Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 6 May 2012

Justin Martyr revert

Hi, no you're right, I see I didn't give a reason for revert in edit summary. Here it is: Because (i) Nishidani's source, Yadin, does use the word "Palestinian thinker", and (ii) because I respect Nishidani as an editor. And (iii), if I'm honest, because of your awful violent user name I suppose, yes yes counter WP:AGF and all that, but then that user name wasn't chosen to generate AGF was it? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I respect your desire to follow sources, but RS is only RS when it is used in context. The article already says he was born in Palestine in the second sentence of the body. There is no additional need to insert "Palestinian" into the lede. This is redundant and may be confused with an ethnic term.

I had misgivings about my username. I'll take the quote off my userpage.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Most people won't recognise it, I did. But you can ask an Admin to change it, to 19:17 or 19:37 perhaps. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ezekial 23:20 maybe? I went on the assumption that anyone who could recognize the verse, like you, would also know the deeper meaning. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Khalid Yassin

Just a small thanks for making sane and neutral improvements on an article I earlier have contributed to. --Caygill (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. He's a fascinating character. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your username

You should spend some time on this article Parable of the talents or minas. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This actually means what it says

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Yes, you do have the right to respond, but not on a closed archive. If you're serious about asking a question and not just trying to have the last word, go to a talk page, as directed above. Marrante (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You made a personal attack in your final comments. As per civility, I have a right to respond. Let the archive stand, it will just go away, and so will you. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, the Lord giveth, aye, and He taketh away.

A Haiku,

Seas are eternal

But words on Wiki are sand

So dont get butt hurt

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow...

Falsely claiming that I had left personal attacks on this page or that anyone had left personal attacks anywhere usually does not go down well. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Barts1a&diff=486716889&oldid=486707954 . Also: On your userspace you are entitled to remove messages without responding if you so desire. In fact; removal of a message without response is seen as having read it. There is no need to reinsert it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attack was calling me racist.

I reposted on your talk page because it was inappropriate of you to delete my comment and then post here. But I'll let you have your bottle. Now, will you tell me where you get off telling me verifiable info needs seven days of talk before it has your approval? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The commentary is NOT verifiable. The 7 days of discussion was to ensure that you had consensus to insert the POV commentary before you did so. Bear in mind that should you reinsert it at all -consensus or not- you will probably find yourself blocked for POV pushing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little too harsh... sorry! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a, calling it "POV pushing" is probably accurate, but calling it "racist" indicates you don't understand the sarcasm behind it. L19V27 is not being racist, he's making fun of people who think like that. The article isn't the place to do it, of course. But perhaps you can better understand his annoyance at being incorrectly called a racist. That's generally something you really want to be careful about calling someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Right... Edit warring to reinsert the "sarcastic" comment and treating it as fact is acceptable because it was only meant as "sarcasm"(!)... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. No, you've misunderstood a simple declarative English sentence once again. I've left a note for WTT, perhaps he can talk about this with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I posted on my mentor's talk page: "I just don't understand how making a "sarcastic" comment and reverting it's removal TWICE in a matter VERY similar to edit warring can still have the comment being interpreted as "sarcasm"!" Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch the video. He says, "Soldiers are coming, yay!" and then everyone cheers. It is important to make reference to this in the article because many critics of the video note that this makes it seem like the filmmakers are saying white guys with guns can solve brown people's problems. But luckily you pointed out to me that some people can't catch satire. Silly me, I'll readd the edit, minus the offending word, "white". Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, don't re-add the edit, since people have disagreed with it. Discuss on the talk page first, and gain consensus beforehand. Doing otherwise is edit warring, and will probably lead to a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That is sound advice. You are right that I've strayed close to edit-warring. But I think the word "white" was the only problem. Mentioning the video's championing of international military intervention is important. If someone wants to contest it, then I'll go to the talk. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd say re-adding it at this point, with or without "white", is unwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for labelling you as a ... "R word". I realize that was a little bit harsh and for that I apologize. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Barts1a's mentor. I just thought I'd pop in for a chat. Firstly, I'm not impressed with Barts1a's handling of this situation, and I will have having some words with him. There are however, some issues I'd like to discuss with you too. I'm sure you know wikipedia is meant to be neutral and verifiable - it's also meant to make changes by consensus. It's one thing adding a bold edit, but if that edit is reverted, you should be discussing it on the talk page. Maybe "7 days" discussion is excessive, but "no discussion" is worse. As far as I can see, you haven't edited the talk page once, certainly not in the last month. As for verifiable - if you want to put contentious information into an article, then it's not unreasonable to ask for a source for that information. A reliable source. You've strayed a long way into edit warring, and if you carry on, you will be blocked. Oh and, your username is provocative - if you carry on editing in this sort of manner, I am certain you won't be here long. Perhaps changing it would a good idea? Worm · (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank everybody for popping in. Second, I felt like each of my edits contained an edit summary that adequately explained my position. I've listened to what you guys are says, and stand on my earlier statement that my edit is verifiable (watch the video) and without the word "white", uncontroversial. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Furry female vs. female fursuit

Please see Talk:Furry fandom#Furry female vs. female fursuit. GreenReaper (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard

I'm trying to think about how an average reader would most likely identify L Ron Hubbard. Religious leader seems a bit of an overstatement, but I'm not sure exactly what "adventurer" means in this context. Do you mean simply "one who gets into adventurers"? Maybe in the end most people identify him as being an author. --Laser brain (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the sentence... was an American pulp fiction author and adventurer who founded the Church of Scientology.

I think replacing "adventurer" with "religious leader" would be redundant, since the sentence notes the Church of Scientology. Author is probably his number 1 claim to fame, but adventurer I think shows some of his personality. He spent a good deal of his life chasing adventure, and making up stories about what happened on said adventure.

Even during his Sea Org days, he was adventuring.

I think I'm starting to show a bias. You make a good point, but adventurer in the lead, I think, sums up parts of his life that defy description. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that "adventurer" is more apt in this case. But, it looks like you got reverted by another editor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not gonna fight it too hard, but it always seemed to me like Hubbard wished he was one of the heroes of his pulps. He dashed off to parts unknown, but his time and place was just a bit too late in history. What a tragic clown. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:L. Ron Hubbard are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this about mentioning balls? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol

I await stanza two. It's not really fair on Nishi; for every facetious quip, Nishi insists on responding with a painstakingly constructed essay, and I think you should go easy on him.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Luke: Please stop posting commentary at Nishidani's talk (it's pretty clear that he is tired of it). If you could mount an actual argument you would have his full attention, but you haven't said anything of substance. Also, just making points without responding to the substance of matters he has raised is not a satisfactory way to conduct a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen better doggerel on a dunny wall. Only sonnets are accepted here as forms of address, so I'll have to remove it, and this thread to the archives tomorrow unless you can improve the conceit beyond the nursery-rhyme level of composition.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You interpreted the above to mean that he was tired of his circus-like talkpage and my clown-like behavior on it? No, I think he was trying to antagonize me into saying something outrageous that he could take to a ban board, like calling him a racist. Wait, he called me and all Zionists (a group that I am not a member of) tribal racists. Maybe you've come to the wrong talkpage complaining about people's words. Also, in any Misplaced Pages dispute a person may rest on what they've already written to prove a point. Not all of Nishidani's dumb tits deserve a tat.

But seriously, thanks for stopping by and I hope you continue in this River of Love with me for all eternity. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have seen several people completely misunderstand Nishidani—that's a shame because he has a lot of useful information to contribute (although I think you'll find he is much more interested in knowledge than in squabbling about who is or is not a racist). You don't have to agree with his conclusions, but you should ask direct and on-topic questions when seeking dialog (and be prepared to consider replies). You are certainly confusing Nishidani with someone else if you think he might be provoking you for some ulterior motive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rex Harrison

Since I'm growing tired of seeing this same article and your same edit popping up on my watchlist, I have opened a discussion on this matter on Talk:Rex Harrison in which you're strongly encouraged to participate. This is what you should have done after you were reverted various times by myself and others. Remember, it's bold, revert, and discuss, not continuously add this content until you get your way and communicate through edit summaries only. Pinkadelica 21:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I already started a talkpage discussion and mentioned it in an edit summary. It is the one right before the new section you started. In the future, you can avoid these false accusations by assuming good faith. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean question about multipile accounts

As there is a many banned users in WP:ARBPIA area this question seem legitimate and I don't think that it meant to offend you.Just answer the truth and get over with it.--Shrike (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it's part of Sean's battleground behavior. I just asked him to stop spreading slander on AE boards. He'd been warned by an admin to stop his "thrashing" and I thought he should have honored his word to do so, but I guess we see what his honor and word are worth. Thanks for the advise, though. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is my Achilles heel, so I am hardly fit to lecture others, but be aware that personal attacks/vandalism on Sean Hoyland's page will not be tolerated and can result in a block.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was implying that he has his head up his ass. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Zachary Adam Chesser appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Purple Cloud Temple. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Aaron Booth (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chesser edit, I thought, was more neutral my way. But if you insist, fine.

The Purple Cloud Temple, on the other hand, was clearly more neutral my way. Did you read the edit summary? I put something on the talk page just for you. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasbara on my talk page

Ha ha ha! Perhaps you think the regurgitation of Israeli hasbara onto someone's talk page productive, but I can assure you I know all the standard Israeli lines. Please don't litter my page with them, I read them all the time in the newspapers, hear them from their spokespeople. And the articles on my user page are VERY informative!! I can see how much you like them, and I also like them very much indeed. Shalom, friend! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way... Israel shuts liberal radio station in attempt to silence criticism of right
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Israel shut down a pirate radio station. Big deal. They were broadcasting without a license. This is what countries with the rule-of-law do. Just because the station is political doesn't mean it should get to avoid regulations. But you read what you wanted to read out of it. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you removed my comments (which were constructive) from your talk because they were "hasbara," yet you come to my talk spewing your Dawa? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, in the future you should try to talk less like a poorly-written Anime villian. Ha ha ha! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland

Stop stalking me. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)