This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Roland. I am forbidden to comment or edit on the page Israel Shahak, but Joshua did ask for a clarification, and I think your memory of what Segev wrote is incorrect. He, as distinct from IS and IJ, identifies the person asking for use of the phone as Jewish. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ db-a7}} you placed on Ratan Lal Basu because notability is asserted by the sentence, "Dr. Basu joined the Bhairab Ganguly College, Kolkata as a Lecturer in Economics and later on became a Reader and retired as the Teacher-in-Charge (acting Principal)". If you would like to pursue deletion, feel free to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Best, Cunard ( talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly of interest: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations -- Noleander ( talk) 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I’ve started a discussion of the comment:The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR . at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friend. Thank you for staying on top of the Trotsky page. I did make further changes to the matter of opposition to fascism, but please read my entry on the talk page before you react. I hope that you will agree that my changes support the fact that Trotsky was indeed so opposed. I only wanted to correct the erroneous assertion that it was the 1939 German-Soviet non-aggression pact to which he was opposed (a impossibility due to the dates), rather than his actual opposition the the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918). Best regards.
Deceglie ( talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I missed one of the vandal edits on Karl Marx thanks for the assist. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please engage in discussion, at Talk:Moonie (Unification Church).Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you look at this: [1]? I saw a comment from a new user complaining that the article on Commodity Fetishism is hard to understand. I don't think the concept is that complicated, and believe it is possibl to explain it in a relatively jargon-free way. When I read the article, it seemed to me that it was in fact a litle too jargony and overwrought. My sole intention in editing it was to reduce the jargon and make it as clear as possible.
Maybe I didn't do the best job of that, but I ant to be very clear that (1) the only problem I saw was obscure prose and (2) my only intention in editing was to make it more accessible to a general audience.
Another editor reverted me and accused me of violating NOR. Although the version he reverted to did not have any citations, he demanded I put citations in.
I put citations in, but as far as I am concerned this does not resolve the dispute. I assume the other person was acting in good faith, but despite my requests he never provided a clear example or explanation of what he considered "original research."
I take NPOV and NOR seriously and it was never my intention to distort Marx's understanding of commodity fetishism or to push my own interpretation. It concerns me that anyone would think this.
Moreover, since this is what another editor thinks, then I am also concerned that I failed in my objective, to edit the earlier version for clarity.
I do not like being reverted, wholesale (with the implication that I edited in bad faith). But I don't mind another editor saying what I wrote is imperfect and can be improved upon. I certainly don't mind if someone can edit what I wrote and make it better ... after all, this is just what I thought I was doing earlier today!!
I'd appreciate your looking at this. Whether you comment on the talk page or not, well, obviously up to you. But I am hoping you can give some thought to the article. If you think I was right that the previous version was not accessible to a wide audience, i.e. that my attempt to revise it had merit, perhaps you can further edit this section of the article, perhaps you can find a way to make it a clearer and more accessible account of Marx's understanding of the concept. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be my pleasure. Thank you very much for the offer. Perhaps I might visit you where you live before you get back to this region. Until then, we have our virtual world. I love tea, especially with lots of sugar. So sweet of you to think of it. Tiamut talk 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! What do you mean by claiming that RESIST and RESPECT are/were "absolutely unrelated"? Just because you approve the political line of one while you disapprove of the other's doesn't mean that they were not created in a similar and particular period and with similar motives, thus deserving interlinking between respective articles. Simply show their names and composition to a third person and take his opinion. Ciao! Behemoth ( talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I only left it in because it looked like it was from the pre-religiosity debate version. Simonm223 ( talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Jaakobou: Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
RolandR ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why have I been blocked? I reverted only three times, each time undoing an edit by a new user, acting against consensus, who had reverted two other users in addition to me over the same edit. This editor made the same contentious edit, without discussion, five times today, and was reverted by three editors. I had just warned him for edit-warring, reverted his fourth reversion (against another editor) when I was blocked. My other edit to this page, at [2], was totally unrelated, a reversion of clear vandalism. I don't believe that I was edit-warring, or that I contravened policy here, and I counted before my latest edit in order to ensure that I didn't breach 3RR.
Decline reason:
I suggest that you re-read WP:EW ... you do not need to breach 3RR to be edit-warring. A contentious edit is not necessarily vandalism - and you may always report a user for 3RR yourself, rather than break the line ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RolandR ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive -- which is what this feels like. I got carried away dealing with clearly disruptive editing from an edit-warring single-purpose account, who had made the same edit five time in a day, reverting three other editors and failing to offer any reasons, while attacking other editors in edit summaries. I had already warned the editor about potential breach of 3RR before their final edit. My "offence" was to then revert for a third time before reporting the editor for edit-warring. I believe that, in this case, I should have been reminded that I was myself in danger of breaching this policy, and asked to self-revert, which I would have done. Nobody is denying that my edit was valid, only that someone else, not me, should have done it. In the circumstances, a block serves no purpose, and is unwarranted.
Decline reason:
A 24-hour block is so short it is little more than a token. An unblock at this time might carry the implication that the original block was given in error, which is certainly not the case. Experienced editors such as yourself don't need to be warned against violating WP:3RR. Your use of the term 'vandalism' on this page doesn't seem to meet the very narrow definition used in the WP:3RR policy, which defines vandalism as something obvious to everyone, such as page blanking or cruel or offensive language. Still, if you would promise to leave this article alone for a week I imagine the block would be lifted. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm just going to advise that because the above does not seem to accept responsibility for your actions by how it reads. Care to rephrase? If you already clearly understood WP:EW (which is often assumed if you're reporting someone for 3RR), then warning is typically not needed. On top of that, 24hrs is obviously not punishment, it's a day! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi RolandR. I've responded to your note at Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. Just thought I'd tell you since I'm not sure you have it watchlisted. (I noticed a lot of pages that were made spin-offs of the main page did not show up in my watchlist until I retaged them).
I noticed your block above. Sorry about that. Who reported you by the way? And were they blocked as well? Take care of yourself friend. Tiamut talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Roland. I am forbidden to comment or edit on the page Israel Shahak, but Joshua did ask for a clarification, and I think your memory of what Segev wrote is incorrect. He, as distinct from IS and IJ, identifies the person asking for use of the phone as Jewish. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ db-a7}} you placed on Ratan Lal Basu because notability is asserted by the sentence, "Dr. Basu joined the Bhairab Ganguly College, Kolkata as a Lecturer in Economics and later on became a Reader and retired as the Teacher-in-Charge (acting Principal)". If you would like to pursue deletion, feel free to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Best, Cunard ( talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly of interest: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations -- Noleander ( talk) 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I’ve started a discussion of the comment:The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR . at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friend. Thank you for staying on top of the Trotsky page. I did make further changes to the matter of opposition to fascism, but please read my entry on the talk page before you react. I hope that you will agree that my changes support the fact that Trotsky was indeed so opposed. I only wanted to correct the erroneous assertion that it was the 1939 German-Soviet non-aggression pact to which he was opposed (a impossibility due to the dates), rather than his actual opposition the the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918). Best regards.
Deceglie ( talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I missed one of the vandal edits on Karl Marx thanks for the assist. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please engage in discussion, at Talk:Moonie (Unification Church).Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you look at this: [1]? I saw a comment from a new user complaining that the article on Commodity Fetishism is hard to understand. I don't think the concept is that complicated, and believe it is possibl to explain it in a relatively jargon-free way. When I read the article, it seemed to me that it was in fact a litle too jargony and overwrought. My sole intention in editing it was to reduce the jargon and make it as clear as possible.
Maybe I didn't do the best job of that, but I ant to be very clear that (1) the only problem I saw was obscure prose and (2) my only intention in editing was to make it more accessible to a general audience.
Another editor reverted me and accused me of violating NOR. Although the version he reverted to did not have any citations, he demanded I put citations in.
I put citations in, but as far as I am concerned this does not resolve the dispute. I assume the other person was acting in good faith, but despite my requests he never provided a clear example or explanation of what he considered "original research."
I take NPOV and NOR seriously and it was never my intention to distort Marx's understanding of commodity fetishism or to push my own interpretation. It concerns me that anyone would think this.
Moreover, since this is what another editor thinks, then I am also concerned that I failed in my objective, to edit the earlier version for clarity.
I do not like being reverted, wholesale (with the implication that I edited in bad faith). But I don't mind another editor saying what I wrote is imperfect and can be improved upon. I certainly don't mind if someone can edit what I wrote and make it better ... after all, this is just what I thought I was doing earlier today!!
I'd appreciate your looking at this. Whether you comment on the talk page or not, well, obviously up to you. But I am hoping you can give some thought to the article. If you think I was right that the previous version was not accessible to a wide audience, i.e. that my attempt to revise it had merit, perhaps you can further edit this section of the article, perhaps you can find a way to make it a clearer and more accessible account of Marx's understanding of the concept. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be my pleasure. Thank you very much for the offer. Perhaps I might visit you where you live before you get back to this region. Until then, we have our virtual world. I love tea, especially with lots of sugar. So sweet of you to think of it. Tiamut talk 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! What do you mean by claiming that RESIST and RESPECT are/were "absolutely unrelated"? Just because you approve the political line of one while you disapprove of the other's doesn't mean that they were not created in a similar and particular period and with similar motives, thus deserving interlinking between respective articles. Simply show their names and composition to a third person and take his opinion. Ciao! Behemoth ( talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I only left it in because it looked like it was from the pre-religiosity debate version. Simonm223 ( talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Jaakobou: Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
RolandR ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why have I been blocked? I reverted only three times, each time undoing an edit by a new user, acting against consensus, who had reverted two other users in addition to me over the same edit. This editor made the same contentious edit, without discussion, five times today, and was reverted by three editors. I had just warned him for edit-warring, reverted his fourth reversion (against another editor) when I was blocked. My other edit to this page, at [2], was totally unrelated, a reversion of clear vandalism. I don't believe that I was edit-warring, or that I contravened policy here, and I counted before my latest edit in order to ensure that I didn't breach 3RR.
Decline reason:
I suggest that you re-read WP:EW ... you do not need to breach 3RR to be edit-warring. A contentious edit is not necessarily vandalism - and you may always report a user for 3RR yourself, rather than break the line ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
RolandR ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive -- which is what this feels like. I got carried away dealing with clearly disruptive editing from an edit-warring single-purpose account, who had made the same edit five time in a day, reverting three other editors and failing to offer any reasons, while attacking other editors in edit summaries. I had already warned the editor about potential breach of 3RR before their final edit. My "offence" was to then revert for a third time before reporting the editor for edit-warring. I believe that, in this case, I should have been reminded that I was myself in danger of breaching this policy, and asked to self-revert, which I would have done. Nobody is denying that my edit was valid, only that someone else, not me, should have done it. In the circumstances, a block serves no purpose, and is unwarranted.
Decline reason:
A 24-hour block is so short it is little more than a token. An unblock at this time might carry the implication that the original block was given in error, which is certainly not the case. Experienced editors such as yourself don't need to be warned against violating WP:3RR. Your use of the term 'vandalism' on this page doesn't seem to meet the very narrow definition used in the WP:3RR policy, which defines vandalism as something obvious to everyone, such as page blanking or cruel or offensive language. Still, if you would promise to leave this article alone for a week I imagine the block would be lifted. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm just going to advise that because the above does not seem to accept responsibility for your actions by how it reads. Care to rephrase? If you already clearly understood WP:EW (which is often assumed if you're reporting someone for 3RR), then warning is typically not needed. On top of that, 24hrs is obviously not punishment, it's a day! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi RolandR. I've responded to your note at Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. Just thought I'd tell you since I'm not sure you have it watchlisted. (I noticed a lot of pages that were made spin-offs of the main page did not show up in my watchlist until I retaged them).
I noticed your block above. Sorry about that. Who reported you by the way? And were they blocked as well? Take care of yourself friend. Tiamut talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)