| Revision as of 16:48, 2 December 2008 editTiamut (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,614 edits →Hummus: rposting here← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:10, 2 December 2008 edit undoAni medjool (talk | contribs)1,013 edits →HummusNext edit → | ||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
| I've already written to you on your talk page about your wholesale deletion of this reliably sourced material which three editors have voiced support for including on the talk page. If you lose good faith towards me simply because you disagree with my position (and that of two other editors) there could not have been much there to begin with. I'm quite shocked that you would unilaterally impose your own view onto a page without engaging in any form of discussion. And you accuse me of bad judgement? Please. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach a disagreement over content. You just exemplified the latter. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | I've already written to you on your talk page about your wholesale deletion of this reliably sourced material which three editors have voiced support for including on the talk page. If you lose good faith towards me simply because you disagree with my position (and that of two other editors) there could not have been much there to begin with. I'm quite shocked that you would unilaterally impose your own view onto a page without engaging in any form of discussion. And you accuse me of bad judgement? Please. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach a disagreement over content. You just exemplified the latter. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Hummus|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
Revision as of 23:10, 2 December 2008
|
Click here to leave a new message. |
 Archives |
|---|
What happened?
You can't quit, we can't run this project without you :) Yeah, the POV pushers can piss everyone off, but can't something be figured out? I really hope you'll change your mind, because you are, indeed, one of the most sane editors I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Good riddance, how dare you remove my page on Stuart McIntyre with no good reason Hoppytroffy (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sad To See You Leave
I've not had too much contact with you, but I like to keep up-to-date with AFDs, and you seem to be one of the major contributors, always fully researching pages, before nominating them, and remaining cool-headed, even when others disagree. Yes, AFD has suffered from sysops choosing to ignore the idea that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and relying purely on 'votes', but that's something that can be changed.
POV-pushing is indeed a large problem, and could quite possibly be an error in the very structure of Misplaced Pages, but is not something that cannot necessarily be remedied. Neutral, sane, editors such as yourself quitting will not help the situation, it can piss people off, but you can't let that get to you.
Hope you change your mind. - RD 14:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Amazingly it is back. Suffice to say most people who flounce of the net do so for self-aggrandising reasons. Hoppytroffy (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving?
I'm really sorry to see you go and would strongly urge you to reconsider -- I doubt there's anyone else on Misplaced Pages who's doing such a good job on Israeli political articles right now... —Nightstallion 00:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Very glad to see you're back. :) —Nightstallion 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Jacob Giles
Why have you deleted my page, Jacob Giles. I have spent hours doing research to support it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Magralashvili
Yay! You're back! *big hug*
About Magralashvili: I don't really care, I just thought I'd save him from the wrecking ball, as I did a couple of other articles recently. I'll change my !vote to a comment. Welcome back! -- Nudve (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Giles
He played for Newport County in the welsh league. Please could I put it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Giles
Please I spent ages planning the article I make good contributions too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
He made an appearance for Huddersfield Town in the LDV Vans Trophy in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huddersfieldtown5 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Jacob Giles
Jacob Giles played 1 one game for Huddersfield Town in the LDV Vasns Trophy in 2002. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Jacob Giles
Will I be able to add it or not? Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Giles
I am sure I can remember it. Ah well. PLease could I just add he is a footballer and he signed proffesional forms for Huddersfield but just never played. Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Why does this guy get a page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Adam_Wilson_(footballer) Huddersfieldtown5 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Andy Matthews
- I am certain that this article is a hoax and I have put it to Afd. I now see that you have deleted it previously, would you mind having a look as I am now getting very immature personal attacks in Russian from one of the contributors. Thanks. Paste (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't leave!
Dear Number 57, at least if you're going to leave, please list for us these 20 editors who are gaming the system and damaging many (or in some cases, all) the articles they touch. This would help the rest of us considerably.
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say that your reversion here is, shall we say, controversial. I'm pretty sure that the source for this quote is pretty nearly completely non-RS. And the statement itself is "surprising" indeed, apparently bearing no relation to what Fischer has said in better recorded circumstances. I'm pretty sure only the very, very extreme edge of the partisan commentators have gone as far as it's alleged that he has done. There's been a "battle" to remove the allegation that Fischer is a former terrorist, now it flares again over this really silly quote from him. Please reconsider. PR 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- TBH I've never heard any criticism of the Wiesenthal Center regarding a bias before - it's certainly no CAMERA or MEMRI, and is often cited by the BBC (which, if anything, has an anti-Israel bias) - and I'm happy that it is actually a reliable source. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- The BBC's own 2006 published assessment admits to bias in the summary "there are identifiable shortcomings, particularly in respect of gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective". It doesn't say which way it leans, you have to go to section 4.7, where you will find that every indication of bias is pro-Israel. By no indicator (eg imbalances as regards spokesmen used and coverage of deaths) is it pro-Palestinian.
- Perhaps most damagingly for a world-ranking news source: "Third party positions either from the Middle East or from the rest of the world were marginalised in comparison to the presentation of UK and US perspectives; - that some important themes were relatively overlooked in the coverage of the conflict, most notably in the recent period, the annexation of land in and around East Jerusalem;"
- Note that the BBC invited contributions and found that: "Pressure group activity could be seen in the number of identical letters or parts of letters. A large number of pro-Israel supporters emailed from the United States, often with the same complaint, on the same date and/or from the same state. ... Not too much can be made of this, but more people thought the BBC was anti-Israel. However, if the emails and letters which could be identified as coming from abroad are excluded, the opposite is true: more people thought the BBC anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel." All are very welcome to examine this report and tell me if I'm wrong.
- I'm disappointed that you're still defending the Wiesenthal Centre (and it's use for such a very, very "surprising" claim about an ex-foreign minister of Germany) even after this mention of it being "a gang of heartless and immoral crooks". (One small error, I wrongly implied that this exact phrase was in a particular book, in fact it's used by the author of that book in an interview). PR 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Number 57, I hope that you are enjoying you discussion with PalestineRemembered. Unfortumatly for the Anti-Zionism article, PalestineRemembered apparently believes that any content contrary to his POV is also contrary to WP policy. I hope that you put the article on your watch list, and at least keep track to it, even if you choose not to participate in the editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Further very serious problems with anything coming from the Wiesenthal Centre can be found by comparing their statement "Networking to destroy Israel" published by the Jerusalem Post (mirrored here) and compare it with the statement of Cecilie Surasky here. The "Jews for Peace" representative writes: "After I return home, the Wiesenthal Center publishes an alarming piece entitled "Networking to Destroy Israel" in the Jerusalem Post. ... so riddled with errors--I am misquoted, JVP is described as "campus-based", all of my colleagues are given the wrong attributions, and quoted either inaccurately or out of context--that it is pointless to list them all. It contains bits of truth but strings together isolated statements to make them sound like a tidal wave of hatred"
- There are many more such problems - some of them amounting to scandals. "President Mary McAleese has strongly criticised the Simon Wiesenthal Center for allegations it made linking the Hunt family and their Limerick museum with the Nazi party in Germany" for which there seems to be no evidence. The scandal of who did what for the Nazis needn't be discussed, since Simon Wiesenthal himself has nothing to do with the Centre (though he apparently still charges them $90,000 a year to use his name!).
- And of course, in this particular case, we're using a quote from Joschka Fischer "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism" which is clearly not what he's known to have said on other occasions and doesn't appear in any RS. PR 15:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered, why don't you stop trolling this users talk page? (As far as the Wiesenthal Center is concerned, it does not matter what you think, because it is a reliable source if you like that or not. Capisce?) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
New party
Is this new right-wing party worth a stub and a mention in the election article? —Nightstallion 08:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Move to Ireland (island)
RE Proposed Move. As an admin, aren't you worried that the situation has 1) become ludicrously against policy (we now have two fully-fledged and separately linked-to Irish state articles) 2) a situation where the editing warring and general strife simply has to come to an end? We have a serial link-piping puppermaster nearly on number 30, huge discomfort and hostility everywhere. The time people have put into sorting this out has been extraordinary. The Irish articles are floundering and in a mess. You are not the first person to say this current situation is "having it right" (although a number of opposers have there own pet solutions), but you are the first administrator to say the current situation is best at this stage. 99% of people at the cross-supported Ireland disambiguation taskforce admit that some change has to happen. Isn't there any alternative you would accept? As you are an admin, and this is a such a policy-loaded matter, I simply have to ask you this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No content in Category:Slovak border crossings
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Slovak border crossings, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Slovak border crossings has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Slovak border crossings, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Village pump (policy)
Number 57, I have raised an issue on the Village pump (policy) which I think relates to some important issues you discuss on your user page , and if you have any thoughts on the subject it might be helpful. It may be hopeless, but it would be great to develop new approaches to dealing with this problem. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hey Number 57. Any chance you could hold off a while and wait for the closing admin to respond? I don't think anyone is going to gain from escalating this. It can be resolved by the admin himself, we just need to give him the time to do it. Rockpocket 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Too late :(. Rockpocket 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I responded to this matter on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Non-British Isles editors
Interesting idea. Let us outsiders, handle the Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hummus
Thank you for your recent, bold, edit to Hummus. I've grown tired of trying to argue against the inclusion of POV-pushing material that, IMHO, is added to the article under the guise of "scholarship". --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- And for the alternate perspective, what the hell? There is a huge discussion on the talk page, covering a number of reliable sources on the subject, and at least three editors participating in that discussion and editing the article, who believe that such information is relevant and appropriate to the article. Do you mind participating yourself, before twice reverting to delete things others worked hard to include? Thanks. Tiamut 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
S orry Tiamut, but you reinserting that material into the Hummus article has pretty much rid me of any respect or GF that I had for your editing. You know full well that the material is being used to turn an article about a foodstuff into an attack article, and I'm quite shocked that you are willing to play along with it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've already written to you on your talk page about your wholesale deletion of this reliably sourced material which three editors have voiced support for including on the talk page. If you lose good faith towards me simply because you disagree with my position (and that of two other editors) there could not have been much there to begin with. I'm quite shocked that you would unilaterally impose your own view onto a page without engaging in any form of discussion. And you accuse me of bad judgement? Please. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach a disagreement over content. You just exemplified the latter. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hummus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.