This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Actually, it is supported in the Ynet sources, and has even been unmistakenly proven by video evidence. Protesters did indeed attack the soldiers.-- RM ( Be my friend) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
May I respectfully enquire the thoughts behind your statement that the comment you referred to was a blockable offence? Personally, I am stunned that so much fuss is being made about it (though admittedly, the admins involved appear to mostly consider it a minor WQA issue) especially when stuff like this receives only a slap on the wrist. I would be interested to hear an opposing view reasoned by someone as sensible as yourself? (That may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I genuinely don't mean it to be so!) ╟─ Treasury Tag► assemblyman─╢ 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, In light of the changes you made to the naming of the passengers you may want to check out this part of the discussion Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#Activists_or_passengers.3F and help to determine what the most non-POV way of describing the passengers would be. In the past it has been suggested that not all the passengers were necessarily pro-Palestinian, protesters, or peace activists so blanket statements about who they were seemed non-NPOV Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly relevant. It takes only a few aspiring martyrs to turn a confrontation into a violent clash. I don't see where WP:UNDUE comes in here. Please elaborate on the article's talk page before I revert. — Rafi 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, I noticed you protected indefinitely the Circumcision article. It's been a while since you did that, and looking at the history, it's fairly clear that much of the issue here was edit-warring by editors using IPs (particularly AOL dialups) to avoid detection. Would you mind changing that to semi-protection instead? That would force all editors to take responsibility for their edits, and allow established editors to continue improving the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please reduce the protection. I think you pulled the trigger too fast. There was very productive editing going on at this time. Thanks SAE ( talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could you re-activate my account on the ACC tool? It was disabled due to inactivity, but I now have the time to be active again. Also is it possible for me to have my accountcreator rights re-instated? I previously had them but they were removed due to the same inactivity. Thanks, Lego Kontribs TalkM 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please restore the full protection to Circumcision. As soon as you reduced the protection to semi, Jakew reverted to from a WHO (unbiased) summary to the disputed text, and deleted the agreed upon (discussion consensus) chart and picture. Jakew's ~revert came after long discussion that ended with the majority of editors favoring leaving the protection and the existing version. Zinbarg ( talk) 16:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
…for that. It's rare to see anything sink so low it's too stupid even for a WP-space angels/pinhead exercise, but god knows that managed it. – iride scent 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This in reference to this post on ANI. Your comment was that this shouldn't go directly to Oversight. So now I'm curious as to how I should have handled it? Thanks, SQGibbon ( talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be disruptive and remove discussion from the RFC about CU/OS. Someone (HJ) put a joke one there but the ones that I put are very reasonable.
One trouble with many discussions in life is that many see things as only 2 alternatives, black and white, US Democrat versue US Republican. In many countries, like Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, there are more than 2 signficant parties. There is also more than one solution to problems. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the same problem affects confirmed editors too. What was "acting oddly" with the filter that was resolved by or somehow required this change? DMacks ( talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. Since last time we met you suggested that you could have acted if I informed you about a PA, I am just letting you know that user Nazar flings personal attacks at me: diff1 and diff2 and diff3. Also false accusations of personal attacks. I would appreciate if you just let this guy know that this is not appreciated here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Thank you for informing this user. However per your last comment on their talkpage advising them to inform you if they encounter any problems, I advise you that there will be no problems arising from my direction. I have created an RFC on the article talk page while at the same time informing the No original research noticeboard in a conscious effort to alert and involve the wider community to this problem. If these efforts fail I will not be engaging any further with this editor for reasons that I already enunciated clearly. Thank you for your efforts nonetheless. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, lapse in concentration. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, the page is protected because of perpetual issues with IP vandalism. As well, it is scheduled to become a part of the test of the "pending changes" system in a few days time. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Actually, it is supported in the Ynet sources, and has even been unmistakenly proven by video evidence. Protesters did indeed attack the soldiers.-- RM ( Be my friend) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
May I respectfully enquire the thoughts behind your statement that the comment you referred to was a blockable offence? Personally, I am stunned that so much fuss is being made about it (though admittedly, the admins involved appear to mostly consider it a minor WQA issue) especially when stuff like this receives only a slap on the wrist. I would be interested to hear an opposing view reasoned by someone as sensible as yourself? (That may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I genuinely don't mean it to be so!) ╟─ Treasury Tag► assemblyman─╢ 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, In light of the changes you made to the naming of the passengers you may want to check out this part of the discussion Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#Activists_or_passengers.3F and help to determine what the most non-POV way of describing the passengers would be. In the past it has been suggested that not all the passengers were necessarily pro-Palestinian, protesters, or peace activists so blanket statements about who they were seemed non-NPOV Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly relevant. It takes only a few aspiring martyrs to turn a confrontation into a violent clash. I don't see where WP:UNDUE comes in here. Please elaborate on the article's talk page before I revert. — Rafi 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, I noticed you protected indefinitely the Circumcision article. It's been a while since you did that, and looking at the history, it's fairly clear that much of the issue here was edit-warring by editors using IPs (particularly AOL dialups) to avoid detection. Would you mind changing that to semi-protection instead? That would force all editors to take responsibility for their edits, and allow established editors to continue improving the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please reduce the protection. I think you pulled the trigger too fast. There was very productive editing going on at this time. Thanks SAE ( talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could you re-activate my account on the ACC tool? It was disabled due to inactivity, but I now have the time to be active again. Also is it possible for me to have my accountcreator rights re-instated? I previously had them but they were removed due to the same inactivity. Thanks, Lego Kontribs TalkM 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please restore the full protection to Circumcision. As soon as you reduced the protection to semi, Jakew reverted to from a WHO (unbiased) summary to the disputed text, and deleted the agreed upon (discussion consensus) chart and picture. Jakew's ~revert came after long discussion that ended with the majority of editors favoring leaving the protection and the existing version. Zinbarg ( talk) 16:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
…for that. It's rare to see anything sink so low it's too stupid even for a WP-space angels/pinhead exercise, but god knows that managed it. – iride scent 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This in reference to this post on ANI. Your comment was that this shouldn't go directly to Oversight. So now I'm curious as to how I should have handled it? Thanks, SQGibbon ( talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be disruptive and remove discussion from the RFC about CU/OS. Someone (HJ) put a joke one there but the ones that I put are very reasonable.
One trouble with many discussions in life is that many see things as only 2 alternatives, black and white, US Democrat versue US Republican. In many countries, like Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, there are more than 2 signficant parties. There is also more than one solution to problems. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the same problem affects confirmed editors too. What was "acting oddly" with the filter that was resolved by or somehow required this change? DMacks ( talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. Since last time we met you suggested that you could have acted if I informed you about a PA, I am just letting you know that user Nazar flings personal attacks at me: diff1 and diff2 and diff3. Also false accusations of personal attacks. I would appreciate if you just let this guy know that this is not appreciated here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Thank you for informing this user. However per your last comment on their talkpage advising them to inform you if they encounter any problems, I advise you that there will be no problems arising from my direction. I have created an RFC on the article talk page while at the same time informing the No original research noticeboard in a conscious effort to alert and involve the wider community to this problem. If these efforts fail I will not be engaging any further with this editor for reasons that I already enunciated clearly. Thank you for your efforts nonetheless. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, lapse in concentration. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, the page is protected because of perpetual issues with IP vandalism. As well, it is scheduled to become a part of the test of the "pending changes" system in a few days time. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)