Revision as of 09:26, 3 December 2006 editHumus sapiens (talk | contribs)27,653 edits →Indefinite IP blocks← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:05, 4 December 2006 edit undoInigmawiki (talk | contribs)2,806 edits vfd?Next edit → | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
: Understood, thanks. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | : Understood, thanks. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
== vfd? == | |||
Humus, | |||
I was curious. You posted a "support per nom" to VfD the Messianic Judaism articles ] and ]. According to the nom, you then agree "del nonnotable supervanity. Verifiability problem. Notability" - even though it had sources listed. | |||
Perhaps then you can explain to me why you support the Jewish article ] - when it has absolutely no sources listed at all? Perhaps I should submit a VfD for that page, and submit the VfD. I wonder, would you'd probably support "per the nom" and stick to a standard that you'd applied to ] and ], for ]? | |||
I'm not into starting VfD wars. This is not a warning. This is a note to ask you for help. What you bite into can sometimes bite back, and I don't want to be involved in such. Next time someone decides to VfD one of the Messianic articles for the same reasons, and instead of responding as "per the nom" - and you feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon, please feel free to keep this in mind: are you helping wiki or detracting from it? If the Wiki non Messianic Jewish community wants to push quick enforcement of Wikipolicy on Messianic Judaism articles, perhaps they should be reminded that the standard should work both ways. Please let me know what I should do. Should I submit some VfD's now for some Jewish articles I came across that qualify according "to the nom" as nonnotable supervanity and unverifiable per ]? I mean, I have no qualm about the Marranos - after all, I am descended from Sephardim in England (just not the Marranos), so I'd hate to see the article go down over VfD reasonings that brought down ] and ]... | |||
So please consider this appeal on your talk page as an effort to find some sort of common ground to work from between us. I can play nice and quiet, and trust me, I don't want to see our differences lead to ]. Feel free to share this appeal to some moderation, civility, and cooperation, with the others in your camp. Please ask them to engage in helping the Messianic Judaism articles as much as they would want us Messianics to help with their Judaism articles. Once they decide how involved they want to be in working together mutually on articles, we'll decide too how involved we should be as well in working with you mutually on articles. Shalom ] 09:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:05, 4 December 2006
Humus sapiens is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Home | Talk | List | Tools | Policy | Cmmn | Puzzle | Ubx | Nav |
Archives |
---|
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, |
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, |
... |
Please scroll all the way down to append your message at the bottom or start a new topic.
? |
|
Template:NotJudaism
You honestly feel that template should be kept?? Anything that is not Judaism can be linked to it. A tree...a bike....a sandwich. C'mon...be reasonable. MetsFan76 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- No need for a strawman. See Jews for Jesus, a Christian group that pretends that Christianity and Judaism are the same. ←Humus sapiens 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But that is their belief and should be respected. But to actually have a NotJudaism template is ludicrous. People will link anything to it. MetsFan76 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Was this in response to my comment? (It's tabbed that way). -- tariqabjotu 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I may Humus- the template was at best redundant. Any article about Messianic Judaism that doesn't make clear in the initial introduction the fringe nature of what follows has issues. JoshuaZ 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I hear you. ←Humus sapiens 06:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The rest of this talk: . ←Humus sapiens 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I was about to apologize right before you posted "the rest of this talk," but I see no need for it now. I had every right to my opinion as I found that template incredibly insulting. MetsFan76 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
Jews for Jesus Arbitration
There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs.ParadoxTom 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Change username
Hi, I would like to change my username. Please can you change it to FrummerThanThou. Thanks Chavatshimshon 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Arb on J4J
Thanks for the headsup. Wasnt aware of it.--Mantanmoreland 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite IP blocks
What is the story with this? This looks like a RoadRunner cable modem address, which would be a dynamic IP that aside from naturally changing for whatever reason every few months, can simply be reset by the user. In general, never do indefinite IP blocks. Even certain "open proxies" should not be blocked for long lengths of time, as they do change too, causing collateral damage, and someone has to manually unblock them eventually. Only commercial open proxy services might warrant the idea of an indefinite block and even then some high value like 5 years is better than indefinite. —Centrx→talk • 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought I've done the right thing. I posted a request for review. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 06:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
IP addresses change. The person may be indefinitely banned, but he will not be the person using that IP in a month, or a week, or perhaps even now. —Centrx→talk • 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I have unblocked the IP. ←Humus sapiens 07:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think that it has been the same person for the past several months based on the contribution history, then it makes sense to block for a longer period of time, but that would be more like a 6 month block or a 1 year block. Relatively static IPs may be the same person for a while, but they do end up changing. When they do, either some innocent is not going to be able to easily edit Misplaced Pages and will be confused or insulted, or an admin is going to spend effort evaluating the case and unblocking. —Centrx→talk • 08:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks. ←Humus sapiens 09:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
vfd?
Humus,
I was curious. You posted a "support per nom" to VfD the Messianic Judaism articles Boaz Michael and FFOZ. According to the nom, you then agree "del nonnotable supervanity. Verifiability problem. Notability" - even though it had sources listed.
Perhaps then you can explain to me why you support the Jewish article History of the Marranos in England - when it has absolutely no sources listed at all? Perhaps I should submit a VfD for that page, and submit the VfD. I wonder, would you'd probably support "per the nom" and stick to a standard that you'd applied to Boaz Michael and FFOZ, for History of the Marranos in England?
I'm not into starting VfD wars. This is not a warning. This is a note to ask you for help. What you bite into can sometimes bite back, and I don't want to be involved in such. Next time someone decides to VfD one of the Messianic articles for the same reasons, and instead of responding as "per the nom" - and you feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon, please feel free to keep this in mind: are you helping wiki or detracting from it? If the Wiki non Messianic Jewish community wants to push quick enforcement of Wikipolicy on Messianic Judaism articles, perhaps they should be reminded that the standard should work both ways. Please let me know what I should do. Should I submit some VfD's now for some Jewish articles I came across that qualify according "to the nom" as nonnotable supervanity and unverifiable per WP:N? I mean, I have no qualm about the Marranos - after all, I am descended from Sephardim in England (just not the Marranos), so I'd hate to see the article go down over VfD reasonings that brought down FFOZ and Boaz Michael...
So please consider this appeal on your talk page as an effort to find some sort of common ground to work from between us. I can play nice and quiet, and trust me, I don't want to see our differences lead to Wikilawyering. Feel free to share this appeal to some moderation, civility, and cooperation, with the others in your camp. Please ask them to engage in helping the Messianic Judaism articles as much as they would want us Messianics to help with their Judaism articles. Once they decide how involved they want to be in working together mutually on articles, we'll decide too how involved we should be as well in working with you mutually on articles. Shalom inigmatus 09:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)