| Revision as of 02:32, 2 December 2011 view sourceYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →Talk:Demi Moore← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:12, 5 November 2018 view source Jusdafax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,919 edits Remove stale template message mooted by ban |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
== November 2013 == |
|
Retired in many ways, but contributing in minor ways in the short term whilst considering my long term position moving forward. '''Previous account was ] ''' - ] (]) 01:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for sending harassing email. Access to your talk page has been withdrawn.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. If you do not have Misplaced Pages email enabled, please see the instructions at ]. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 08:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
|
== Notice == |
|
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Welcome back == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
|
|
Though we've sometimes disagreed, I think you have a lot to offer. I wish you well. ] ] 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cool - thanks Cullen - me to you too. - ] (]) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back! ] (]) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{archive top|Viriditas comments are getting a bit attacking and this is a very old and resolved content discussion.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Could you explain your position on Ed Miliband regarding the ANI discussion? You recently said that someone cannot be British ''and'' Jewish, and I'm very confused by that statement and by your use of the lowercase "jew" as opposed to "Jew". Could you briefly explain your position here? Since Milliband has referred to himself as a Jew in reliable sources at least twice I am curious as to how you could possibly maintain your position in the face of such overwhelming evidence against you. ] (]) 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Lowercase uppercase - my typing is not perfect and neither is my English. Its a matter of weight to apply to isolated and somewhat vague comments in interviews. Is Miliband a British Jew or a British person of Jewish descent. - its the weight and for me, undue portrayal. There has been lengthy discussions about it and we are still today getting Religion added to the infofox etc and false portrayals added to the article. As you well know - who is a Jew is a well disputed position. ] (]) 12:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I looked at the sources in question and see nothing "vague" about it: |
|
|
::<blockquote>"Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense."</br>"My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am"</br>"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country."</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Are you using the same definition of ''vague'' as I am? Please check a dictionary if it helps: |
|
|
::<blockquote>vague: not clearly understood or expressed; not precisely limited, determined, or distinguished; lacking clarity or distinctness</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
::What is vague about Miliband's statements on this subject? I would answer, ''nothing''. In general, who is a Jew and who is not a Jew may be in dispute, but in this particular case it is not. Miliband has declared he is Jewish in numerous sources, and it is clear that he identifies as a British Jew. Unless you have a single source that discusses this dispute, it appears that you are editing from your own personal beliefs rather than from the sources. Your claim that this is "undue" doesn't follow from the evidence. I was under the impression that you were trying to uphold ]. How do your edits in this instance do that? ] (]) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Um -- the last entry in your "evidence" evinces absolutely nothing about Miliband's ethnicity as a Jew - if anything, it would seem to indicate he does ''not'' identify as being a Jew. ] (]) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I hope ] is paying attention to your comment, Collect, as this is a wonderful example of a ''vague'' response. What is the "last entry" in my evidence, Collect? And, how could you possibly misconstrue these simple statements where Miliband identifies as a Jew as instances where he does ''not'' identify as a Jew? It is reasonable to assume that adults with normal reading comprehension skills will understand that Miliband identifies as a Jew. I cannot conceive otherwise, nor can you ''show'' otherwise. There is no source which disputes the fact that Miliband is a British Jew. We have sources that support it. Therefore, nothing you nor ] says on this matter holds any weight. We go from the sources, not from poor reading comprehension skills colored by personal bias. You are free to misinterpret sources at your leisure. You are not, however, free to disrupt encyclopedia articles with your misinterpretations. ] (]) 12:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Clarification requested == |
|
|
{{archive top|Please control yourself in some other location - thanks }} |
|
|
|
|
|
Can a person be British ''and'' Jewish? ] (]) 00:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:That all depends but in some situations, absolutely. Please, as I said earlier I feel your position in regard to me to be a bit attacking and I don't want to discuss this with you from this position. ] (]) 00:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will try to control myself. Can you at least explain to me why Miliband does not meet the potential criteria in your opinion? No long reply is necessary, just a few sentences. ] (]) 00:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Miliband after lengthy discussion with consensus, after hot dispute stabilized in the British people of Jewish descent category - and he has been in that cat for quite a while, which I have no objection to and in fact currently support. ] (]) 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk:Demi Moore == |
|
|
|
|
|
I trust you're aware that the talk page header issue at ] is not one of vandalism, so ] applies here? —''']''' (]) 01:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:BLP applies in headers - presenting as if factual disputed details on the talkpage of living people seems to be not a good idea, but thanks for the note . ] (]) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi, and thank you for the kind word about my (too long!) experience. That source, as I noted in my talk-page post, spells it Demitria, with an "i". --] (]) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Full text: "His was a blue-collar upbringing, hers was an itinerant one. It was perfectly understandable that they should wish to flout their success as a family in the world's face. His father was a welder who divorced when Willis was 16. Her father was a man who later turned out not to be. A travelling adman, he committed suicide when Demi (nee Demitria) was 17, two years after he was...." --] (]) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Such an edit warring disputed addition from an experienced editor to a ] is very disappointing. ] (]) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm genuinely sorry you believe so. I believe the likes of Time Inc., Reuters and The Independent, which are all major, venerable newsgathering organizations, are credible. I'm sure you must, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The compromise I proposed is that Misplaced Pages is not giving the name Demetria with the sort of undisputed proof that a birth certificate would entail, but simply saying, accurately, that these particular, reputable news organizations have given this as her name. That seems like a balanced way to present it to a reader. It would be slanted and to deliberately ignore the fact that places such as People and Reuters researched, edited and vetted "Demetria". --] (]) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''People'' is a Time Inc. publication. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The print-publication cite for the Reuters news service is the one for the '']''. It does not appear to be available for free online, but a pay version is . Misplaced Pages citation guidelines do not necessitate that print sources be immediately accessible; only that they are reasonably accessible via libraries, etc. One cannot summarily remove a print citation simply because it does not appear on the web. --] (]) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You are edit warring to keep a silly, non educational , disputed first name when you have not accessed any of the sources. ] (]) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I'd appreciate if you were to turn down the rhetoric. I am not reverting without discussion, which is at the heart of edit-warring; you, however, were making substantive, one-side changes summarily. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::'''Do not''' say falsely that I "have not accessed these sources." I accessed and confirmed the two of the four sources that were online. I think if an admin were to examine your suggestion that the other two print sources are unuseable, he or she would disagree and would in fact point out the same ''']''', ], that such a position violates. --] (]) 02:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::You had not accessed some of the sources you were using to support your edit warring. The sources you had accessed are clearly resulting from the People celebrity magazine, the People have been repeating this disputed first name for the last decade. The ] policy is in place to remove such worthless disputed trivia repeated in celebrity magazines and as I said =- I expect more from an experienced editor. We are not here to publish exposes , her totally official first birth name is of no value at all educationally and clearly she is disputing it today as we speak. ] (]) 02:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You are being out of line and not behaving in a ]. All you are espousing is your personal POV. Time Inc.'s ''People'' is a major ], and I believe any admin would agree. I have no seen no evidence other than your opinion to suggest it is incorrect, and for you to suggest that a venerable worldwide news agency such as ] "clearly" (your word) cannot do its own fact-checking and research and must copy another source, is insulting to the journalistic profession, of which I am a part. Additionally, anyone's personal claim is a primary source; Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sourcing. Giving her statement primacy is balanced; making it the end-all and be-all is not — particularly in the case of entertainment personalities, who frequently lie about their ages and other details. Her tweet is simply ''one'' source among many. Please read the ] at ]. Summarily removing print citations as you have done is a violation — and one of ''policy'' and not of guideline at that. If you'd like to call for an ] at this point, I would more than happy to support it. In the meantime, I'd sure an admin would take a dim view of your false accusations toward me, your violation of the aforesaid policy, and the POV tone you injected in your edit. If you believe you are correct despite these and other points, then please put your position up for wide comment ] (]) 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Time Inc.'s People magazine..tch- a titillation celebrity magazine. Reuters, you have not accessed. I would prefer it if you had not revert warred this disputed personal content into a ] and I am sure there will be more discussion about it over the next few days. ] (]) 02:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
