| Revision as of 11:55, 2 December 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archiving← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:09, 2 December 2005 edit undoWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,229 edits →DbivNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;" | |||
| == Sorry, but its the eXile page again. == | |||
| |align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:<!--#99CC99--><!--#FFCCFF-->#9999CC; color:#000000;"|'''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.''' — Jimbo Wales | |||
| |- | |||
| |valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color:<!--#CCFFCC-->#FFFFCC; color:#000000;"|__NOTOC__ | |||
| {| align="center"} | |||
| |- | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.''' — Robert Frost | |||
| ------- | |||
| <center>''And in the event that you're here with a ]: | |||
| "Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support." </center> | |||
| I don't know what else to say, but could you check out the eXile again. | |||
| <center>— ''Jorge Luis Borges''</center> | |||
| --------- | |||
| <br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Jewish votes== | |||
| Peter D. Ekman | |||
| Hi, would you mind reconsidering your vote on these categories? I agree some are not useful, but I strongly feel that Jewish people have made an equally important contribution to Science, Philosophy and Classical music as African Americans have made to popular music (]). Also, you voted delete twice ]. Regards ] 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Point Made == | ||
| Your point is well taken. I should have posted that to user talk pages. ] 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Also, as to the Borges quote, I think that it is on the mark. You or Ed could have written it better. ] 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Elie Weisel == | |||
| ::Just to let you know KAJ is back and I think he, Johnski and SamuelSpade are mounting an attack on the articles again. You might want to keep an eye on them. Thanks... ] 05:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I was wondering about why you reverted several of the . One was the result of conversation on the talk page, and a few others seem like pretty uncontroversial grammar / spelling corrections (like the "L" in Nobel Laureate is generally capitalized). I'd appreciate any feedback that you have. Thanks. ] 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re your message== | |||
| Thanks for the advice and I agree. I wish to stay far away from conflict at the moment. I had put my vote in the wrong place and since have corrected it I think. I agee with your statement and I won't back down from that. I mess up a little lately, guess because I am five months pregnant and frustrated from being housebound. Anyway thanks again.--] ] ] 04:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 20,000 edits! == | ||
| Nice work. You should be proud. This is in my view a major contribution to humanity. | |||
| Hello, another admin recently helped me delete my old user page for User:Julian Diamond. He also helped me take my old talk page and link it to an archive on my new user talk page. Unfortunetly, I have a new message on my old user:Julian Diamond account but I can't get to it because the talk page now only links to that archive, is it possible to make it so that new messages automatically link to that archive as well? I apoligize for the inconvenience.- ] | ] 05:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==You were right== | |||
| Got this just now. -''The record is clear that I've been patient with the anonymous user. SlimVirgin has relayed several unfair accusations against me and is incapable of justifying any of them. Ryan Utt''- | |||
| Would it be deemed proper for me to tell that user to cease or would it reflect negatively down the road.--] ] ] 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==No problem== | |||
| Thank you and you were soooo right. I did misunderstand it to begin with. I still agree with your outside view and that stays. I never intended to get into conflict. My wikistress level is going up because of it. Keep up the good work and thanks.--] ] ] 02:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Kudos. | |||
| == thank you == | |||
| ] 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| thank you for your comments on the page but it doesn't seem to help because yuber just reverts me 3 times in a row then threatens me with "3RR". ] 05:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi User In Question, this is for you too == | |||
| i am getting really fed up with wikipedia, why are people like yuber allowed to do this? ] 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I know you mean well, but I hope you can step back and listen for a second to what you are telling me here. | |||
| ==Frances Power Cobbe== | |||
| Hi, would you mind if I removed the Animal liberation box, it is pretty overpowering to the article. ] 17:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi I noticed you removed ] frrom the activists cat, I re-added her as it states she was an activist in the article. Regards ] 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi thanks for your message. I'm glad you agree about the template. You deleted ] at 01:44, 20 November 2005 so unfortunately I can't use it. Was it really necessary to delete it, isn't it more specific than Animal liberation movement? ] 17:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * A sockpuppet who uses an open proxy pretty much has a free hand. | |||
| ==Arbitration accepted== | |||
| ] has been accepted. Please place evidence at ]. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at ]. ] 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help needed== | |||
| Don't know if you are in now but I have an article name problem. I have just put up a new article on the actor ] and the spelling is the problem. I just found out there are two of them. I should have spelled it ''Denny''. I didn't even remember the other one who was in the police brutality matter some time ago. When I typed that name in and saw there was no article I went on and submitted my work. I have an offline copy of it not yet deleted out of my pc. My question is can the title of my article be changed from ] to Reginald Denny which was the actors correct name? Can an admin dothat or does it need to wrote again with the correct spelling? ( I wrote the article at the suggestion of my father who is a model plane nut and has a collection of Dennyplanes cause I had never heard of this actor) If you can help me I would be grateful. Thank you--] ] ] 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank You== | |||
| Thanks so very much. I also appreciate your comments about my article.--] 00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] would probably never take advantage of that, though. (And PS: Who am I to say it seems like the same guy -- I've just been the actual target of some of the most obscene abuse for the past year or so.) | |||
| == 3rr == | |||
| * The fact that User in Question becomes measurably ''more'' abusive, files ridiculous stuff against me, accuses me of being Yuber, vandalizes my talk page, etc ***when I raise this issue*** (as opposed to looking at me quizzically or ignoring me, which is what a non-sockpuppet would do) really has no relevance. | |||
| i have talked on the talk page many times but every time I bring information with proper sources yuber just reverts again. he reverts everything and pretend he is only reverting one thing and then pretends he is "compromising". Why do you defend him? why don't you tell him about 3rr and to stop reverting? There must be more people here than just me who see a problem with yuber. does he revert everyone or is it just me? ] 15:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==I think I forgot== | |||
| To thank you for helping me which I think I forgot. Thank You. ''Mayo su día sea grande''.--] ] ] 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * And specifically, User In Question leveling the accusation that '''I am a sockpuppet of Yuber''' -- which is really absurd -- that doesn't really count as poisoning the well like my posts do. That accusation of User In Question's is not worth a long monologue about how we all want Chaos to go back to the old editor we knew and loved. | |||
| ==Islamofascism (term)== | |||
| Would it be too much of me to ask you to spend the same amount of time and energy clearing my name as you have clearing this user's name? At a bare minimum, I'd appreciate a definitive check on whether Yuber and I could conceivably be the same person. Many thanks. ] 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Circular reference .--] 23:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I thought I was pretty clear about that: | |||
| == Thanks for your support == | |||
| ::'''Would it be too much of me to ask you to spend the same amount of time and energy clearing my name as you have clearing this user's name? At a bare minimum, I'd appreciate a definitive check on whether Yuber and I could conceivably be the same person.''' | |||
| Hi, Slim. I just want to say a big big thank you for your support on my RfA, and for your flattering words, and also for all the help you gave me in the months coming up to it. You helped to make Misplaced Pages a nicer place for me. I expect my Misplaced Pages activity to be quite low in the next week, as I'll be very busy in the real world. But I'll look in occasionally, and I'll be back properly before the end of next week. Looking forward to blocking you first time you step out of line ;-) ] ] 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :In other words, do an IP check on me, please, and publicize your findings, as you have done for User In Question. Intervene on my behalf if someone questions the outcome, an outcome which you and I can each predict here and now. ] 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Neofascism and religion == | |||
| Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov are obviously not the same person, and the technical evidence confirms that. While there is no technical evidence linking Chaosfeary to Enviroknot or the open proxies, and while it is extremely unlikely that Chaosfeary ''is'' Enviroknot, it is quite obvious that FluffyPinkKittensofDoom is a revert sock related to those open proxies, most likely of Chaosfeary. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone experienced in the use of open proxies is using those proxies as strawmen sockpuppets to implicate Chaosfeary. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi SlimVirgin: Are you aware of this abomination: ]? What's your opinion? I have tried to add some "rational info" for whatever it's worth. Take a look. Maybe the whole article should be nominated for deletion? ] 11:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == CheckUser request == | |||
| :::Do you mean to suggest that equating an entire faith system with fascism is offensive and unencyclopedic? ] 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There is no technical evidence linking ] and ], nor anything I can find indicating that 84.92.40.169 could be used by Peter McConaughey. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Animal Rights and POV pushing== | |||
| Over at the article, you did a of quite a bit of work I had done. Your edit summary said it was "minor", and you made no mention of why you did the revert on the talk page. I find it interesting since you were the one who was complaining about the National Cattleman quotation as being "inappropriate", so I went and found a more "appropriate" source. I replaced the criticism paragraph quoting the Cattlemen organization with sourced quotes from notable experts and a URL to back up each and every one of them. Yet you reverted it, completely, wholly, and without a single word of explanation, marking your revert as "minor". Given the emphasis by[REDACTED] on the importance of source quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up, perhaps you could give some sort of a legitimate explanation for your massive revert of all these sourced quotes from notable experts with URL's to back them up. Without any such explanation, I'm left to assume this was simply the product of POV pushing on your part. ] 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Pub Pic == | |||
| == Please look at the rational for this edit == | |||
| Thenk you for protecting Image:Illpublish.png. Peter McConaughey has been filling it with POV all day. I would also like to put in a good word for Chaosfeary. | |||
| Hi Slim, | |||
| ==Automatically numbered footnotes== | |||
| This is your edit: | |||
| :(from ]) : | |||
| Subsection=(Correcting a minor oversight in) the subsection Embedded HTML links : I inserted a paragraph repeating the same example link but now using a text fragment following a space in the single square brackets, so the reader clicks on the text fragment rather than on an automatically generated number. This addition merely corrects an oversight in the article. Let me point out that if there are any users who might wish to disallow this type of embedded HTML link, they would thereby be disallowing automatically numbered footnotes which this article otherwise permits. For7thGen 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Frank, it wasn't an oversight. We like to distinguish clearly in articles between internal and external links. Typing chaos indicates that's internal, and typing tells the reader they're being taken to another website more clearly that typing The Guardian does. It can also be useful to have the links numbered. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Now please look at this discussion: | |||
| :Hi Slim, may I call you Slim? I do have questions for you in response to your good message on the above talk page. 1st, do you wish to disallow automatically numbered footnotes to coexist with embedded HTML links in the same article? If you answer no, you do allow this, then please tell me exactly how it can be accomplished? <br> | |||
| ] | |||
| 2nd, and far less important than the main question(s) above, your revert description was "no link title should be added to embedded links in articles, only in further reading or references." Please tell me where I can find this statement? I would like the source for this or for a substantially-the-same statement which you feel is the most official or highest credibility source in Misplaced Pages-land. Merely so that I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for your kind help, especially on the 1st question(s). ] 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Slim, again. I'll just add a 3rd question for you. In ], this paragraph appears:<br> | |||
| does it all look consistent to you ? | |||
| See for example ], an article using ''numbered footnotes'' (using the ] system) combined with book and journal references, as mentioned higher on this page. Other source citation techniques used on that same page: in-line external links, and, of course, wiki-links.<br> | |||
| You'll see that in the example article, the in-line external links are of the type that you are not allowing to appear in other articles. This is of course relevant to my 1st question. Naturally I can't understand how your version can be consistent with Misplaced Pages's apparent guideline. 3rd question is, please clear up my confusion. ] 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks Slim! == | |||
| it should be a no brianer to include related issues even if some claim that don't see the connection. | |||
| Just a quick note to thank you for your support. I have been constantly impressed by your outstanding work in Misplaced Pages, here, there and everywhere. I promise not to be a crazy person, ok? Thanks again! ] 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| ] 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == blocking ] == | ||
| G'day Sare, | |||
| Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a user on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. He has apparently been doing this for a few years. | |||
| just a quick note about your blocking with Chaosfeary. I had been indecisive what to do about that since ] brought his behaviour to my attention. Thanks for taking the appropriate action! ] (]) 08:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yours, | |||
| == Please help == | |||
| ] 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Would highly appriciate your comment on this: ]. You may want to take a look at the discussion that led to that. Thanks. ] 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliable sources == | |||
| Ah sorry, it looks like a regular page huh! That is because s/he blanks it and adds a redirect to ]. It is ] that is doing it. | |||
| ] 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe I misexpressed myself on the topic of quotes from experts. See | |||
| Whoops, I meant without the capitalised D. sorry | |||
| ]. | |||
| Basically, there are ''technical'' issues on which you will not find good textbooks, nor peer-reviewed articles, yet warrant a mention. Generally, it is things that are "part of the folklore" on some highly specialized area: people allude to them, write on them, but nobody bothers printing a clear explanation in a textbook (since "everybody is supposed to know about it"), and since the idea is not new it does not get into peer-reviewed publications (remember: scientific publications must publish new ideas, in general). On the other hand, a number of reputed specialists will write on it in "white papers", technical reports, Usenet postings etc., which are ''not'' peer-reviewed publications. These things are ''published'' but are not ''peer reviewed''. | |||
| == Kyoto protocol reference dispute == | |||
| What do you think? ] 11:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I happened to note your question re:] on ] which led to my recent post on ]. What I would like to ask is for you to have a look at the ] page and comment on what SEW has been up to there. I've been trying ro reach a compromise, but am getting frustrated. A similar edit war over SEW's ''notes bot'' or whatever is is, is going on at ]. I would like to ''interfere'' there also, but only after the Kyoto dust settles. Thank you, ] 00:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your responses. ''I can see clearly now...'' what needs to be done (I think), to undo some of the ''mess'' we've made at Kyoto and Global cooling, if SEW will allow it. Probably a big ''if'' there as there is more to the story :-) Anyway, thanks again. ] 05:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Disruption == | ||
| To be honest, you're right about the annoyances, and although he's trying to do something what he thinks is right, he as an innate ability to really fuck up what i'm trying to use on the article. I am phrasing some of the paragraphs differently because they are paraphrased from books that i am referencing, in order to ensure that it is easier for people to refer to these books, and know where i got the information to weight the article. | |||
| Thank you for being so clear. | |||
| Now, the other thing which is annoying is he seems to have an also subconscious train of thought that he thinks he is some form of administrator. He has things on his user page, which quite frankly, just beg for recognition "I love wikipedia" and other things. This also speaks volumes to me because when someone is supposed to dispute an article, they do it with sources. Certainly, after i have done 6+ hours of work on tha article, and i arrive to see chipped-away articles, NO reason why other than "This needs a cleanup", now i'm in a lad where i like to know WHY things are the way they are, hence - why i reference my articles. I know there are no regards as to status on the[REDACTED] - but this i see as a paradox - nobody has any higher status than anyone else, but yet there are templates Requiring Experts - Rather fishy to me relating to the idea of "nobody has weight in the wikipedia", well - for me it does - I don't really think there's a strict enough anything to prevent people from doing whatever they like - Viriditas simply doing what he/she/whatever does, with little reasoning whatsoever. | |||
| Apart from the actual historical connection the issue is the use being done today in these historical events. | |||
| It is common knowledge (and I can find soyrces) thta palestinian narritive about the Nakba is at the core of Palestinian claims and rallying causes today. (which lead to the demand for "right of return" which is one of the causes for the continued conflict). As such the jewish "answer" (see many jewish websites about the issue) which include showing that the palestinian exodus is not unique (not in the world and espacially at that time in the middle east) is an important addition so that the article will be NPOV. Keeping the Palestinian exodus by itself is making it similar to the palestinian narritive. So it is POV. I am quite sure that there should not be an issue here on original research Vs NPOV as I already broghut jewish websites which connect the two events. | |||
| Clearly there are historical connection between the two exodus: Jews who fled from Arab countries lived in homes of Palestinian who fled Israel. The Arab leaders in their decision form 1949 (or 48) mention both refugees, a source I placed on talk describe the flight of the two groups of refugees as desrving financial help (that source dats to Nov 48) so clearly the connection exist then and now. | |||
| It seems to me that at such a point, i always come to a brick wall, and i'm forced to give people hints as to go away and allow me to finish my edits before they start jumping on the articles. Still, i've no remorse for what i have done because i'm just so ultimately annoyed by the likes of Viriditas, the type who wish they were administrators, but through their frustration, end up pissing other people off with their attitudes. | |||
| Best, | |||
| ] 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I apologise for any problems caused to the[REDACTED] by the both of us, and i think that although silly, it is unlikely i will be lending my "expertise"/"nobody-ness" to the[REDACTED] again for such matters. ] 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have again read your note and than I read this: | |||
| ::The heart icon on my user page does not represent "I love wikipedia". It is a symbol for ]. Please read the article. --] 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Confused == | |||
| "We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Misplaced Pages is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. <b>Disputes are characterized in Misplaced Pages</b>. They are not re-enacted. | |||
| You're saying i'm overly capitalising things, etc. But wait a minute, i was correcting the title of the Governmental Schemes. "Government Schemes" implies that the schemes were done within the government, "Governmental" implies that they are guidelines, which they are - and they are not "Campaigns", either. You say i've done unfair capitalisation, etc - but i actually did trim the grammar down on the first few sections in the free time i had - but yet, for this i'm warned, look at the history and you will see that there are differences in grammar, where i have trimmed it down and yet i'm still getting bollocked for a small mistake i did with a Z. | |||
| To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Misplaced Pages is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them" | |||
| I'm sorry, but i actually wanted to sort things out, and still, Viriditas makes it out that i'm staging a big "campaign" against ALL editors, when in fact, i'm only staging against him because he edits without any reason other than a line less than 50 words long. What's the point of even having rules if anyone can jump in willy nilly, again, and change things without documenting WHY they did them - Fair enough, i'm alright with cleanup, but the headings were there because they were taken from pamphlets, and related books which all used the same headers. | |||
| No where did I find that no original research takes precedence but it does not matter. There are in talk of that page (and in reverted edits) enough sources which would help make this article NPOV and allow the reader to make up their own mind. So far the limited biased info there is not helping. On the other hand Hertzel is connected to to an historic event that occur 44 years after he died. Please apply the new yard stick in your note to me to <b>every</b> line in this article - I expect it would lead to a much smaller article. It is not just "my issue". You have a responsibility to make this article NPOV as well. Thank you. ] 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm prepared to work alongside Viriditas, and allow bygones to be bygones - IF he agrees to when changing articles, post more than a minescule amount which doesn't really tell me why something was changed. So, read that - Still, i'm not going to agree to wikilove, it's a pathetically silly concept. I'm not a chump, nor will i allow Viriditas to make it out that i am against a shitload of editors when i am only against parts of what he does. | |||
| ==Your message== | |||
| What do you mean, don't add it again? All I did was revert an unexplained revert that also took out additions of the sources (which you among others asked for) and readded highly pov stuff in the intro and elsewhere. | |||
| ] 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| When rd232 removed it, however, without blanking anything else and with a justification on the talk page, I didn't revert. I agree that it's not worth adding it now (as you would have known if you'd read my recent talk page comments), but I might change my mind at any time and insert the material. Of course any major change would then be explained on the talk page, and existing arguments would be adressed. Please look more closely at the talk page before issueing such requests in the future. ] 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think you read the ] article. If you can't agree to it, then you are essentially saying you can't agree to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Is that correct? If not, what particular component of wikilove do you oppose? Please reply on my talk page. --] 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand that you and I have different points of view about this, but there's no need to threaten me with a block. First I want to say something about the content issue at hand, and second I want to say something about your last message on my page. | |||
| ==Arbitration accepted== | |||
| :I have not heard any convincing arguments why the Ekman section should not be put in, and several other editors agree with me. There is no clear policy reason why not, nor is there a clear consensus. In particular, users Ryan Utt (formerly Clarence Thomas), Mgreenbe, Brighterorange, and Squibix, and several anonymous ips have expressed approval of versions of the page with the Ekman info in. Rd232's recent comments on the talk page were expressions of personal judgement, and not quotations of policy. This is fine, but it means they are not binding, and subject to consensus. As for the other debates that were ongoing about it, well, you seem to have broken off our previous discussion to question my identity. My last argument on this subject, which despite my repeated specific requests for a response has gone completely unadressed by you, can be found (as a diff) , though I later edited it (ce). Since these points were ignored by you and others, I did not feel under any obligation to remove the Ekman section when the anon ip readded it. After rd232 gave a rationale, however, it would have been inappropriate for me to revert without further discussion. | |||
| ] has been accepted. Please place evidence at ]. Proposals and comments may be placed at ]. ] 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| :Aside from content, I feel I should adress the threat of a block which has been placed on my user talk page by you. I think that blocking me in this situation would be wildly, obviously, and indefensibly inappropriate, and if you were to do so as a result of an ongoing editing dispute I would formally contest the fairness of such an action. As I have mentioned before, there are other editors and other admins who have expressed views similar to mine regarding both content and the proper interpretation of policy. Of course, if you feel that you could defend and justify (e.g. "he was endagering WP") such a block, there is nothing I can do to stop you. What I will do, however, is continue editing just as I would have had no threat been made. Do not think, however, that because I am ignoring your inappropriate threats, that I would also ignore valid discussion regarding editing of the article. | |||
| My understanding of the policy was that if you take out X, and say the reason was Y, then I can put part of X back in if I do so in a way that doesn't conflict with Y, and this doesn't count toward 3RR. For example, you took out stuff from the Kiriyenko letter prank, and only mentioned the comparison to Klebnikov in your comments. I didn't put that back in, but I put in the other material you didn't give a reason for taking out. Am I misunderstanding the policy? 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :On that note I am still waiting for a reply to my above-linked comment, or some other reason not to reinsert the Ekman section. Of course it may be that we simply make different judgement calls here, but then it is a matter for consensus do decide.] 23:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 3RR == | ||
| Would you mind taking a look at and giving your opinion about a dispute I'm having regarding notability? See . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hello SlimVirgin, | |||
| Thanks for your comment. Regarding proper citations and verifiability, I'm having another debate at ] - would you mind taking a look? Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If I add a comment to a page, and someone deltes it and I put it back and they delete it and I put it back and they delete it would I break 3RR if I put it back a third time or would they break it when they revert it. in other words: is the first placement of the edit counting? | |||
| == Footnotes == | |||
| Yours | |||
| No policy, just personal preference. In this instance I was mainly annoyed because when I came in a while back the spacing was all over the place. So I harmonized it to no space and after punctuation, then suddenly the lead wasn't harmonized and that ticked me off. :"D Anyway, my logic is to keep footnotes as unobtrusive to the text as possible. However, if I see a page with spacing... I won't change it so long as its consistent; if it ain't I go in and the spacing don't know what hit it. If there were a wikipolicy I would likely follow publishing guidelines; dunno what else to tell ya accept keep up the good stuff. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your advice, I have never been in a real revert war before but this is talk page and it is my own comments that are being reverted. Unfortunately I have the need to note the behaviour of a user who has spammed c.40 friends asking them to vote in a heated AfD debate. The user in question has also made it hard to trace his behaviour by cleverly editing so it doesnt show up straight away on the "user contribs". I guess this may border on a personal attack, but I feel that if he behaves like this and conceals it a note must be left for the deleting admin. | |||
| ==DOM Arbitration== | |||
| Again thanks for the advise. | |||
| Hi SV, just in case you didn't know, our case for arbitration got accepted. I saw that you were involved with another arbitration case. Good luck with that. ] 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] 03:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mylo Carbia== | |||
| ==Ward Churchill== | |||
| Hi SlimVirgin (I love your user name :-) ), I really can't remember how I ran into her name (I think somebody posted it in the List of Puerto Ricans, without writing an article). After seeing what was written about her in different websites (including her own), I assumed good faith on her behave and wrote the article on information recopilated. However, I do agree with the point of views posted and if the article was posted for AfD, I would like to know because I would be more then willing to vote for its deletion. Your friend in Wiki ] 19:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for letting me know, I responded ], it's fairly experimental since a "traditional" article rfc looks fairly useless here. ] 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 3rr == | ||
| I'm delighted to hear that the SlimVirgin now prizes good faith above all. Please see my e-mails and read the talk page and edit history of the List of Jewish jurists. Please reply by e-mail. - ] 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| Please check your email. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Replied. Thanks --] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Brandon == | |||
| Hey Slim, I appreciate the message on his page :-) Good to see you're looking out for me (and vice versa). However, it's cool. I'm happy to respond to Brandon and explain my position on things. He's getting borderline abusive, but it's cool, I can take this. He's upset about the existence of the article and I think that's understandable. If Brandon gets highly abusive I'll stop responding. - ] | |||
| == Re Unicodify == | |||
| Hi Slim, yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm maintaining the em/en-dash distinction. I've got a small Python script I pass the stuff I edit through that does things like turn (safe) HTML entities into UTF-8 and random other bits and pieces (don't worry, I watch the output fairly carefully). | |||
| Another[REDACTED] user asked me about my mdash ndash conversion a few days ago, and pointed me at ]. In it, it says "Use the HTML entity – (not the numeric form –; see below) or type it in directly if your keyboard allows it", so I guess UTF-8 is OK. | |||
| If you think it is a problem, I can easily special case it in my script. Let me know. 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : UTF-8 characters have a few things going for them vs HTML entities: | |||
| * They look nicer in the edit window: you see actual characters as opposed to markup. | |||
| * They're a more compact representation in terms of storage (this is especially true of Latin-1 entities like &eacute;) | |||
| * They're a small step towards making life easier on 3rd party apps that deal with raw wikicode: ideally you wouldn't need a full HTML parser to be able to interpret wikicode. | |||
| : That said, if it's frowned upon, or if converting things like &ndash; is regarded as too much needless churn, then I can easily stop doing it. Cheers, ] 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Judeofascism== | |||
| There has never been a "vote" on deleting the redirect, only on deleting whatever was in the article. The term is now mentioned on ], and thus there should be a redirect there. If you feel otherwise, the correct place to discuss it is on ], not by improperly speedying the redirect. --] (]) 02:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You're completely wrong. An AFD result of delete means that the article as it stands should be deleted. The CSD dealing with recreations allows for speedy deletion of a new article with the same or very similar content. This is completely different content, and should not be speedy deleted. --] (]) 02:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please read the relevant section on ] about re-creations. "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject." --] (]) 03:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have read ], particularly this section: | |||
| {| border | |||
| |<div id="redirect">A useless redirect</div> | |||
| |Don't worry, redirects are cheap. <br> | |||
| If you must, list on ] but only after reading our ] | |||
| |<tt><nowiki>{{rfd}}</nowiki></tt> | |||
| |} --] (]) 03:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I must admit, I giggled seeing you two fight. :P That said, I'm siding with SV on this particular issue - wikipolicy definitely seems to suggest that he is in the right ] 03:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I also. (Siding with SV, that is, not giggling.) On the other hand, the recent edit warring on ] has neutered the ] even more than it was in ]. I expect by this time next month, the new article will have to be word-for-word identical to the previously-deleted one. —] ] 03:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'll try to prove you wrong on that one, Crypic :-) . And please don't side. It's silly. Let the two folks just talk it out. Forget whatever the policy du jour is, and just do what's sanest for the encyclopedia. :-) ] 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == E-mail? == | |||
| Hmm, no new messages in my inbox for some reason.. :-/ | |||
| Did you use[REDACTED] E-mail? Sometimes that's extremely slow. | |||
| ] 04:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I used[REDACTED] E-mail to complain to Jimbo about extremely slow speeds! Now less slow. What? ] 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you're speeding it up, please keep in close contact with him. ;-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::That no data warning in FF just kills me, at least with the foundation one I can still refresh. With my watchlist, I quickly lose track of what I did or did not look at. Thus, I end up reverting ''A claim of niggerology'' to on ] instead of ] (I could have been sleeping with it fixed), and so on. My memory is far too fragile. In other words, ''help computa''. ] 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == NPOV policy == | |||
| The dispute that is on the talk page of the palestinian exodus is not charterized on the page it self. (as mandated by the NPOV policy) this dispute is between scholars . | |||
| On the other bundeling up Zionist transfer intentions (from 1904, 1930s, 1944) into events in the war of 1948 is implying enrosing a POV. You suggestion of relancy need to be applied to both sides equally. | |||
| This article is a complete failure of the NPOV policy - read the talk carefully going back 6 month if needed and I am sure you too will see how wikipdia comuntee failed to generate an article that is truly showing both sides of the issue. This failure is shedding a negative light on[REDACTED] is a relaible source. ] 05:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == deleted discussion of direct links == | |||
| Hi Slim, in you removed a discussion of direct links which Francis had archived. Did you move it somewhere else? Things discussed on the Village pump are supposed to be archived in a relevant discussion page and aren't kept in the pump archive after seven days, so I'm not sure if it is still preserved anywhere. ] 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Left this for Ta bu, but want you to read it too, dammit == | |||
| ''(I had hoped, perhaps foolishly, that you would be among the people willing to stand up against hate speech, SV)'' | |||
| :And that's what it boils down to. Apparently Brandon believes we can't document hateful speech without agreeing with it, accepting it and welcoming it. Sad that he thinks this way, but he's already shown me that he's being unreasonable. Like I said, I'm cutting off all correspondence with him until he becomes more civil. I've already asked nicely once, I'm not going to do it again. - ] 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reasonably, then== | |||
| :::Reasonably, then: Is there a discrepancy in the way we're handling terms like ] and ] as compared with the way we're handling ]? | |||
| :::Is ] prominent in usage? Is ]? Is ]? | |||
| :::Where are their articles? | |||
| :::Can someone please answer these questions without offering a variation on, "Maybe you should go work on those?" ] 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == If I may boil this down == | |||
| * (Examples -- ], ] -- proving you are being utterly inconsistent with this) | |||
| * "Gee, fascinating point, but, um, neocons really need to stand unchallenged in this particular case, but anyway thanks for raising this, and, er, what if you go fix those articles yourself?" | |||
| * '''It is not my point''' (as though you didn't know) that ] and ] -- and ] and ] and ] -- "need work." My point is rather that a ] exists preventing those harsh, controversial terms from meriting separate articles (and the perceived legitimacy such an article implies), and b) that this systemic bias has, at the same time, no problem whatsoever with harsh, controversial terms like ] or ] or ]. (If I may quote from that article: "]s (who wear turbans) are particularly offended at being lumped together with Islamic 'ragheads.' -- Can you picture a sentence like that in ]? Oh wait, never mind '''that article doesn't exist,''' so it's a moot @#$%^&* point.) | |||
| * Could you please do me a favor and read the above paragraph again, carefully? | |||
| * What I have perhaps grown slightly weary of hearing: | |||
| * "Gee, if you want to try pushing ], you can, but I don't think you'll get it up the hill..." THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, TA BU. | |||
| * What I have perhaps grown equally weary of hearing: | |||
| * "Inconsistent? Who's being inconsistent? Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time on ]? And, while you're at it, uh, stop bothering me?" That's what the neocons say when they want me to go away, Ta bu, and frankly I imagine that's your objective too. ] 12:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Just to also let you know Slim, I'll not be listening to Brandon any more. All his new messages that I deam abusive are going to be deleted from my page. I'm ''certainly'' not going to work on the ] article. - ] 14:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, I was paraphrasing ''your'' last message to ''me'', as dismissive that I should go work on ]. Once again, you have decided not to address the larger questions of systemic bias. ] 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Request == | |||
| Hello. I wonder if I could ask a favour? Would you mind looking at ] and giving your views in ] as to whether it constitutes ]? ] and ] have been kind enough to do so, but another editor is protesting that it is 'obvious' and so does not need sourcing. It's most frustrating. ] 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Pretty please? ] 17:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| Email for you. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this a personal attack? == | |||
| You once previously cautioned this editor about personal attacks. Could you please look at this diff? | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Great_Scandal&curid=3142287&diff=29307428&oldid=29290183 | |||
| Do you agree that it is a personal attack? Thank you. ] 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Slim. In case you're puzzled by Robert's statement that you once cautioned this editor about personal attacks, it was . | |||
| :He started as {{User|Flamekeeper}}, but did not want to give an e-mail address to Misplaced Pages, so when his computer lost the cookies, he couldn't log in. (He seems not to have kept a record of his password.) He then became {{User|Fiamekeeper}}, {{User|Corecticus}}, {{User|Famekeeper}}, {{User|PureSoupS}}, and has recently reappeared as {{User|EffK}}. They're not sockpuppets; they're just new accounts created when he can't access the old one. | |||
| :He seems from his first appearance to have been on some sort of personal campaign to get ] banned from Misplaced Pages as a Vatican agent, and has harassed both Str1977 and Robert McClenon for months. In fact, I am positive that his (harmless) oppose vote on my RfA was a result of wiki-stalking Str1977, who had just voted for me and had left a very friendly message on my talk page. As far as I can tell, EffK had no prior history of contributing to RfA pages. | |||
| :Some of the talk pages have become quite nasty, e.g. ], and ], etc. It's the kind of thing you might want to take a look at if you were feeling ''very'' energetic as an admin, but I couldn't blame you ''at all'' if you didn't want to get involved! In any case, an RfAr has been filed. | |||
| :Just bringing you up to date on the situation. I have your userpage on my watchlist, so I saw Robert's message. :-) Cheers. ] ] 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Perhaps that might be a personal attack, but what it basically is is incomprehensible. But at least he's letting the Catholic Cabal take some heat off the Jewish Cabal. --]] 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :LOL!! Yes, it's gibberish. Not sure how anyone could tell it was a personal attack. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Important AfD== | |||
| Hi. If you have time please take a look at ]. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Misplaced Pages based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at ]. Thanks. ] 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Dear SlimVirgin, | |||
| *I am the main protagonist mentioned and I totally agree that this is an important AfD and a number of principles are at steak, and that is why I am pursuing it. | |||
| *The debate hinges on whether "dictator" is a definable English word. As it is a clearly defined word (I list 8 very similar dictionary definitions on the talk page) used without controversy to describe a large number of rulers by historians, Britannica, the press, the public, 27,700 times in wikipeida, this is self evident - indeed the term is clearly defined in a number of wiki articles. Since there are certainly at least some dictators, there should be no reason why they cannot be listed - potential POV is no justification for deletion - it requires improvement. | |||
| *172's repeated assertion that describing anyone is a dictator constituted original research is utterly without foundation as there are usually a myriad of sources. He has tried to argue that the application of an accepted definitions constitutes original research. | |||
| If this AfD is passed there will serious ramifications as this could then be used as a precedent for the misuse of ] and ] in a similar way. The use of English words would also be constantly open to question. | |||
| Yours | |||
| ] 21:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Check user request == | |||
| I've investigated the usernames in question. It seems unlikely that either of them is Environknot, unless Enviroknot has moved, and they certainly aren't sockpuppets for each other. As well, neither is using open proxies, and neither appears to be {{user|209.123.8.125}}, which also does not appear to be an open proxy. On the other hand {{user|66.144.47.131}}, which was involved in a revert war with 209.123.8.125, is obviously an open proxy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 08:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :While the edit histories are suggestive, there still is absolutely no ''technical'' evidence linking 209.123.8.125 with those userids, nor any evidence or indication that 209.123.8.125 is an open proxy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jewish list== | |||
| sorry about the rv, just saw the discussion. ] 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :there could be a snag here, as it might have meant his great grandmother was a Jewish immigrant which would have a different consequence for "the list".... ] 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::well if she was a Jewish immigrant, her children may have been brought up jewish, and their children etc., we don't know whether that was the case or not. ] 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi SlimVirgin, could you have a look at my posting at ], I feel very upset that this user has 3 times place sock puppet votes yet ] says he will not warn ] as he says this may mean he finds more sophisticated ways of cheating the voting systems. I would also ask if you could reconsider your comments on ] as I do not think that ] or ] are being violated as the Jewish information comes from published material. Thanks ] 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rollback?== | |||
| What exactly was for? --] (]) 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I added the comment '''before''' El C archived it. I do not appreciate your unexplained reversion. --] (]) 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I came across the page and decided to respond, as there was no way to see that it had not been modified recently without looking at the history. Your rollback simply exacerbated the problem; you should have reverted manually with an edit summary like "this has been closed for 3 days". --] (]) 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apology accepted. --] (]) 16:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Email == | |||
| Emailed you. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Replied. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==British Jews List== | |||
| The user who put in the tag did not mention it or explain why on the Talk Page. Neither did you when you added the other tag just now. One of the tags says "help Misplaced Pages by providing sources". Well, sources for what? You or the other guy need to be specific in which names you are doubting, etc. and also the "original research" claim refers to what exactly? You can't just drop these general terms hoping they'll stick, you need to be specific.] 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==censoring the sources== | |||
| It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the . In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. ] 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question for you== | |||
| Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".] 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I think the problem here is one I have mentioned before. I previously pointed out that with these categories/lists that are labelled Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans etc. these act as labels on people, and if those people do not use that label then it is not encyclopedic to include them. I proposed creating new categories Americans of xxx descent similar to People in Great Britain of Irish descent which does not place any label on the people included. If necessary you could keep xxx American categories and '''only''' use those for people who really do identify as that i.e. De Niro as Italian American , Woody Allen as Jewish American etc. Cheers, ] 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::That makes a lot more sense. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what. | |||
| :::Anyway, SlimVirgin, regarding the message you left on my page, it doesn't sound unreasonable as long as, under what you wrote there, Wittgenstein and Montbatten would have been included (if Wittgenstein was really British, I mean).] 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You haven't found a reputable source yet clearly saying either of them were Jews (which you know they weren't). But if you wanted to see they had Jewish ancestory, as Arniep suggests, I'd have no objection to that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, of course I know they were both not religious Jews. Again I am telling you that "Jewish-British people" is an ETHNIC criteria, not a religious critera. And in that case YOU know that I would be correct since they are both ethnic Jews or part Jews. Oh, and that was a great point about the compiling of ANY Wiki article being original research as well - that is true and I should have used that argument against your "O.R." claims before. Original Research should really only refer to, say, me calling someone Jewish because their last name sounds Jewish, yet no source on the net mention any Jewish ancestry. Otherwise EVERYTHING ELSE is Original Research, except for out-right copy and pasting of a whole article from somewhere else, which we know is copy-right violation.] 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're opening a can of worms trying to make the religious/ethnic distinction when it comes to Jews, which is why I wish you'd just stick to our policies, because the former is a complex issue. The Jewish people regard themselves as a "nation" if you like. Wittgenstein did not regard himself as a member of that nation for a number of reasons, and would not have been so regarded by any of the major denominations. To say that is not to make a religious point. You are confusing ethnicity with race. The point is, if you want to call someone a Jew, find a good source that says it. You might want to consider Arniep's suggestion because it would get round a lot of these problems. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't mind Arnipe's suggestion as long as we don't create TWO separate categories because we are going to get something like 3,000 separate arguments about who identifies as what, etc. As I explained it is in fact the whole "Identify/not identifyas something" argument that is crap, simply because it's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is about precision - you can't measure the degree to which someone identifies or doesn't with something compared to someone else. Identification changes over time, as well, no question about that. An encyclopedia should be based on ''facts''. I can say it's a '''fact''' that DeNiro is 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, etc. and it is regardless of what he's claimed to identify/not identify with just as I can say that Wittgenstein is 3/4 Jewish ethnically - it is a '''fact''' and it's mentioned in almost every article about him that, that is his ethnic background. Just like someone's birth date is a '''fact'''. That's how ethnicity should be measured. Religion '''is''' different because it refers to personal identification with a faith, etc. But ethnicity is a biological concept decided before a person is born, just like one's birth year, date, and place. We should treat it accordingly.] 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can't say as a fact that X is 1/4 this or that. X's mother may have had an illegitimate child, an affair while married for all you know. The criterion for entry into Misplaced Pages isn't truth, but verifiability. See ]. | |||
| ::::There are many people who regard themselves as Jews who aren't observant, and who are so regarded by others too. You're getting ] and ] confused again. Race is the supposedly biological concept, though if you read anything about it, you'll see it's an increasingly discredited one. My guess is that if you were to spend some time reading about these ideas, you wouldn't want to compile any more of these lists. But in the meantime, if the lists are to exist, saying "List of British people with Jewish ancestory" would make more sense than "List of British Jews," though sources would still be needed. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We would call it "List of British people with NOTABLE Jewish ancestry", since I still want the 1/4 rule and it is pointless to list people with distant Jewish heritage since it most likely has no impact on their lives. Are you saying make that list INSTEAD of the current one, or both? Both would just be confusing. Well, OK, illegitimate child and all that IS original research. You're bringing up the possibility that something/something happened contrary to the reported facts. I.e. DeNiro IS reported to be the biological child of (forgot his name) DeNiro and Virginia Admiral. Wittgenstein is reported to be the biological child a Jewish father and a Jewish-German mother, ''racially'' speaking. You can say it's possible that ANY piece of info is wrong then, that DeNiro's birth certificate was faked and he was born in 1939 and not 1943, etc. I'm not sure why you said that, but the '''fact''' is that ethnicity/race and birth date and all that are reported on by official sources and should be regarded as '''fact''' until proven otherwise.] 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK this is what I propose change all the xxx-American categories to Americans of xxx descent (I have noticed other users including Willmcw? suggest this also) as that would be pretty accurately describe most the people in those categories, and restrict it to a grandparent as it is now '''except'' for Jewish Americans as it is a little different, calling Woody Allen of Jewish descent wouldn't make sense, but maybe you could create a category Americans of Jewish descent and move out all the people who don't identify as Jewish if you want. I think it's going a bit far to say you can't mention peoples heritage at all because maybe their grandmother was fibbing, otherwise we'd have to say De Niro identifies as an Italian American although his mother may have been lying etc. ] 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, I think Willmcw saw our discussion on my talk page which is why he mentioned your idea. But, I don't know why we should make an exception for Jewish Americans - you could get into more debates with who identifies/doesn't as Jewish, even for "fully Jewish" unconverted people like Sarah Michelle Gellar. Woody Allen may write about Jews in his movies, but I highly doubt he is a practising Jew in any sense. Allen just has a "Very Jewish" public image just like DeNiro has a "very Italian" public movie image, it has no necessary reflection on their personal lives. I think there should be just one category per ethnic group otherwise it will lead into too much confusion. And again this leads us into the current situation - "Americans of Jewish descent" CAN mean someone who is 100% Jewish, just like "Jewish Americans" doesn't necessarily mean the person is 100% Jewish. The terms are pretty similar, but I dunno. I think all we really need to do is buff up the descriptions on every "xxx-Americans" category page so people know '''exactly''' what we mean. The situation is different with Brits because most British people ARE British-British people and there is no such category, if we put in Jewish-British people it is a bit misleading. But there are no "American-Americans" and anyone with mixed ancestry would be under two categories or more so people know they are mixed. Arniep I think we should continue this talk on my talk page btw.] 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When I mentioned people's mother's having affairs, I was only trying to break down the fact/claim distinction Vulturell was erecting. There are only claims, ones made by good sources, and ones made by bad ones, and we report the former. | |||
| ::::::::As for listing the ones with 1/4 ancestory only, you're back into original research, with Misplaced Pages editors deciding the cut-off point. It should be anyone with any ancestory, although the reality is that distant ancestors likely won't be mention much in print. Also, to answer your other question, I think the ancestry lists should be instead of the others, not as well as. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::OK. ] 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Robert De Niro an Italian American? He's supposed to have Jewish ancestry. Maybe he should be a Jewish American. Oh wait, I have a better idea; let's just cite sources, ok? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Official warning== | |||
| I hate to do this, but I must: your '''reply''' to FuelWagon, no matter what the provocation, was simply out of line. Wasn't it Robert Frost who said, "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper?" Well, at this web site the civility policy is such that one must be MUCH MORE polite than others if you want to be defended from impoliteness. | |||
| If it was my web site, policy would be different. But this is the web site Jimbo founded, so I have to go with his concept of civility. Chill out, re-think your strategy and PLEASE find a way to collaborate without criticizing the other volunteers. Think about the ARTICLES and the READERS. ] 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, just dropping by to say "hi", not sucked in by an interesting edit summary of anything like that, no, no wikistalking here... <br/>So, now that I'm here: Anything you need? A sympathetic ear, even? (Well, eyeballs, actually, but you know what I mean.) <br/> ]]] 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Slim - I was planning on doing some summarising as well as archiving, I'm reading over a print out of the page now to make sure that I understand what everyone is saying. I'll put a new section at the top? <br/>]]] 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Halibutt's RfA == | |||
| Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once. | |||
| <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px #9966CC; background-color: AliceBlue;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) ]. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. <br>As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! ]] 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ::Well, you basically held against me that I reply to people's comments, which is what talk pages are for, so I assumed that you don't want me to use your talk page as well. ]] 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uh-huh. Too bad you didn't clarify that. ]] | |||
| ::Not really. You wrote that ''It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs.'', which hardly gave me any clue as to when am I allowed to respond to people's accusations or questions and when I am not. ]] 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==censoring the sources== | |||
| It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the . In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. ] 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question for you== | |||
| Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".] 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I think the problem here is one I have mentioned before. I previously pointed out that with these categories/lists that are labelled Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans etc. these act as labels on people, and if those people do not use that label then it is not encyclopedic to include them. I proposed creating new categories Americans of xxx descent similar to People in Great Britain of Irish descent which does not place any label on the people included. If necessary you could keep xxx American categories and '''only''' use those for people who really do identify as that i.e. De Niro as Italian American , Woody Allen as Jewish American etc. Cheers, ] 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::That makes a lot more sense. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::DeNiro is a big stretch. You would have to have either one label or the other. Both is misleading, POV, etc. and we could get into endless discussions about who identifies as what. | |||
| :::Anyway, SlimVirgin, regarding the message you left on my page, it doesn't sound unreasonable as long as, under what you wrote there, Wittgenstein and Montbatten would have been included (if Wittgenstein was really British, I mean).] 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You haven't found a reputable source yet clearly saying either of them were Jews (which you know they weren't). But if you wanted to see they had Jewish ancestory, as Arniep suggests, I'd have no objection to that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, of course I know they were both not religious Jews. Again I am telling you that "Jewish-British people" is an ETHNIC criteria, not a religious critera. And in that case YOU know that I would be correct since they are both ethnic Jews or part Jews. Oh, and that was a great point about the compiling of ANY Wiki article being original research as well - that is true and I should have used that argument against your "O.R." claims before. Original Research should really only refer to, say, me calling someone Jewish because their last name sounds Jewish, yet no source on the net mention any Jewish ancestry. Otherwise EVERYTHING ELSE is Original Research, except for out-right copy and pasting of a whole article from somewhere else, which we know is copy-right violation.] 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're opening a can of worms trying to make the religious/ethnic distinction when it comes to Jews, which is why I wish you'd just stick to our policies, because the former is a complex issue. The Jewish people regard themselves as a "nation" if you like. Wittgenstein did not regard himself as a member of that nation for a number of reasons, and would not have been so regarded by any of the major denominations. To say that is not to make a religious point. You are confusing ethnicity with race. The point is, if you want to call someone a Jew, find a good source that says it. You might want to consider Arniep's suggestion because it would get round a lot of these problems. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't mind Arnipe's suggestion as long as we don't create TWO separate categories because we are going to get something like 3,000 separate arguments about who identifies as what, etc. As I explained it is in fact the whole "Identify/not identifyas something" argument that is crap, simply because it's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is about precision - you can't measure the degree to which someone identifies or doesn't with something compared to someone else. Identification changes over time, as well, no question about that. An encyclopedia should be based on ''facts''. I can say it's a '''fact''' that DeNiro is 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, etc. and it is regardless of what he's claimed to identify/not identify with just as I can say that Wittgenstein is 3/4 Jewish ethnically - it is a '''fact''' and it's mentioned in almost every article about him that, that is his ethnic background. Just like someone's birth date is a '''fact'''. That's how ethnicity should be measured. Religion '''is''' different because it refers to personal identification with a faith, etc. But ethnicity is a biological concept decided before a person is born, just like one's birth year, date, and place. We should treat it accordingly.] 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can't say as a fact that X is 1/4 this or that. X's mother may have had an illegitimate child, an affair while married for all you know. The criterion for entry into Misplaced Pages isn't truth, but verifiability. See ]. | |||
| ::::There are many people who regard themselves as Jews who aren't observant, and who are so regarded by others too. You're getting ] and ] confused again. Race is the supposedly biological concept, though if you read anything about it, you'll see it's an increasingly discredited one. My guess is that if you were to spend some time reading about these ideas, you wouldn't want to compile any more of these lists. But in the meantime, if the lists are to exist, saying "List of British people with Jewish ancestory" would make more sense than "List of British Jews," though sources would still be needed. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We would call it "List of British people with NOTABLE Jewish ancestry", since I still want the 1/4 rule and it is pointless to list people with distant Jewish heritage since it most likely has no impact on their lives. Are you saying make that list INSTEAD of the current one, or both? Both would just be confusing. Well, OK, illegitimate child and all that IS original research. You're bringing up the possibility that something/something happened contrary to the reported facts. I.e. DeNiro IS reported to be the biological child of (forgot his name) DeNiro and Virginia Admiral. Wittgenstein is reported to be the biological child a Jewish father and a Jewish-German mother, ''racially'' speaking. You can say it's possible that ANY piece of info is wrong then, that DeNiro's birth certificate was faked and he was born in 1939 and not 1943, etc. I'm not sure why you said that, but the '''fact''' is that ethnicity/race and birth date and all that are reported on by official sources and should be regarded as '''fact''' until proven otherwise.] 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK this is what I propose change all the xxx-American categories to Americans of xxx descent (I have noticed other users including Willmcw? suggest this also) as that would be pretty accurately describe most the people in those categories, and restrict it to a grandparent as it is now '''except'' for Jewish Americans as it is a little different, calling Woody Allen of Jewish descent wouldn't make sense, but maybe you could create a category Americans of Jewish descent and move out all the people who don't identify as Jewish if you want. I think it's going a bit far to say you can't mention peoples heritage at all because maybe their grandmother was fibbing, otherwise we'd have to say De Niro identifies as an Italian American although his mother may have been lying etc. ] 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, I think Willmcw saw our discussion on my talk page which is why he mentioned your idea. But, I don't know why we should make an exception for Jewish Americans - you could get into more debates with who identifies/doesn't as Jewish, even for "fully Jewish" unconverted people like Sarah Michelle Gellar. Woody Allen may write about Jews in his movies, but I highly doubt he is a practising Jew in any sense. Allen just has a "Very Jewish" public image just like DeNiro has a "very Italian" public movie image, it has no necessary reflection on their personal lives. I think there should be just one category per ethnic group otherwise it will lead into too much confusion. And again this leads us into the current situation - "Americans of Jewish descent" CAN mean someone who is 100% Jewish, just like "Jewish Americans" doesn't necessarily mean the person is 100% Jewish. The terms are pretty similar, but I dunno. I think all we really need to do is buff up the descriptions on every "xxx-Americans" category page so people know '''exactly''' what we mean. The situation is different with Brits because most British people ARE British-British people and there is no such category, if we put in Jewish-British people it is a bit misleading. But there are no "American-Americans" and anyone with mixed ancestry would be under two categories or more so people know they are mixed. Arniep I think we should continue this talk on my talk page btw.] 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When I mentioned people's mother's having affairs, I was only trying to break down the fact/claim distinction Vulturell was erecting. There are only claims, ones made by good sources, and ones made by bad ones, and we report the former. | |||
| ::::::::As for listing the ones with 1/4 ancestory only, you're back into original research, with Misplaced Pages editors deciding the cut-off point. It should be anyone with any ancestory, although the reality is that distant ancestors likely won't be mention much in print. Also, to answer your other question, I think the ancestry lists should be instead of the others, not as well as. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::OK. ] 00:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Robert De Niro an Italian American? He's supposed to have Jewish ancestry. Maybe he should be a Jewish American. Oh wait, I have a better idea; let's just cite sources, ok? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Official warning== | |||
| I hate to do this, but I must: your '''reply''' to FuelWagon, no matter what the provocation, was simply out of line. Wasn't it Robert Frost who said, "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper?" Well, at this web site the civility policy is such that one must be MUCH MORE polite than others if you want to be defended from impoliteness. | |||
| If it was my web site, policy would be different. But this is the web site Jimbo founded, so I have to go with his concept of civility. Chill out, re-think your strategy and PLEASE find a way to collaborate without criticizing the other volunteers. Think about the ARTICLES and the READERS. ] 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::In light of ], I have to say, this sounds unsettlingly like the pot calling the kettle black... ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]<sup><font size="-1" color="#129DBC">]</font></sup> 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, just dropping by to say "hi", not sucked in by an interesting edit summary of anything like that, no, no wikistalking here... <br/>So, now that I'm here: Anything you need? A sympathetic ear, even? (Well, eyeballs, actually, but you know what I mean.) <br/> ]]] 02:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Slim - I was planning on doing some summarising as well as archiving, I'm reading over a print out of the page now to make sure that I understand what everyone is saying. I'll put a new section at the top? <br/>]]] 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Halibutt's RfA == | |||
| Although from your comments at my RfA it seems clear that I should not use your talk page at all, I hope you don't mind me using it once. | |||
| <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px #9966CC; background-color: AliceBlue;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) ]. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. <br>As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! ]] 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ::Well, you basically held against me that I reply to people's comments, which is what talk pages are for, so I assumed that you don't want me to use your talk page as well. ]] 06:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Uh-huh. Too bad you didn't clarify that. ]] | |||
| ::Not really. You wrote that ''It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs.'', which hardly gave me any clue as to when am I allowed to respond to people's accusations or questions and when I am not. ]] 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| My edits have now been reverted four times. Thrice by one person and once by another, so I am snookered, and cant replace them. What is the position? ] 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Copied from my ]: | |||
| ::Since your talk page is now blocked for some reason, I will respond here. You wrote that ''Less is more, in the case of RfAs'', but to me it was not clear whether your ''important to respond, and sometimes important not to'' remark was a general one or also related to RfAs. Anyway, I still believe that the right to defend oneself should not only be granted in real life, but also in wikipedia. ]] 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Eh? == | ||
| It's not the ideas of whatever it is, wikilove.. It's the name, i do not love any[REDACTED] editor, nor do i love the wikipedia. They're tools that help do a job as far as i'm concerned. No, it's not breaking policy because i don't much fancy working with Viriditas, even if i've said bygones are being bygones, because i think we just have a major personality clash. | |||
| ''Quote from ]:'' | |||
| <table background="white"><tr><td>As I see you're dealing with this situation, it might help you to know that Jayjg has conducted a user check, and confirms that ] is not banned ]. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)</td></tr></table> | |||
| As for the information, some is from pamphlets, most is from my knowledge as a dietician, and the rest is academic material to ground the article in fact. Still, i think you're being rather strange constantly asking for perfection - and trying to condescend to me, i'm not a child, nor mentally deficient - i have a grasp of Grammar and the english language, i haven't used it in the professional sense for over 2 days, but i still get through because i draft and draft again, and i wont be made to feel i have to "observe" someone else in order to gain a grasp of language, because i have no need for it. With regards to the article, I still think a Campaign is an inappropriate term, but still, if i change it to scheme, Viriditas will whack it right back to "Campaign", so what's the point in actually discussing it on a Talk page, or anywhere else? | |||
| :] continues to make personal attacks on me, violating ], and continues to slander me on talk pages claiming that I am "enviroknot"... Perhaps you could explain that this is not true, I have already, but he doesn't seem to want to know. --] 11:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::After a request from ] to look at the attacks by ] I left a note on his talk page that Chaosfeary was not Enviroknot. However, BrandonYusufToropov removed the note. I then put it back and added another note about removing valid comments from his talk page. He has since removed that remark as well. While I realise that Chaosfeary has not been innocent in all this I don't think that BrandonYusufToropov is acting in a correct manner either. However, being new at this I am not sure how to continue. Thanks. ] ] 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm quite sure if i need to wipe my arse again, i'll be able to ask Viriditas to come and help me. I still think again, that making articles in my talk page is rather silly, and i'm just not going to do it. I'd rather have a slightly "rough" article, than one that requires masses of information to be read, to be referenced, to not be POV, and other things, but i'll probably be accused of one or all of those soon. I've been told by viriditas that my Mistaken "z" is bordering on point of view - was that a joke?- i add references at the end of the paragraph that they've been used on, as opposed to all those who dont actually add them, and just add references to the bottom, or am i now wrong in doing that? | |||
| ==Circumcision advocacy== | |||
| Would you mind taking a look at the ] page, and the debate on Talk: page? From my perspective the entire page consists of ], but one editor there insists it is not, based on the definition of the word "advocate", and on the fact that it is "obvious" that various people are Circumcision advocates. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not understanding most of these criticisms ; I'm not against every editor on the wikipedia, i'm not using point of view - why would I? if i did it in my job -- i'd be sacked. If i'm told how i'm supposed to do my job next, or how to father my children or how to be a husband, then i will know you're just really trying to piss me off. However, i will clean the article up. | |||
| ] 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==disruption== | |||
| :Your opinion on ] is a classic ]. Please read both articles. Also, please refrain from making any more personal attacks per ]. And, again, please remember to discuss the topic and to avoid discussing editors or their motivations. Thank you. --] 10:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Viriditas -> I don't exactly know what it is you're tying to make me out to be, but certainly, trying to tell me what i am and what i am not will get you nowhere. I'm not interested in any form of rediculous scheme which, by it's very nature, has nothing to do with love, something which you must know is probably the most diverse topic in existance. After all, most policies of[REDACTED] are named as such on their wikipedia: pages, so why all of a sudden does WikiLove appear, and not Misplaced Pages:Civility_amongst_editors or Misplaced Pages:Co-operation_amongst_editors ? | |||
| I would think combative questions to non-candidates would qualify as disruption, such as your statements to Marsden. You don't appear to be attempting to ''resolve'' anything with Marsden that I can see, only attempting to suppress criticism of Jayjg. Am I missing something? ] 21:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Either way, i'm going to mention this once. Badmouthing me and accusing me of things i have not done is something i will not stand for, and no matter how much authority you think you have, i will only tolerate so much - I will be civil with regards to the[REDACTED] and the articles i write, but that does not force me to tolerate any accusations you throw my way. ] 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess I must be missing it, too. Unless, of course, I understand it all too well. ;) ] 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you bothered to read the ] article, you would see that it includes civility and cooperation. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "badmouthing" or "accusations". Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Either way, I don't think it's fair to use SlimVirgin's talk page for this discussion. Let's respect her personal space and move this conversation somewhere else. --] 10:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dbiv== | |||
| ==personal attacks== | |||
| Please provide a diff of an edit made by me and indicate what specific words you believe qualify as a "personal attack". Your threats without any sort of hard evidence makes it impossible to address any real dispute. It does make it convenient for you to tell an admin "I tried to warn him", even when there was no NPA violation to warn me of. Anyway, a diff and a quote would be useful if you wish to resolve this. ] 22:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. ] 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==People can judge for themselves== | |||
| You a side comment to Marsden announcing to the world his alleged wrongs, telling him that ''"People can judge for themselves whether you're approaching this situation with clean hands"''. Why can't anyone else post diffs pointing out your relationship with Jayjg and let people decide for themselves whether ''you'' are defending Jayjg and attacking Marsden with equally clean hands? ] 23:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Would you mind telling me what "for my own sake" refers to? Just curious, because he's been using similar language all morning. ] 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == questions for jayg == | |||
| Sorry - but the guy does pick up a lot of criticism. It's a real issue and one that needs to be addressed. Please ] and dont take a sarcastic tone - it's both unnecessary and unpleasant. Thanks. ] 23:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Done. ] 11:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: ""when did you stop beating your wife?" - no. Sorry but he does attract a lot of criticism - fact. Some of it may be justified some of it may not be. If he, as an arb com, acts on a dispute where he is open to allegations of POV pushing then this could call the whole system into disrepute. I'm just asking for a reasonable discussion of this. Or are you saying that he doesn't attract controversy? ] 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm terribly sorry but jayg was recently officially censured for edit warring over POV issues in the Yuber Arbitration case by the very arb com he is nominated for. Looks like controversy to me. It's not ] if it is a real issue. ie asking a proven wife beater is he has stopped beating is wife is valid enquiry not ]. ] 23:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Heya Slim== | |||
| == question to jayg== | |||
| Go to ]. I gave him another final warning this AM. He blew it off with "cest la vie" and now we have this diatribe. What do you think? I'm trying hard not to block him. But on the other hand, he doesn't quite seem to get it. If he thinks that anyone telling him that what he is doing is wrong is a personal attack, then I don't think he belongs here. Hell, he jumped right down Viriditas' throat when all he said was that the article needed cleaning up. And now after you gave him a final warning, he called me KITTEN THING (his caps not mine) in a post to Viriditas page. I warned him again. Tried to explain myself. And now he's referring to Viriditas as Virix8 and V.x1. I'm blocking him. I'll do 48 hours. If you want to go further than that, go ahead. If anything else, it'll let him cool off since he seems to have quite a temper and as I said, he doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it won't be controversial since you and I are admins and Viriditas is a respected Wikipedian. We aren't newbies looking to pick a fight. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| LMAO!!!! "you edit some of the most contentious articles on Misplaced Pages: those about the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and related areas. This means you’re used to dealing with conflict, because the nationalist, pro-Israeli editors feel their POV is under-represented, while the pro-Palestinian editors look at the same article but see the opposite, so neither "side" is ever happy and you’re stuck in the middle. " Please review the section on ]! This is hysterical. ] 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:09, 2 December 2005
| Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales |
snow-coat.jpg) Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost
Jewish votesHi, would you mind reconsidering your vote on these categories? I agree some are not useful, but I strongly feel that Jewish people have made an equally important contribution to Science, Philosophy and Classical music as African Americans have made to popular music (Category:African American musicians). Also, you voted delete twice Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people. Regards Arniep 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Point MadeYour point is well taken. I should have posted that to user talk pages. Robert McClenon 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Also, as to the Borges quote, I think that it is on the mark. You or Ed could have written it better. Robert McClenon 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Elie WeiselHi, I was wondering about why you reverted several of the changes I made here . One was the result of conversation on the talk page, and a few others seem like pretty uncontroversial grammar / spelling corrections (like the "L" in Nobel Laureate is generally capitalized). I'd appreciate any feedback that you have. Thanks. 68.127.109.54 00:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 20,000 edits!Nice work. You should be proud. This is in my view a major contribution to humanity. Kudos. jucifer 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Hi User In Question, this is for you tooI know you mean well, but I hope you can step back and listen for a second to what you are telling me here.
Would it be too much of me to ask you to spend the same amount of time and energy clearing my name as you have clearing this user's name? At a bare minimum, I'd appreciate a definitive check on whether Yuber and I could conceivably be the same person. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov are obviously not the same person, and the technical evidence confirms that. While there is no technical evidence linking Chaosfeary to Enviroknot or the open proxies, and while it is extremely unlikely that Chaosfeary is Enviroknot, it is quite obvious that FluffyPinkKittensofDoom is a revert sock related to those open proxies, most likely of Chaosfeary. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone experienced in the use of open proxies is using those proxies as strawmen sockpuppets to implicate Chaosfeary. Jayjg 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC) CheckUser requestThere is no technical evidence linking User:Peter McConaughey and User:84.92.40.169, nor anything I can find indicating that 84.92.40.169 could be used by Peter McConaughey. Jayjg 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Pub PicThenk you for protecting Image:Illpublish.png. Peter McConaughey has been filling it with POV all day. I would also like to put in a good word for Chaosfeary. Automatically numbered footnotes
Subsection=(Correcting a minor oversight in) the subsection Embedded HTML links : I inserted a paragraph repeating the same example link but now using a text fragment following a space in the single square brackets, so the reader clicks on the text fragment rather than on an automatically generated number. This addition merely corrects an oversight in the article. Let me point out that if there are any users who might wish to disallow this type of embedded HTML link, they would thereby be disallowing automatically numbered footnotes which this article otherwise permits. For7thGen 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Hi Frank, it wasn't an oversight. We like to distinguish clearly in articles between internal and external links. Typing chaos indicates that's internal, and typing tells the reader they're being taken to another website more clearly that typing The Guardian does. It can also be useful to have the links numbered. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2nd, and far less important than the main question(s) above, your revert description was "no link title should be added to embedded links in articles, only in further reading or references." Please tell me where I can find this statement? I would like the source for this or for a substantially-the-same statement which you feel is the most official or highest credibility source in Misplaced Pages-land. Merely so that I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for your kind help, especially on the 1st question(s). For7thGen 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Hi Slim, again. I'll just add a 3rd question for you. In Misplaced Pages:Cite sources/example style#Combined with numbered footnotes, this paragraph appears: Thanks Slim!Just a quick note to thank you for your support. I have been constantly impressed by your outstanding work in Misplaced Pages, here, there and everywhere. I promise not to be a crazy person, ok? Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) blocking User:ChaosfearyG'day Sare, just a quick note about your blocking with Chaosfeary. I had been indecisive what to do about that since User:Peter McConaughey brought his behaviour to my attention. Thanks for taking the appropriate action! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Please helpWould highly appriciate your comment on this: Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Reply_to_Doron. You may want to take a look at the discussion that led to that. Thanks. Zeq 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Reliable sourcesMaybe I misexpressed myself on the topic of quotes from experts. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Experts. Basically, there are technical issues on which you will not find good textbooks, nor peer-reviewed articles, yet warrant a mention. Generally, it is things that are "part of the folklore" on some highly specialized area: people allude to them, write on them, but nobody bothers printing a clear explanation in a textbook (since "everybody is supposed to know about it"), and since the idea is not new it does not get into peer-reviewed publications (remember: scientific publications must publish new ideas, in general). On the other hand, a number of reputed specialists will write on it in "white papers", technical reports, Usenet postings etc., which are not peer-reviewed publications. These things are published but are not peer reviewed. What do you think? David.Monniaux 11:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC) DisruptionTo be honest, you're right about the annoyances, and although he's trying to do something what he thinks is right, he as an innate ability to really fuck up what i'm trying to use on the article. I am phrasing some of the paragraphs differently because they are paraphrased from books that i am referencing, in order to ensure that it is easier for people to refer to these books, and know where i got the information to weight the article. Now, the other thing which is annoying is he seems to have an also subconscious train of thought that he thinks he is some form of administrator. He has things on his user page, which quite frankly, just beg for recognition "I love wikipedia" and other things. This also speaks volumes to me because when someone is supposed to dispute an article, they do it with sources. Certainly, after i have done 6+ hours of work on tha article, and i arrive to see chipped-away articles, NO reason why other than "This needs a cleanup", now i'm in a lad where i like to know WHY things are the way they are, hence - why i reference my articles. I know there are no regards as to status on the[REDACTED] - but this i see as a paradox - nobody has any higher status than anyone else, but yet there are templates Requiring Experts - Rather fishy to me relating to the idea of "nobody has weight in the wikipedia", well - for me it does - I don't really think there's a strict enough anything to prevent people from doing whatever they like - Viriditas simply doing what he/she/whatever does, with little reasoning whatsoever. It seems to me that at such a point, i always come to a brick wall, and i'm forced to give people hints as to go away and allow me to finish my edits before they start jumping on the articles. Still, i've no remorse for what i have done because i'm just so ultimately annoyed by the likes of Viriditas, the type who wish they were administrators, but through their frustration, end up pissing other people off with their attitudes. I apologise for any problems caused to the[REDACTED] by the both of us, and i think that although silly, it is unlikely i will be lending my "expertise"/"nobody-ness" to the[REDACTED] again for such matters. Spum 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
ConfusedYou're saying i'm overly capitalising things, etc. But wait a minute, i was correcting the title of the Governmental Schemes. "Government Schemes" implies that the schemes were done within the government, "Governmental" implies that they are guidelines, which they are - and they are not "Campaigns", either. You say i've done unfair capitalisation, etc - but i actually did trim the grammar down on the first few sections in the free time i had - but yet, for this i'm warned, look at the history and you will see that there are differences in grammar, where i have trimmed it down and yet i'm still getting bollocked for a small mistake i did with a Z. I'm sorry, but i actually wanted to sort things out, and still, Viriditas makes it out that i'm staging a big "campaign" against ALL editors, when in fact, i'm only staging against him because he edits without any reason other than a line less than 50 words long. What's the point of even having rules if anyone can jump in willy nilly, again, and change things without documenting WHY they did them - Fair enough, i'm alright with cleanup, but the headings were there because they were taken from pamphlets, and related books which all used the same headers. I'm prepared to work alongside Viriditas, and allow bygones to be bygones - IF he agrees to when changing articles, post more than a minescule amount which doesn't really tell me why something was changed. So, read that - Still, i'm not going to agree to wikilove, it's a pathetically silly concept. I'm not a chump, nor will i allow Viriditas to make it out that i am against a shitload of editors when i am only against parts of what he does. Spum 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration acceptedMisplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 3RRMy understanding of the policy was that if you take out X, and say the reason was Y, then I can put part of X back in if I do so in a way that doesn't conflict with Y, and this doesn't count toward 3RR. For example, you took out stuff from the Kiriyenko letter prank, and only mentioned the comparison to Klebnikov in your comments. I didn't put that back in, but I put in the other material you didn't give a reason for taking out. Am I misunderstanding the policy? 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 3RRHello SlimVirgin, If I add a comment to a page, and someone deltes it and I put it back and they delete it and I put it back and they delete it would I break 3RR if I put it back a third time or would they break it when they revert it. in other words: is the first placement of the edit counting? Yours jucifer 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your advice, I have never been in a real revert war before but this is talk page and it is my own comments that are being reverted. Unfortunately I have the need to note the behaviour of a user who has spammed c.40 friends asking them to vote in a heated AfD debate. The user in question has also made it hard to trace his behaviour by cleverly editing so it doesnt show up straight away on the "user contribs". I guess this may border on a personal attack, but I feel that if he behaves like this and conceals it a note must be left for the deleting admin. Again thanks for the advise. jucifer 03:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Ward ChurchillThanks for letting me know, I responded here, it's fairly experimental since a "traditional" article rfc looks fairly useless here. karmafist 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 3rrMy edits have now been reverted four times. Thrice by one person and once by another, so I am snookered, and cant replace them. What is the position? jucifer 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Eh?It's not the ideas of whatever it is, wikilove.. It's the name, i do not love any[REDACTED] editor, nor do i love the wikipedia. They're tools that help do a job as far as i'm concerned. No, it's not breaking policy because i don't much fancy working with Viriditas, even if i've said bygones are being bygones, because i think we just have a major personality clash. As for the information, some is from pamphlets, most is from my knowledge as a dietician, and the rest is academic material to ground the article in fact. Still, i think you're being rather strange constantly asking for perfection - and trying to condescend to me, i'm not a child, nor mentally deficient - i have a grasp of Grammar and the english language, i haven't used it in the professional sense for over 2 days, but i still get through because i draft and draft again, and i wont be made to feel i have to "observe" someone else in order to gain a grasp of language, because i have no need for it. With regards to the article, I still think a Campaign is an inappropriate term, but still, if i change it to scheme, Viriditas will whack it right back to "Campaign", so what's the point in actually discussing it on a Talk page, or anywhere else? I'm quite sure if i need to wipe my arse again, i'll be able to ask Viriditas to come and help me. I still think again, that making articles in my talk page is rather silly, and i'm just not going to do it. I'd rather have a slightly "rough" article, than one that requires masses of information to be read, to be referenced, to not be POV, and other things, but i'll probably be accused of one or all of those soon. I've been told by viriditas that my Mistaken "z" is bordering on point of view - was that a joke?- i add references at the end of the paragraph that they've been used on, as opposed to all those who dont actually add them, and just add references to the bottom, or am i now wrong in doing that? I'm not understanding most of these criticisms ; I'm not against every editor on the wikipedia, i'm not using point of view - why would I? if i did it in my job -- i'd be sacked. If i'm told how i'm supposed to do my job next, or how to father my children or how to be a husband, then i will know you're just really trying to piss me off. However, i will clean the article up. Spum 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
DbivIf I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Heya SlimGo to User:Spum. I gave him another final warning this AM. He blew it off with "cest la vie" and now we have this diatribe. What do you think? I'm trying hard not to block him. But on the other hand, he doesn't quite seem to get it. If he thinks that anyone telling him that what he is doing is wrong is a personal attack, then I don't think he belongs here. Hell, he jumped right down Viriditas' throat when all he said was that the article needed cleaning up. And now after you gave him a final warning, he called me KITTEN THING (his caps not mine) in a post to Viriditas page. I warned him again. Tried to explain myself. And now he's referring to Viriditas as Virix8 and V.x1. I'm blocking him. I'll do 48 hours. If you want to go further than that, go ahead. If anything else, it'll let him cool off since he seems to have quite a temper and as I said, he doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it won't be controversial since you and I are admins and Viriditas is a respected Wikipedian. We aren't newbies looking to pick a fight. --Woohookitty 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |