User talk:MarkB2

Shopping for revert warriors

Please do not recruit people to revert for you (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). Also, please refrain from making blatantly false statements (e.g. "I can't seem to convince Jayjg to let me contribute to the Israeli Settlements page"). The issue is with specific inclusions you are making, which are inappropriate, for the reasons clearly outlined on the relevant Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service."

BAAAAHAHAHAA!

Thank you

I have found it increasingly frustrating editting articles on Wikipedia that have to do with Israel and/or the Palestinians. I find it a tragedy that there is a small, but dedicated and obnoxious community of hardliners on wiki (such as Shamir1...) who distort these pages. You can see on a lot of their user pages that they "proudly support the Likud party" for example... And yet they pretend their edits conform to the NPOV standards. I try to come back to pages such as the settlements, or the timeline, but I get exasperated with them. Case in point, as you said, the WB is not "partially occupied", there is no organization in the world which states it is "partially occupied"; the entire territory is "occupied" with the PA having a degree of civil control in some areas. But some people refuse to accept this, and force Likud POV's on the rest of the wiki community. I will try to help with these pages some more, and I hope you stick around with me. It is a challenge to keep wiki on the NPOV sometimes... A student of history 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message

As others have pointed out before, there is a dedicated community of Likudniks that successfully ensures that Middle Eastern articles are phrased to suit them. However there is nothing that can be done about it. The Likudnik community has many administrators. I don't see the situation ever changing. Ujalm 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Settlements - US and Israel also said "illegal"

The US looked at these settlements and labelled them "inconsistent with international law".

And Israel accepted they were illegal, only objecting that making settlement a "war-crime" was excessive.

[4] - US opinion, Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, April 21, 1978 to Congress on the legal status of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

........ Conclusion - While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.

[5] The International Criminal Court Background Paper July 30, 1998, "Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs" concedes the point:

........ International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes". Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.

........ The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]:

- The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.

(This is reference the TalkPage discussion at [6]).

There is a lot more of this information - would you care to enable your email, or contact me on mail:andy.dyer9@tiscali.co.uk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia

Hello! As it would appear, you have not been participating on the Islamophobia RFM. Seeing as you have been listed as an involved party, I think it would be worthwhile if you were to take a look at the discussion and add your own insight. This would be more helpful in reaching an agreement over how to handle the article. Thank you! MessedRocker (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adduce me not

Hey MarkB2 - love your user page. You made an edit to Lewinsky scandal a while back in the "perjury charges" section (good edit, overall, by the way) which introduced the word "adducement". A question was raised on the talk page about this in July and I just posted a further question - could you take a look at it here? Thanks Tvoz |talk 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contra page

I appreciate your support although I would appreciate if you try to write with a less confrontational tone. I am trying to to moderate my tone as well, but rest assured I have the same frustrations with Groggy Dice that you have.

I would appreciate any info you could give me to rebut Groggy dices claims. Theres a lot of stuff I haven't read on this subject, so anything you know of that could strengthen my position on the talk page would be great.annoynmous 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Am I being given civility lessons by an anonymous user? Perhaps I am. The Americas Watch sources are my addition to the article, as well as the quotes. You can't get them except by finding a used copy of an out-of-print edition on Amazon. Of course, the shit written by American apologists you can usually find in your local library.MarkB2^Chat 03:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

You have been listed as a party on the above request for mediation. Please go to the aboce page and indicate whether or not you are happy to proceed. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been re-listed. Sorry about the confusion. We didn't see you around and thought to proceed without you. Hope you will join us!Student7 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark. Can you talk to Jpineda? I think we are dead in the water without him. Student7 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

Please could you pop over to the above page and state whether or not you accept Dweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the mediator of the case? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing. Please read my opening comments at the mediation workspace and then keep an eye on that page for further developments. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd really like you to continue to participate in the mediation. We've been waiting a few days for your input in the latest stage. Please do pop over to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

I'm afraid that if you don't participate, we will have to consider progressing the mediation without you. This would be a shame, as there is the largest chance of success if all parties agree to each step as we go. Please either join in, or indicate at the mediation page that you trust the involved parties to settle the dispute themselves and you will agree to whatever results. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my Contras page post

Tiomono (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Hi MarkB2. I'm new to wikipedia, so apologies in advance if I'm misusing the talk protocol. I spent 3 1/2 years on and off in the southeast of Nicaragua from late 85 till 89 and have pictures to prove it. I thought my post was well substantiated with relevant links but I can get plenty more. Fact is Contras definitely did have military momentum in 87, 88. Sandinistas did resort to mass conscription. There were protests by "Madres de Masaya" and other groups. And Anti-FSLN candidate won in a total blowout in the 1990 internationally monitored election even though campesinos in remote parts of Nicaragua were only given 24 hours to regeister. This is all fact. May not sit well. But fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiomono (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contra

MarkB2, I see why you like Scott Ritter! He also has zero combat experience. And yeah I'd be happy to tell the fat **** to his face. Every word I post is fact. Always backed by links. Your "well known" stuff is pure leftie BS. I noticed you removed my post that the Catholic Church inside Nicaragua denounced the Piricuacos throughout the war and Cardenal Miguel Obando y Bravo risked his life publicly declaring himeslf to be a contra. But you left in some fringe leftie catcholic group's unsubstantated rant. You're a class act. Just like the pedophile dictator you support. Tiomono (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No te olvides hermanito, Aqui no se Rinde Nadie! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiomono (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contras - Americas Watch citations

Hi Mark! This Americas Watch citation in the human rights violation section that had been challenged could actually be more specific (in order to avoid future disputes about it) - in particular, I'd like it to have page numbers. Unfortunately I can't access Human Rights Watch's web page here from China (it's blocked). Could you help? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know this is depressing stuff. Could you work these page numbers into the citations which already are in the article? I'm just worried all that material about human right abuses could get challenged again. There seem to be quite a few POV warriors around that article. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for going the extra mile. :) Better world, one step at a time. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

In the future please try to assume good faith rather than be insulting in your comments. For more information you can check out: Wikipedia: Assume good faith. You might also want to check out: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Have a good day and happy editing! - 175.176.245.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Your Harassment

Please don't send me messages that contain insults and profanity. I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time, maybe you should take some time off from wikipedia(a wiki-break)? After all better to give yourself a little break than get banned for harassing others(I am taking notes on the messages you send me). I hope things get better for you! Happy editing! - 175.176.245.51 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]