| Revision as of 05:48, 5 March 2014 editSteeletrap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,937 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2014 edit undoAwilley (talk | contribs)Administrators14,151 edits →Stalking/hounding: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| : On the '''other''' hand, Carol gets no criticism whatsoever from you for coming to articles a day after I arrive? (See WP:Competence and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism ] (]) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | : On the '''other''' hand, Carol gets no criticism whatsoever from you for coming to articles a day after I arrive? (See WP:Competence and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism ] (]) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : If my goal were following Carol, I would've followed her to a more recent dispute. I am a scholar of anti-semitism and a big fan of ] (I have edited his page and related pages many times). I was shocked to read Dershowitz' remark that scholars at two world class institutions, Princeton and UChicago, had praised an anti-Semitic screed. I was puzzled when I arrived at the page of the author of the screed that all the quotes (read: evidence) Dershowitz presents are removed, and instead his accusations are presented as mere speculation/opinion. The clear aim of this is to discredit Dershowitz' point: after all, how credible is a mere accusation of "anti-semitism" with no supporting evidence? I found that it was Carol who deleted the quotes, and reverted her. Note that paraphrasing the quotations would be OK, but she didn't do that; she just said "dershowitz alleges x" and purged all of Dersh's (overwhelming) evidence. ] (]) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | : If my goal were following Carol, I would've followed her to a more recent dispute. I am a scholar of anti-semitism and a big fan of ] (I have edited his page and related pages many times). I was shocked to read Dershowitz' remark that scholars at two world class institutions, Princeton and UChicago, had praised an anti-Semitic screed. I was puzzled when I arrived at the page of the author of the screed that all the quotes (read: evidence) Dershowitz presents are removed, and instead his accusations are presented as mere speculation/opinion. The clear aim of this is to discredit Dershowitz' point: after all, how credible is a mere accusation of "anti-semitism" with no supporting evidence? I found that it was Carol who deleted the quotes, and reverted her. Note that paraphrasing the quotations would be OK, but she didn't do that; she just said "dershowitz alleges x" and purged all of Dersh's (overwhelming) evidence. ] (]) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::No accusations, just a question and advisement. | |||
| ::I am aware that all of you follow each other around, and while I'm not pleased by that, today I decided to question ''you'' about an odd revert of a particularly old edit. | |||
| ::I'm not here to tell you what you are and aren't interested, and had guessed from your userbox that you're interested in Judaism. Like I said in the original post, you can edit where you like. | |||
| ::On the subject of , is it fair to assume that CMDC's intent was to "purge" evidence, with a "clear aim" to discredit Dershowitz' point via and ? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:26, 5 March 2014
| This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2 |
Tu ne cede malis
|
The Austria Barnstar of National Merit | |
| Presented to User Steeletrap.
For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) |
A cupcake for you!
|
Happy Halloween back at you. :) Arzel (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much Arzel. I will have to break my diet to eat your treat! Steeletrap (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I hope you like kitty. Thanks for your sweet Halloween surprise, Steele.
SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Kitty is adorable. I will take good care of her. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And one for Caroldc
This is for Carolmooredc, leaving it here for pickup.. I hope you enjoy this pussy cat!
SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy Halloween Carol Moore!
 |
Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween User:Carolmooredc! I am out of baked goods but I brought you this Jack-o-Lantern. I am banned from your page but you should come over here and pick it up! I hope you enjoyed your night and picked out a good costume.Steeletrap (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
|
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Congratulations indeed, and thanks for your civil service here at WP. Personally, I think this is one of the ugliest barnstars there is, but what the hell? Enjoy it in good health. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
Article talk page comments
Comments about user block logs are not advisable on article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Srich, it was poor judgment for you to encourage that editor on his talk page recently. That editor is stepping into a discussion without regard to its history and is repeatedly reverting the stable version rather than engaging in talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Stalking/hounding
Why this revert? CarolMooreDC's edit was 8 months old, and your first edit to the article is to revert it? And what was so bad that the edit had to be reverted? (It seems the main thrust of her edit was to restructure 3 paragraphs into a logical 2 paragraph form and shorten some verbosity. Note how her 2 paragraph version has a paragraph of criticism and a paragraph of response, while the 3 paragraph version has the first paragraph criticism, a second paragraph that's half criticism half response beginning with an ambiguous "He", and a third paragraph of response.) I'm not saying you can't edit articles that CMDC edits, but when you follow her around to articles and revert her edits, that's when it turns into WP:Hounding. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. On the one hand, you accuse me of "following" Carol by reverting her edit on an article she hadn't edited since mid 2013. (Her edit purged a Harvard Law professor's documentation of a book's anti-Semitic, pro-Holocaust denial passages.)
- On the other hand, Carol gets no criticism whatsoever from you for coming to articles a day after I arrive? (See WP:Competence and https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- If my goal were following Carol, I would've followed her to a more recent dispute. I am a scholar of anti-semitism and a big fan of Alan Dershowitz (I have edited his page and related pages many times). I was shocked to read Dershowitz' remark that scholars at two world class institutions, Princeton and UChicago, had praised an anti-Semitic screed. I was puzzled when I arrived at the page of the author of the screed that all the quotes (read: evidence) Dershowitz presents are removed, and instead his accusations are presented as mere speculation/opinion. The clear aim of this is to discredit Dershowitz' point: after all, how credible is a mere accusation of "anti-semitism" with no supporting evidence? I found that it was Carol who deleted the quotes, and reverted her. Note that paraphrasing the quotations would be OK, but she didn't do that; she just said "dershowitz alleges x" and purged all of Dersh's (overwhelming) evidence. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- No accusations, just a question and advisement.
- I am aware that all of you follow each other around, and while I'm not pleased by that, today I decided to question you about an odd revert of a particularly old edit.
- I'm not here to tell you what you are and aren't interested, and had guessed from your userbox that you're interested in Judaism. Like I said in the original post, you can edit where you like.
- On the subject of AGF, is it fair to assume that CMDC's intent was to "purge" evidence, with a "clear aim" to discredit Dershowitz' point via distortion/misrepresentation and whitewashing? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)