (which has always been the aim of the NPOV policy) Tell me what you think of this. - User:Pir 13:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Your plan sounds fine. I'm not sure that it'll work as it can be quickly derailed by extremists -- Wikipedia allows anyone to veto articles, regardless of facts or consensus. I'll post more on the article Talk page. User:HistoryBuffEr 19:20, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) Hello Buff, if you really want to write a decent article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you need to accept that your oponents view need to be included too. You will certainly be unable to force your view of the truth on Wikipedia. If I was you, I'd start by writing a complete draft article on your own user page, negotiate with the Zionist faction so that it is acceptable to them and then replace the main article with the new one. Alternatively, one solution might be to have two alternative versions of the same article, although the former would be preferable. Good luck! - User:Pir 16:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Actually, as they redirected the article several times, history of what happened is missing. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Occupation_of_Palestine&redirect=no Original Talk:Occupation of Palestine] for what really happened: I invited everyone to create an NPOV version. :In short: I copied text from Occupation of Palestine to new Occupations of Palestine and posted a blank skeleton to Occupation of Palestine for everyone to edit. However, instead of filling in the blanks, the extremists redirected the article to Occupations of Palestine several times, then created a new article Struggle over Palestine and redirected Occupation of Palestine there, then reverted and redirected several more times. :The reason Occupation of Palestine has my (quick and dirty) draft in it is that I was adding that between their redirects and reverts hoping to encourage other editors to join in editing. I have also posted the article on "Pages needed attention" for this purpose. :The article is now redirected by User:Gadykozma and protected by someone who left no trace. Some admin should reverse this one-sided decision on a controversial article. :User:HistoryBuffEr 17:58, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) == "Zionist" dispute == I have edited the paragraph refering to the term Zionist in the article [[Holocaust denial examined]. Please review since you have stated a problem with the phrasing in the past. Also, please read the Wikipedia help pages on what the NPOV tag actually means and where it should be used -- the article necessarily has a POV in because of its titling. Actual rebuttals should either be in an article on Holocaust denial or as "however"s in the article body itself. --User:MtB 20:59, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) FWIW, I'd like to point out that you yourself use the term "Zionistas" as a type of insult. Would you prefer that the Wikipedia be updated to reflect your personal terminology? As in "Heh, these paranoid Zionistas need to make up their mind whether it's the whole world that is after them or it's just one sock-puppet." :Thanks, your rephrasing makes the "Zionist" usage description more balanced. I'll remove my NPOV objection, subject to your version remaining in the article. :P.S: Like many others, I use the term "Zionist" (usually with "extremist" as a suffix) as a matter-of-fact description for those with extreme nationalist Israel-first/only views; the adjective "extreme/ist" should be assumed where omitted for brevity (though with the future of 2 peoples at stake, Zionism is becoming an inherently extremist ideology.) :User:HistoryBuffEr 22:05, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC) == NPOV dispute == Could you take a look at the edit history and talk page of Cultural and historical background of Jesus? User:CheeseDreams 23:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Unfortunately, your case is not an exception. :Once a partisan creates a POV titled article s/he has framed the issue and trying to NPOV it within the article is a battle already lost. POV titled articles should be Redirected to an NPOV article (or Deleted), but those same partisans are likely to block that. As everyone has veto power here, what is "neutral" is decided by the most determined -- usually the extremists. NPOV for most here means, of course, their own POV. In short: :The commandment #1 here is: \"Zealots shall inherit Wikipedia\", so the choice is: become one or give up. :User:HistoryBuffEr 17:58, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) == Munich Massacre == I have attempted a compromise version of Munich Massacre that incorporates the best parts of both versions. Improvements are welcome, but I would like to humbly ask that you not do a blanket revert, as you would be reverting good edits as well as bad. Thanks! User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)
HistoryBuffEr
== Welcome to Ziopedia (tm), a reverse Robin Hood venture == Before donating your time or money to this project consider these points: * '''You'd be wasting your time: This project has attracted many because anyone can contribute (but see some fine-print below.) However, a reference work written by \"anyone\" is a contradiction in terms. * You'd be helping promote a racist/imperial worldview: The owner of this outfit and the majority of his lieutenants (board, arbs and admins) are pro-Zionists. In the last 3 months, four editors who tried to add the neutral-point-of view balance to Israel-related aticles were banned from Wikipedia (another one is expected to be banned soon.) In the same time-frame, four editors who were persistently biasing articles in favor of Israel were let go free (one has even had his previous sentence reduced.) Simply skim any of the articles related to Israel and draw your own conclusion. Most non-science articles exhibit clear bias: neocon, right-wing, USA, Western. * You'd be merely enriching a private venture rather than some common good:''' Below the thin PR veneer of a community run public/non-profit org, this venture is actually owned and run by one person. Read that again. Prior to asking for public donations, the owner financed this project by selling titillating images of women's flesh. There is no indication that the owner's nature has since changed. On the contrary, he recently opposed posting a link for donations for tsunami victims on the home page. This project was not created for the public benefit, but for the owner to some day cash in on the huge quantity of "stuff" created for free by others. Despite the questionable quality, he is likely to benefit: the sheer volume is at least worth something in terms of potential (low-Q) eyeballs for ads. The public, however, is unlikely to ever benefit from this shovel-ware collection of mostly random musings which often change without notice or discernible cause. Worse yet, even if all of the above appeals to you because you are part of the cabal, you are still doomed because Ziopedia will never become a credible source of information. Period. User:HistoryBuffEr 06:10, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with HistoryBuffEr:
HistoryBuffEr
HistoryBuffEr
HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
