Misplaced Pages

File:Disappearing gif2

Dear User:SlimVirgin, I found the above mobile image on your User page.

So I copied it from you.

I assume that was OK.

I found it not only pretty, but also useful to bring particular ATTENTION to an important spot in my busy User page.

Now it is deactivated! Why? Does it violate some rule?

Finally, is there anything that can be done to bring it back?

• Yours truly,--Ludvikus 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

/me points above - I hope you don't mind. :) Cowman109 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337805,00.html

Hi

Long time. Zeq 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

what do you think: Zeq 07:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Dear SlimVirgin,

We are finalizing edits to the Ohio Wesleyan University article and are being careful about paragraphs being inserted into it at this point. I have a request: could you take a look at the following paragraph let me know what the POV parts are and/or suggestions for improvement (there are actually some factual discrepancies about the percentages but I am aware of those...I am more concerned about the POV language):

About half of Ohio Wesleyan's students are involved in Greek life. This percentage has fluctuated significantly in the history of the university: for a time in the 1870's, fraternities were explicitly banned, but by the 1950's, the Greek system had grown to include about 90% of the students. Currently, the twelve fraternities and seven sororities on campus are visibly involved in many service and philanthropic programs, and boast a higher average GPA than non-Greek students. In 2006, the local chapter of Alpha Sigma Phi received the North-American Interfraternity Conference's Award of Distinction, its highest honor, given yearly to one of over 5000 participating chapters.

Thanks for the time! WikiprojectOWU 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

some history for U

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Judea&diff=94064274&oldid=93907273

Look up hanuka and photos in http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-arch-of-titus.htm Zeq 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A Smile today

Dakota has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

WP:ATT

So what happened? Will it not survive the cradle? Marskell 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Night

My understanding was that it was an autobiographical novel, with a strong non-fiction drive narrative, hence the change. Either name is fine with me. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

court rulling

could you review this: - I thought there was no such article (other than redirect) but found one existed and was deleted somehow. In any case the rulling today is interesting. Zeq 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

?

If things changed (you know). You were to gain weight. Would you change your user name? Culverin? 08:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin opinion needed

Hi SlimVirgin: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrik, just so you know

I have discussed these issues with him on his talk page before. I do not think he is a bigot, just very naive on this subject. I post this to you just so you know that while his edits are irritating, I do think he is editing in good faith. Jeffpw 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Contact

I seem to be inching my way back into Misplaced Pages (though trying very hard not to let it take over). Hope that everything's OK with you (though the fact that your Talk page is semi-protected is a worrying sign; have you been having problems?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A startlingly quick response, as usual; are you sure that you're not really a team working under one name? (A highly dedicated and talented team, of course...) I'll stay as long as I can keep my involvement to sensible levels; the main reason for coming back was exhaustion after two weeks of interviews (we've just had the Admissions process), doing about double my normal stint; I just couldn't bring myself to work on papers or book, and thought that this was better than staring into space or playing computer games. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340657,00.html

Carter wrote that "apartheid in Palestine is not based on racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land and the resulting suppression of protests that involve violence." He called it "contrary to the tenets of the Jewish faith and the basic principles of the nation of Israel."

Carter wrote that the letter's purpose was to reiterate that his use of "apartheid" did not apply to circumstances within Israel, that Israelis are deeply concerned about terrorism from "some Palestinians," and that a majority of Israelis want peace with their neighbors.

Zeq 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

btw, the apartheid article shold be redirected to "Criticism of israel" - this is the proper name for such article. see Criticism of islam Zeq 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of dispute denied ?

Can you please cite a policy on this? All tags are created by us and are supposed to explain the dispute as accurately as possible. --Aminz 07:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chelsea Tory

Hi. I wonder if you could have a look at the contributions of this user and come back with your opinion. His/her edits seem very politically motivated and I'm concerned about the tone of some of his/her comments on peoples talkpages, they seem very provocative. I ask you as you are aware of the 'Gregory Lauder Frost' contreversy earlier in the year which led to my reciept of a solicitors letter and I'm worried that this user may be attempting to provoke other users into saying things which may later prove useful to his/her friends in a court of law. Thanks--Edchilvers 12:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Apartheid

It's interesting that you consider my edits to be "censorship". I rather think that "restoring balance" or "ensuring fair treatment" would be a more accurate description, particularly insofar as the disputed section does not appear in the main article.

While I don't doubt you'll be able to find 15-20 editors to agree with your preferred version, this doesn't make the current wording (I'm assuming that you've already reverted the text) any less inappropriate. CJCurrie 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that anything I write will change your mind, but I'd nonetheless ask that you turn your attention to the following section of Misplaced Pages:Undue weight: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This is the wording currently under dispute: The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some to criticize Israel's policies toward both Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive, antisemitic, and a political epithet used as justification for terrorist attacks against Israel.

I do not believe that any neutral reader would consider this to be a balanced assessment of the term's usage, particularly in light of the policy cited above.

You wrote: The edit describes what critics say. It's not for you to provide what you see as "balance" to what critics say. Are you truly unable to understand that? Should I go to New antisemitism and edit what Finkelstein said, in order to change it to what I wish he had said?

My response: We can describe "what critics say" without weighing the language toward either position. The disputed passage in this instance is a two-sentence topic introduction; our focus, accordingly, should be on an economy of language and the avoidance of hyperbole. I suspect "Critics of the term argue that it is historically inaccurate, offensive and a political ephithet used to delegitimize the State of Israel" would be both accurate and sufficient for the second sentence.

I suspect that my words may leave you unmoved, and I have very little desire to continue a back-and-forth discussion on this front. You know my position, I know yours, and I've responded to your complaint. Perhaps we should request mediation (whether formal or informal) if no solution presents itself. CJCurrie 02:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)