Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi WassermannNYC, you were ] for a persistent pattern of ], and were issued warnings about it in the past, which you ignored. I have therefor blocked you for 48 hours, to give you a chance to reflect on your actions. Please take the time off to review our policies, most specifically ], and consider carefully your options. If you decide to abide by our rules, respect your fellow editors and admins, and contribute constructively, I am sure you will enjoy your time here and we will benefit from your contributions. Conversely, if you decide to continue harassing admins, attacking editors and violating our civility rules, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. I hope very much you'll select the first option. Thank you, ] 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi WassermannNYC, you were ] for a persistent pattern of ], and were issued warnings about it in the past, which you ignored. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours, to give you a chance to reflect on your actions. Please take the time off to review our policies, most specifically ], and consider carefully your options. If you decide to abide by our rules, respect your fellow editors and admins, and contribute constructively, I am sure you will enjoy your time here and we will benefit from your contributions. Conversely, if you decide to continue harassing admins, attacking editors and violating our civility rules, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. I hope very much you'll select the first option. Thank you, ] 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:24, 31 March 2007
Sources for Jewish Sportspeople
Many are already sourced at the "source" - at the wiki article on the person, to which they are linked. No need for double work on these (if this were a Wiki policy).--Epeefleche23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"User Jayjg's policy"
Hi Wasserman. Please desist from using the phrase "user Jayjg's policy" or similar locutions in future edit summaries; it is a violation of an important Misplaced Pages policy, WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it because that's what the rules dictate: the consensus was to delete the article, and in order to get it reposted, you have to go through the proper channels. Listing a DRV is pretty easy - the steps are right here. -- Merope20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I seriously don't understand how to do all of that stuff when it comes to all of that code and procedure. I'm kind of old and computer illiterate when it comes to all of that. Nevermind I guess; it'll just have to re-created again at a later date. I might try to figure it all out later. --WassermannNYC20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
WassermannNYC, you are misusing your talk page, that's why Merope removed the article. Your talk page is for communication with you, not hosting deleted content. If you need to create a draft, it should be a subpage of your user space. Leebo11:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that I was "misusing my talk page" by pasting deleted material here. If someone would have told me that I wouldn't have been upset about someone tampering with my TP. Hopefully we can clear up this misunderstanding because I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way around here, just edit and improve articles as best I can. --WassermannNYC04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi. I'm afraid you're misusing your talk page by holding the "Jewdar" deleted article there. What you could do is host it in your user space, however, I warn you that eventually, someone will come along and list that page for deletion too. In the meantime though, that's your best bet. You could click here and cut and paste the material to the new page. Ignoring the requests of others not to misuse your talk page is a swift route to trouble and I'm sure you don't really want to start ignoring Misplaced Pages's rules and conventions. Yours helpfully, --Dweller12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually... I'm thinking. Is it against the GFDL to post the deleted content without its history? In that case, the only way a version could be hosted in Wassermann's user space is if it was recreated by him (without using the contributions of others). That's assuming there are other contributors. Leebo12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Leebo is correct. Furthermore, WassermanNYC's persistence in posting this here without going through the proper channels is clearly disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Consider this a warning; posting this content again here will result in your being blocked from editing. I've linked you to the instructions on how to request a deletion review. If you can't do it, you can ask for help (simply by putting {{helpme}} on your talk page along with your question). -- Merope14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to create controversy here, just trying to preserve a worthy page that was unjustly deleted. I had no clue that posting deleted material on my userpage was against the rules, so I do apologize for not knowing that. I still don't understand this "deletion review" process...all of that procedure and code is too complicated for an old guy like me, so if someone here knows how to work through the deletion review process please do so and let me know here. I don't know how to use many of the advanced features of Misplaced Pages yet, and I'm not sure if I ever will. --WassermannNYC04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I will gladly help you. You will need to look at the old AFD (found here and articulate what you object to. It does look like process kinda fell apart in the discussion, so that's on your side. Do you have new sources that attest to this word's use in the vernacular? If you can write out your reasonings for overturning this deletion, I will set up the review on your behalf. -- Merope04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Misplaced Pages, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Misplaced Pages, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) Okay! I've listed it on deletion review here. Good luck!
It's no problem -- I understand how convoluted some processes are around here. However, maybe next time you might not be so jumpy when an editor makes an edit you don't like? I try extremely hard to be patient and understanding with all the editors I work with, because I know that, unfortunately, I make a few of them angry. But there are reasons for what I do, and I'm always happy to explain them or even to restore articles to users to help them fix them up. Just something to keep in mind. :) -- Merope05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, many of the processes on Misplaced Pages are indeed very convoluted, especially since I'm still learning many of them and don't know much about protocol, obscure policies, advanced features, and all of that. I do want to apologize again for being jumpy as you said; I wasn't really angry so much as mildly disturbed, because I didn't know that other people were allowed to alter the talk pages of other users unless it was a direct personal attack or something of that nature. But now that I know this policy, I won't do it again. And thanks for being very patient and understanding with such a Wiki-illiterate user like me. Take it easy! --WassermannNYC05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ethnicity in bios
It depends on whether their ethnicity was notable or relevant, particularly to them. For example, even though Albert Einstein was not particularly religious, nor did his work involved Jewish topics, he was a Zionist, he was forced to flee Germany because he was a Jew, the Nazis tried to remove references to his work because he was a Jew, and he was also offered the post of President of Israel, because he was a Jew. Moreover, his Jewishness is regularly cited in reliable sources. That's notable. Jayjg 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't try removing that material because the owner of that article won't allow it. My interest in bios began when I noticed that "Jewish-American" was added to the lead sentence of approximately 800 Misplaced Pages biographes. It seems that this was done out of some sort of ethnic pride I am guessing but darker forces could have been involved as well, who really knows. The problem is that certain editors then wanted to add the Jewish-American tag to every criminal of Jewish decent. Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something. I am going to take my own advice and not edit this article for a while and step back. It seems that folks have an agenda either for inclusion or exclusion of Libby's ethnicity. Anyways, good luck! --Tom13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something" -- I resent that you believe that my intentions on the List of Jewish American businesspeople were malicious. I simply sought to expand the article because I have an interest in American and Jewish businesspeople, and I did a good job I might say. Also, it is clear that the page was unfairly targeted for deletion, even though most of the other lists of Jews (and most of the articles on Misplaced Pages) aren't sourced at all. I might try to restore the list in the coming days; if this is blocked by those users that for whatever reason are trying to prevent it, I might have to start blanking other lists of Jews (even though I of course don't want to) in the interest of consistency and fairness. --WassermannNYC06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wasserman, I apologize if I offended you. I believe I was referring to an anonymous editor but no matter. As long as you provide references and the people are of notability, please add them. I totally agree that there is alot of hipocrisy around here. I was actually blocked for an entire month for "creepy anti-jewish edits" by an Admin who I feel totally misread my intentions. Anyways, apologies again and good luck going forward. --Tom15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems sort of a perversion of Misplaced Pages that people can bully their way into being "owners" of articles. Also, the category part at the least, seems to be in contradiction to WP:BLP regarding privacy and relevancy. Personally, I find the whole thing rather creepy, but I'm just trying to edit in accordance with the rules. I've worked on several highly contentious pages, but I've never encountered such bullying and personal hostility as I did with the Libby page. Seems a pity, that's all. Notmyrealname15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was sort of being facesious(sp) about owning the article. Oh course people aren't suppose to take over articles but again, people become very personally involved and end up taking it that way. Good for you to try to stay within policies and remaining civil, that really does go along way. Sorry that you encountered any nastyness. I mainly work on bios since they are of interest of me. I have not made one edit about politics or George Bush, but that must be nightmare. Anyways, take care and best of luck going forward!--Tom16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If in one week from now you can confirm that the red links are notables and the blue links are Jewish, the list can stay. However, if there are no sources available by then providing suggestions that these people are wikipedia-notable and, in turn, Jewish, the list will be redirected to the List of Latin American Jews talk page once again. If you want help looking for sources, I'll do so. Usedup03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The charismatic Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
You need to read the category definition more carefully. "This category contains religious leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority." While somewhat charismatic, Dr. King did not fit that definition. --Orange Mike19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious that King was indeed a charismatic religious leader and thus belongs in the category. Dr. King is, in fact, often described as one of the most charismatic religious AND political leaders of the entire 20th Century, at least in America. That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that). Also notice that he is sourced as a charismatic leader over at the List of charismatic leaders page (Sutton, John,Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change () p.112, Pine Forge Press, ISBN 0-7619-8705-3). --WassermannNYC19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Werner Erhard a religious leader?
I understand listing Erhard as one of Weber's charismatic leaders, but I have never seen anyone claim that any of his organizations was religious. Can we classify him some other way? Roccoconon20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Sonnetology, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Sonnetology satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sonnetology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deor23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I just wrote: "I also feel that many here on Misplaced Pages are singling me and my edits out for excessive criticism and scrutiny (for whatever reason?)." -- I read your mind User:Deor! Actually, I'm going to move that article now. I messed up for sure. The article (and category) should be named "Sonnet studies" (approx. 650,000 Google hits) (with Category:Sonnet studies), not "Sonnetology" as it currently is. I got mixed up apparently, because that's the term that I use colloquially. Still though...doesn't "Sonnetology" sound a lot more interesting than "sonnet studies"? I'll move the page now before we lose all of that data. --WassermannNYC23:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sonnet studies. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Deor01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Last warning" huh? And what happens next time I question and/or expose your (often times) unethical/biased 'editing tactics'? Too terse, too brief, often rude, unworthy, unexplained, and pathetically unsubstantiated "responses" (either in the edit summary, but mostly on talk pages) does indeed seem to be a 'tactic' that you and others use in order to silence debate on a particular edit/topic/issue (trust me though: you're not the only admin. that uses this 'tactic,' though you are among the worst offenders). I'm just stating the facts, Sir -- I can't help but tell the truth, especially when it comes to the wrongdoings/shortcomings (and clear bias) of people in 'positions of authority' (is an administrator position on a 2nd-rate internet encyclopedia even considered a real 'position of authority'?). Sometimes the truth hurts a little bit (though I obviously didn't intend the "User:Jayjg tactic" comment to be a personal insult, it was more like constructive criticism). After all you've been through here on Misplaced Pages, surely you can handle a non-issue as minor as this? --WassermannNYC14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wassermann...I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of "Jayjg's tactics." The guy seems to enjoy pushing his POV all over the place and he just ends up being extremely disruptive. MetsFan7619:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop re-adding Lenin. It can only undermine the credibility of all of these lists and encourage editors to delete them.--Runcorn13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trying to take Lenin off of the page. His name is BY FAR the best sourced name on the entire list. Your continuation of censorious POV only undermines the entire project. --WassermannNYC13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the references again (and please don't rashly remove them), and then notice this sentence in the charismatic authority article: "As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving." Some of the references refer to the Nation of Islam dissolving w/out Farrakhan's charismatic leadership. Also, other than a sentence or two, would you please care to lay out Weber's exact 'theory' of charismatic authority as you have read it to be? (and please quote the PRIMARY source either here or on the TP). As of now it all seems rather arbitrary, with you all just adding/deleting whomever you feel is most 'appropriate.' I'll also remind you all (again...) that Weber was not the first person to write about charismatic authority/charisma; he was just one of the first people that attempted to 'systematize' it. --WassermannNYC15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I also wonder why you aren't fretting so much about the new (entirely unreferenced) "In business" section that someone recently added to the page?
Hey there. I noticed you re-categorized the Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition. I separated them with the reasoning that Astrology by tradition is for, of course, traditions of astrology like Western astrology, Persian astrology, etc., whereas Astrology by type is for applications of astrology like natal astrology, horary astrology, and so on. I'd like to differentiate them fully as the categories would cease to be useful when two categories mean the same thing. I was picturing it as:
---Category:Astrology
------Category:Astrology by type
------Category:Astrology by tradition
...with Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition "children" of the main astrology category as they aren't the same thing and hold different contents. — Sam15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but they deserve to be interlinked together because they are so closely related. Even though they aren't the exact same thing as you correctly say, they should still be lumped together because of their clear similarity . That makes sense to you, right? --WassermannNYC15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not quite following your reasoning for that. The type of astrology is not dependent on any tradition, likewise a tradition of astrology is not inherently a type. The relationship isn't clear to me. — Sam02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, heh. I removed the reference to natal chart on the horoscope article because there are lots of different types of horoscopes drawn for various reasons and natal astrology is just one of these. Perhaps it could be mentioned elsewhere (I'm thinking along the lines of see also) but one application of a horoscope does not deserve a mention right in the introduction. — Sam15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why categorize the Jesus article under "former Jews?"
Hi WassermannNYC, you were reported on AN/I for a persistent pattern of incivility, and were issued warnings about it in the past, which you ignored. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours, to give you a chance to reflect on your actions. Please take the time off to review our policies, most specifically WP:CIVIL, and consider carefully your options. If you decide to abide by our rules, respect your fellow editors and admins, and contribute constructively, I am sure you will enjoy your time here and we will benefit from your contributions. Conversely, if you decide to continue harassing admins, attacking editors and violating our civility rules, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. I hope very much you'll select the first option. Thank you, Crum37519:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Wassermann~enwiki: Difference between revisions
Add topic
