| Revision as of 08:12, 8 December 2014 editJDiala (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,680 edits →RANT← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:18, 8 December 2014 edit undoJDiala (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,680 edits →RANTNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Dammit... this Holocaust page is irredeemable. For some reason Misplaced Pages has a completely different definition of it than most of the world. I actually feel like giving up. Being biased against Israel is one thing, but to redefine "Holocaust" to trivialize the suffering of Jews while leaving every other ethnic group a unique word for their plights is an abomination. Apparently Russians, the very people whose pogroms drove my family out of Europe, should be included too. Nothing on wikipedia is sacred. THE WORLD IS INSANE. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | Dammit... this Holocaust page is irredeemable. For some reason Misplaced Pages has a completely different definition of it than most of the world. I actually feel like giving up. Being biased against Israel is one thing, but to redefine "Holocaust" to trivialize the suffering of Jews while leaving every other ethnic group a unique word for their plights is an abomination. Apparently Russians, the very people whose pogroms drove my family out of Europe, should be included too. Nothing on wikipedia is sacred. THE WORLD IS INSANE. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Classic Jewish supremacism. There is no "anti-Israel" bias; when all human rights organizations, all international institutions, all NGOs, all respected scholars, the entire world more or less, come to a singular conclusion, and, as Misplaced Pages relies on publishes secondary sources, Misplaced Pages comes to the same conclusion, that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is "biased against Israel", but, more properly, ''reality'' is biased against Israel. Regarding the Holocaust, it's not "trivialization" to redefine the Holocaust as such. It's trivialization to define the Holocaust how ''you'' define it by specifically and deliberately excluding the suffering of millions and millions of people. The fact of the matter is that there was no singular, Jewish-exclusive Holocaust, as there was for, say, the Armenians or the Tutsi. The victims were all demographic groups declared "untermensch". Nonetheless, it is true that most ] sources, largely written by Jews, define the Holocaust as specifically the plight of Jews, and Misplaced Pages therefore has defined it as such whilst still noting the controversiality in the second sentence. That seems balanced. I have no idea why you're complaining, then, considering you've won the little "edit war". The current status of the lead is satisfactory. ] (]) 08:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) | :Classic racist Jewish supremacism. There is no "anti-Israel" bias; when all human rights organizations, all international institutions, all NGOs, all respected scholars, the entire world more or less, come to a singular conclusion, and, as Misplaced Pages relies on publishes secondary sources, Misplaced Pages comes to the same conclusion, that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is "biased against Israel", but, more properly, ''reality'' is biased against Israel. Regarding the Holocaust, it's not "trivialization" to redefine the Holocaust as such. It's trivialization to define the Holocaust how ''you'' define it by specifically and deliberately excluding the suffering of millions and millions of people. The fact of the matter is that there was no singular, Jewish-exclusive Holocaust, as there was for, say, the Armenians or the Tutsi. The victims were all demographic groups declared "untermensch". Nonetheless, it is true that most ] sources, largely written by Jews, define the Holocaust as specifically the plight of Jews, and Misplaced Pages therefore has defined it as such whilst still noting the controversiality in the second sentence. That seems balanced. I have no idea why you're complaining, then, considering you've won the little "edit war". The current status of the lead is satisfactory. ] (]) 08:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:18, 8 December 2014
Reference Errors on 2 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the List of genocides by death toll page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry Mr. Bot! --Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO images for Ebola
Hi Monochrome Monitor i have recieved confirmation to use their images but it may not be altered in any way see talk Kind Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:WHO ebola response map.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WHO ebola response map.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
HI Ronhjones , --Monochrome_Monitor i have forward the permission to use this file from WHO to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Templates changed on image to give you the allowed 30 days to get OTRS permission sorted. Ronhjones 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Holodomor is covered by the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 The death toll in the Holodomor and the connection to the broader Soviet famine are the subject of intense discussion on the talk page. I did not see your name on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to a discussion
Hi. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaza beach explosion (2006) should be moved to Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I would like to know your opinion about this issue.--Mevarus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
RANT
Dammit... this Holocaust page is irredeemable. For some reason Misplaced Pages has a completely different definition of it than most of the world. I actually feel like giving up. Being biased against Israel is one thing, but to redefine "Holocaust" to trivialize the suffering of Jews while leaving every other ethnic group a unique word for their plights is an abomination. Apparently Russians, the very people whose pogroms drove my family out of Europe, should be included too. Nothing on wikipedia is sacred. THE WORLD IS INSANE. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Classic racist Jewish supremacism. There is no "anti-Israel" bias; when all human rights organizations, all international institutions, all NGOs, all respected scholars, the entire world more or less, come to a singular conclusion, and, as Misplaced Pages relies on publishes secondary sources, Misplaced Pages comes to the same conclusion, that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is "biased against Israel", but, more properly, reality is biased against Israel. Regarding the Holocaust, it's not "trivialization" to redefine the Holocaust as such. It's trivialization to define the Holocaust how you define it by specifically and deliberately excluding the suffering of millions and millions of people. The fact of the matter is that there was no singular, Jewish-exclusive Holocaust, as there was for, say, the Armenians or the Tutsi. The victims were all demographic groups declared "untermensch". Nonetheless, it is true that most WP:RS sources, largely written by Jews, define the Holocaust as specifically the plight of Jews, and Misplaced Pages therefore has defined it as such whilst still noting the controversiality in the second sentence. That seems balanced. I have no idea why you're complaining, then, considering you've won the little "edit war". The current status of the lead is satisfactory. JDiala (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)