Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 17 January 2009

Archives

Archive 2 (first archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Seth Material/FTNboard

hi Malcolm, i posted to the Village Pump thread which you mentioned on my Talk page. thanks for doing that. I have a different theory as regards what you were experiencing in that board and i explained it for you in that thread (that this is a Misplaced Pages problem, not just a FTNboard problem). your discussion with me about that here or on my Talk page is welcomed. I encourage you to consult my Talk Page's archive on this topic prior. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Hitbodedut

Malcom, I sent you the link to that place in the article. Did you visit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAVIDY (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All I saw was two sentences on the Kabbalah talk page. Is this what you mean?

Rebbe Nachman was not the person who coined the term Hitbodedut. This term comes from the Tanakh. There is a story of a female prophetess meditating in the field, and the word BDD is used, and not BNN. DAVIDY (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, but it does not site a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Malcolm, hi, I've been reviewing the discussions at Talk:New antisemitism, and I have to admit that I am perplexed. Granted, I haven't read everything in all of the archives, but of the discussions that I have read, there appears to be a clear consensus, and you appear to be taking the role of sole dissenter, edit warring against the consensus. Could you perhaps help clarify why you feel so strongly about this? Or are there discussions that I am missing, which bring the apparent consensus into doubt? Because I'm not understanding your position here. Thanks for any assistance, --Elonka 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since that discussion in August I have not removed that material, aside from two recent occasions when other editors removed it, and I supported their removal of it. The reason I did that is to push to an explanation of why it is there at all. I do not consider Tariq Ali a reliable source for an article on antisemitism. Recently I explained my problem with it like this:

I have made my view of the Tariq Ali quote very clear.

1. This article is about a claim of a new type of antisemitism.
2. Tariq Ali is not a reliable source on the subject of antisemitism.
3. Therefore it logically follows that Tariq Ali is not a reliable source for this article, and the quote from him has no place in the article.

As I understand it, the answers I have gotten boil down to: we have you out voted, so your objections do not matter. Since no one has proved my logic wrong, I think I am justified in turning the screws on occasion to push for a logical answer. (Anyhow, most of the ones complaining about me have, themselves, proven records as edit warriors.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement that some of the editors in the discussion are well-known within the topic area, and have a history of blocks or bans for edit warring and disruption. However, not all of them do, and even with those who have been blocked, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. However, I'm just not seeing a lot of support for your own view, which is why I am perplexed that you seem to be swimming upstream here. It doesn't mean that you're "wrong", it just means that the consensus appears to disagree with your point of view. --Elonka 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that I don't know when to give up. But I do not persist in anything if have not examined my position, considered the possibility that I am mistaken, and feel sure that I am justified. But, justified or not, I will not return to the issue until if seems there is new support for my position. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, alright, sounds good! Thanks for understanding. :) --Elonka 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was played out already. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka, since you seem to be dealing with is sort of thing a lot, you might be interested in my view of the general problem here Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Malcolm, would you please consider refactoring this comment, to remove the ad hominem portion? Thanks, --Elonka 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment was inappropriate, as it was aimed at the editor instead of the topic. Saying what you did tends not to lead to constructive discussion, it just antagonizes other editors, puts them on the defensive, and sidetracks the discussion. So please, for best results, just keep your comments focused on the content rather than the contributors, and this will be much more helpful. Thanks, --Elonka 20:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the first sentence of Slrubenstein's edit, a reply to me: I think I am with dab on this, when he writes "You implication that rejection of the JMT automatically amounts to acceptance of Biblical literalism isn't just uninformed, it's positively nonsensical". If Slrubenstein, and Dbachmann, would content themselves with saying that they think my views are wrong, instead of "positively nonsensical" (wording which is not civil), there would be no need to deal with my returning fire. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A problem with WP is the high concentration of computer geeks with good intelligence, but little in the way of social skills.".
My thoughts exactly. Plus I'd say the employment prospects of most WP users are pretty poor, especially if they make time in their lives for over 100,000 edits. ʄ!•¿talk? 06:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There , Slrubenstein asked Elonka to kick my ass for making a sarcastic comment about him. At the top of this thread, you can see the impression made by her foot impacting my talk page. Apparently there was no grounds to block me, because I doubt that she would have missed the opportunity to send me into wiki-exile if she could. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV regarding definition of the Jesus myth hypothesis

I have opened a thread about the NPOV of the very definition of the Jesus myth hypothesis Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_reliable_source_conflict and was wondering if you have any idea on what to do given we have several reliable sources that don't appear to agree with one another.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Hi. May I recommend that you stop responding to Untwirl. That may mean that she/he gets the last word, but so be it. There's no need to answer every message of hers/his. Just a suggestion. — ] (] · ]) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right, as is so often the case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, I'm sorry to do this, but you should be keenly aware of the three revert rule by now. I've blocked you 24 hours for breaking it at Self-hating Jew. Revert warring over good faith edits, even those which you might find highly nettlesome or straightforwardly wrong, is highly disruptive and hurtful to the project. Please don't edit war anymore. If a good faith edit is so untowards as to be way beyond what you think consensus should bring, bring it up on the talk page and other editors will likely pitch in, one way or another, sooner rather than later. More or less none of us get all the edits we want here, it's what we put up with for having input into this encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, this could not have come at a better time. I really need a wiki-break. I don't feel badly about it. Although it was not my intention to violate 3RR, I'm just not good at keeping track. Anyhow, one editor who I admire a lot, User:Boodlesthecat, was blocked for a year. He was trying to do the right thing, but was outnumbered. I am sure that the edits of the users opposing were acting in "good faith," even though they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars. Its just the way things are. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)