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 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 and 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)

Zionism

Hi -- Can I get you to respond to my explanation for the changes to the first sentence on the Zionism article on its talk page? (See the section on "Confusion in Lead") I've made great attempts to explain myself, to what seems like an unjustifiably chilly reception. Do you not see the problems regarding the current version, and the basis for my changes? They seem extremely obvious to me, but even so, I have gone into them in great detail. I'd very much appreciate if you could provide a thoughtful response, or even a counter-suggestion to fix what is obviously a very weird first sentence currently. Thanks. Mackan79 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I responded to your renewed request on the talk page. Will you please respond? This is dragging out unnecessarily, because the two of you are simply able to revert anything I do, and then I have to wait around due to the 3RR. I suppose you're aware of this, since you took the time to come tell me on my talk page? If you would show me any courtesy, I assure you that I'll show more than the same in response. Reverting without explaining your position, or simply because you'd like me to be more succinct, though, doesn't really cut it. Really, if you don't have energy to read a thorough explanation, you shouldn't be taking part in the debate. Mackan79 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Really, though, do you not have time to read my posts? The longest one, incidentally, was not addressed to you, but to Jay, who gave me 6 numbered points to respond to. I wanted to respond directly.

In any case, the point, again, is that the statement is a half-truth, by speaking of the evolution of a Jewish nationhood, without acknowledging that this nationhood then stopped existing about 2000 years ago. At the same time, I also noticed that Jay was very resistant to anything in the article describing Zionism as a renewed claim. It seems he really wants to create the implication that this is something that started 3000 years ago, and something that Zionism is just kind of picking up on. And indeed, this is exactly the implication the first sentence creates. Again, this is one of several reasons I've objected to it. Why haven't you responded to any of my other reasons, though? For instance, my question of what exactly the information is trying to convey, by putting it in the first sentence. Can you explain this to me in terms that I can understand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan79 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Nationhood doesn't refer to a nationstate? Can you tell me that's clear? The link on the word "nationhood" is to the wikipedia article on "Nation." This isn't about me misunderstanding the sentence; it's about the sentence being entirely unclear and implying something controversial. The idea that Jewish nationhood (the existence of a Jewish nation, as far as the link explains what "nationhood" means) developed in the "Land of Israel," and never went away -- isn't that somewhat controversial? Yet, the first sentence implies it as a fact, not even just as a tenet of Zionism. Indeed, I think this is very much the source of the problem. This, along with the lack of clarity, the extraneousness, and the resulting bias, is why I think it shouldn't be in the first sentence, but rather, lower in the article in a discussion of the historical basis for Zionism. Mackan79 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A typical definition of Nationhood from Dictionary.com:

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.

3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.

4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

So you are referencing the fourth definition, then. In that case, the link to "Nation" is incorrect, and misleading, as I said. Moreover, the references both refer to King David establishing the first Jewish Nation, and to "territorial sovereignty". This also suggests that the reference is to an actual nation, as conventionally conceieved, not something akin to an ethnicity. And of course, neither of these are situations which continued till modern times.

Additionally, even if ethnicity or something similar is the meaning, then we have a whole new can of worms. For one, that's not what nationhood means to the vast majority of people. Note that there is no Misplaced Pages article on nationhood. So regardless of what it means, then, we're using a rather poorly known term which most people will misconstrue. Moreover, /did/ the Jewish nationhood, in the sense of an ethnicity, actually develop in 1200 BCE? Or didn't it exist before that? If we're talking about the ethnicity definition, I don't think the statement is actually correct. Thus again, a reason why it is misleading.

Basically, if you read what the sentence states, you get every indication that it's talking about the development of some kind of actual nation, not simply a nationhood in the sence of a group of people. The reference then to Kindoms existing till the second century AD also confirms that we're talking about territorial sovereignty. Yes, the Nation of Islam, for instance, isn't a territorial nation. When you talk about a nation evolving in Israel, though, the territorial sovereignty definition is obviously what people are going to read. I have to admit I didn't expect this argument, but I'd suggest that actually makes its misleading-ness a more serious problem than I thought. Mackan79 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what country you live in? In the U.S., "nation" is a very common word, and is almost exclusively used to refer to the first two definitions above, relating to territorial sovereignty. I see that the Misplaced Pages page on a nation is based largely on the 4th definition, as you say. That's great. At least as far as the U.S. is concerned, though, I promise you that "nation" is not broadly used in that way. This is reflected, I think, in it being the fourth definition. If you asked 10 Americans what a nation is, I would bet quite a lot that a substantial majority would simply say "a country."

You didn't respond to my other points, though. The first reference simply says "from Zion, where King David fashioned the first Jewish nation." Clearly, King David did not fashion the Jews as an ethnicity, but rather as a nation, meaning the first two definitions above. The second reference, though unclear, appears to be the same, again refering to territorial sovereignty. But territorial sovereignty has not existed for the last 2000 years. Whatever you want the term to mean, thus, the implication based on these two sources is simply incorrect. Additionally, of course, the Jews as an ethnicity were formed well before 1200 BCE. Thus, this simply can't be what the statement means. The same goes for the statement about Kingdoms, which is not a statement about Jewish ethnicity, or the fourth definition above.

Again, if you say nationhood was established in a country, you mean that there was sovereign control there. Otherwise you wouldn't say nationhood "evolved" there; you'd say the Jewish nationhood "moved" there, since as definition 4, it obviously already existed. Definition 1 and 2 is obviously what people are going to think from that sentence, and indeed, is the only statement that the references actually support. I don't see how you can say this isn't at all misleading, unless you're perhaps from another country where nation is really used exclusively in that way.

Here's the thing, though. If Jewish nationhood has really existed in Israel for the last 3000 years, then that's what the sentence should say. It should say "In the land of Israel, where Jewish nationhood evolved in 1200 BCE, and then existed for the next 3000 years." Or simply, "where Jewish nationhood evolved in 1200 BCE." This, at least, would make the implication clearer (although of course this would also be an extremely biased way to start the article). The second part about Jewish Kingdoms existing till the second century, though, actually seems to contradict this. It seems to suggest that the nationhood went from around 1200 BC to around 200 AD. The point is, the sentence simply doesn't make clear what happened. That's a problem. You must see that this is a problem. Which again raises the question, why is all this confusing and unclear information provided in the first sentence?

I'm sorry if I'm annoying you; I'm sure you'd rather I went away. If I can go back to my original point, though, the fact is simply that no neutral writer would ever include this statement in the first sentence of this article. They just wouldn't do it. It's just not a good sentence. I'm not going to let up on this, because I think it undermines the whole article, and I think that should concern you just as much as it concerns me. Mackan79 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou

Hi SlimVirgin: Latest chutzpah at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

By the way, you said you would provide links to articles about left-wing figures where you added, or clearly supported the addition of, lots of criticism, as you've done at Rachel Marsden and elsewhere. You said you would provide the links to show that you're capable of writing for the enemy and that your approach to criticism in BLPs is consistent across POVs.

I was planning to ignore this challenge because I consider it ridiculous, but if you really want an example please review the page entry for Mike Davison (which is almost entirely my creation). Davison is a former social-democratic legislator whose public career was destroyed by an unpleasant sex scandal.

Now, will you tell me why you removed the "roads" section from the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article? CJCurrie 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I respond to your next challenge, could you please respond to mine: where are the page diffs showing that Kiyosaki's bigotry was always manifest? CJCurrie 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Choosing only one of your talk pages to post this to, I'm doing it here without prejudice...may I suggest both of you take a breather? Jog around the block instead of the blog. I consider both of you to be highly valuable contributors with whom I tend to disagree on a great many things... That said, you seem to be presently involved in a mutually triggered melt-down here. Perhaps a shared cup of tea is in order? Tomer 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts...

Hi! I'm .V. I recently made changes to Holocaust denial and Template:The Holocaust. In the first article, I changed "most scholars think..." to "(this particular scholar) thinks..." because I found it was more in concert with . On my second article, I added a "controversy" section to the template, much like in other templates such as in , among others.

My first concern was that I think you may have reverted a bit too quickly. Keep in mind , which states "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." So perhaps you'll join me on these articles respective talk pages to have a good faith discussion regarding the nature of these edits?

You can find the talk pages in question and

Thanks, and I look forward to chatting with you about your edits. :) .V. 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)