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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Take a break from the article or I will block you for edit-warring. I encourage you to continue to discuss your concerns on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going near the page of course, but having spotted the latest flare-up the other day, I couldn't help but notice that the translation at footnote 18 talks about "purging vermin". Is that a serious translation of what that (source unidentified) extract says? It may well not be of course, but I'm not sure - regardless of the merits of the dispute - that that specific footnote should be there at all if it is. -- Nickhh ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
ps: I'm not trying to sway the debate by writing this note here either, in case anyone wants to make an issue of it at AE or anything pointless, it's just that it made by jaw drop a little when I saw it, and, if accurate, I'm not sure it's the kind of thing we want footnoted on any WP page
Please note that per the edit warring policy it is not permitted to use WP:TW or other similar tools in a content dispute (especially with no useful edit summary) as you did with this edit. Repeated violation of this policy may lead of confiscation to those editing tools or a block. In your defence it is reassuring to see some attempt made to resolve disputes and the relevant noticeboard. Thank you, GDonato ( talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Excepetions
...
- Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
Please don't blame me for having POV while one should be not only blind for not seeing yours. What's more that the criticism on Sand was drwan by many good ones and it's realy not hard to find those (even in the article itself). The open section is full of praises which you oddly enough didn't find bias. As I wrote on the talk page-if you want' ask for new source or improve the language (while keeping it authentic copy of the meaning) -don't delete and don't imply that I had 5 edits while it was in a row. The 3rr trick would not work here sir.-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Chomsky page. I've found a number of sources (it's pretty easy with google "chomsky skinner misread") supporting the claim that he misread Skinner. Would it be original research to use the volume of such claims to support a statement that it is hardly a unique criticism?
Also, just FYI, my edit was not anti-Chomsky. I was worried that the sentence about misrepresenting Skinner gave the impression that Chomskyan linguistics hinged on something that turns out to be false. Allformweek ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
[1]-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:RolandR reported by User:Gilisa (Result: Protected). Though the result was protection, the case does not reflect well on either party. Even a small amount of negotiation could have avoided this, in my opinion. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[2]-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Roland, just letting you know I started a discussion on WP:RSN about the sources of the Mandela quote. I imagine you'll want to join the discussion. Thanks! Factsontheground ( talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. An admin reviewing the unblock request can sustain the block for a reason other than that given by the blocking admin, regardless of whether or not that reason was correct. And that reason included edit warring, both in the on-page template and the log. I found that supported by these edits: [3] and [4]. This edit I also find a bit gamey ... I can understand what the other editor meant, and FotG pretending she can't is needless complication (although at that point both of them should have just backed off. Long before that point, actually). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Roland - could you take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Baked barney and tell me if you think this is Runtshit? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me during my latest block. If there is anything I can do for you in the future just let me know. Factsontheground ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is significant knowledge that the German revolution was lead by a small minority of the country & wiki shouldn't hide that.Which weren't Jewish then? paul ,leo & clara must have been, I don't see any reasons to doubt communist websites(no communist source for clara though, but I remember it). I was sure karl was but i can't remember what I read about Him now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No autoaim ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it called spartacist uprising aswell, the main founder & leader of the party was, & almost a majority, atleast, of the other members were.
No autoaim (
talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. The recent conflict between you and another user gave me occasion to look at your user page. I would like to ask you to remove these two images from it:
This is because these can reasonably be understood as "anti-people" images, i.e., as representing a rejection of the respective group of people, Nazis and Israelis. That is probably not very controversial in the first case, but very, very divisive in the second case. I believe that this is incompatible with our guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", notably "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". This is especially important when that content, as in this case, is within the scope of WP:ARBPIA (see notably Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles: "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") I would appreciate your action on this. Regards, Sandstein 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Malik, please, refresh your knowledge before you shoot accusations. You are an admin, I would expect from you to more than that. Please my friend, google this sentence +Amalek (עמלק) and/or plus Haman (המן). While Esua is the father of all of Edom, this sentence specifically refer to Amalek only! Please don't get things out of context. So, if I hurt any Amaleky, I deeply apologize-- Gilisa ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is regrettable that you have declined to remove the images. As an arbitration enforcement measure, therefore, for the reasons given above, I have deleted the flag image from Commons, where it was also out of the project scope. Do not attempt to reintroduce it there or on this project, or you will be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to the process for appealing against this arbitrary decision? Do I do so at ARBPIA, or on Commons, or somewhere else? Thanks. RolandR ( talk) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, for a page containing multiple examples of images showing crossed-out national symbols that you might like to take action over, see this user page. A type of userbox that you may consider divisive and worth considering for action under the scope of WP:ARBPIA: ZScarpia 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure that I'm helping your case much, so I'll shut up now. ← ZScarpia 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the subject of the userbox, I think it would be worth bearing in mind this. ← ZScarpia 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi RolandR: What exactly would you like me to explain in relation to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Karl_Marx&diff=354070818&oldid=354006624 ? -- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
So, first of all, let me say that you have probably my favorite userpage ever. That being said, I must insist that to this day, Dr. Chomsky claims to be a left-Zionist. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate- really I don't think it fair to the good Doc- to place him in the Jewish anti-Zionists category. I think out of fairness to the now archaic notion of Zionism, that of a socialist home for Jews and all other inhabitants of Palestine, that he be allowed to be in the Zionist category. Indeed, he would be among the few articles within that category that was there correctly.
I understand you identify as anti-Zionist, and I respect that, but Chomsky, while as critical about the abuses perpetrated by Israel as you or anyone else with any honest grasp of the situation, he still ought to be recognized as the Zionist he wishes to be. Gold1618 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I think it's ridiculous that you've been given this crap. Oy vey!
I think I see your point; it might be odd to categorize him as a Zionist in 2010. But yeah, I also think we ought to take away his categorization as anti-zionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold1618 ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Stellarkid has reverted you on this page. annoynmous 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That was, of course, perfectly helpful. I'm not one who subscribes to the (rather peculiar, IMHO, though it exists) view that it is a travesty if someone corrects my obvious mistake. Though I was criticized some time ago -- not by the poor speller, but by another editor -- for fixing a couple of spelling mistakes by a poor speller in a discussion I was party to (my spell-check didn't only turn up my errors).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Do you happen to have the Hebrew edition of the Lehi memoir "Wanted" by Yaacov Eliav? (I'm not sure of the Hebrew title.) There's an ambiguity in the English edition that should be clearer in the original. Thanks. Zero talk 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your user subpage can be speedy deleted under {{ db-userreq}} (since its under your userspace), and I have tagged it as such. If you want the MfD you created to be deleted, feel free to add {{ db-author}} to it. Cheers, Cunard ( talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This nonsense seems to have been going on for a few days now, and it looks like the user in question has a dynamic IP address. I'd be up for requesting semi-protection on the affected articles. (Ironically, I've just argued against protection - I'm not a huge fan). Cheers, TFOWR This flag once was red 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
...before checking the
SUMMARY!!!!
Please, read
this essay when you get a moment.
Anyway, I removed the template from
that page, and the wlink to Marx in the
template, which was exactly what you had to do. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
After the user had an edit reverted by ClueBot, I just want to make sure it isn't more "Runt".
mechamind
9
0 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, it was a false positive, but I'm still concerned about "Runt".
mechamind
9
0 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Momma's Little Helper used an edit war message. That appeared to be incorrect, although such edits can lead to the assumption of ownership via rollback. mechamind 9 0 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Momma's Little Helper has left a reply to your three revert examples on my user talk page. I just want to make sure that unless users are actually talking to me, it will remain outside, so I suggest either posting the reply on your talk page or MLH's talk page. mechamind 9 0 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
hmm, MediaWiki was apparently confused, it claimed that it was still blocked, but you're right, that wasn't actually the case. I thought that only happens when the watchlists are also lagging, but apparently not. IP is blocked now.
Cheers,
Amalthea 12:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to list these at WP:OP if they're not hard-blocked for a long time. They're almost always open web proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Roland R.— I see that you're a translator that knows Hebrew. Do you do translations of Yiddish? I'm leerily circling a book project on American radicalism in the early 1920s and will be needing Yiddish-language translation help at some juncture. Drop me a line and say hello if you've got Yiddish in your arsenal. Best regards. Carrite ( talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if you had read this article? And comment #32? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This account was created and in a few minites made four edits all to revert you. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.
Ronk01 ( talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
They were talking on one another's talk pages.- Sinneed 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
He has asked that you also refrain from posting on his talk page, please avoid doing so.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just noticed that, a while ago, you deleted part of the data I had added about Respect's election results for the second time in a row. I have again reverted your deletion. I have now laid out my argument why I consider the info relevant on the subject's talk page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Respect_Party#2010_Election_results . If you still disagree, I'd suggest discussing the issue there, and not deleting the info for a third time, to avoid some kind of further edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No-itsme ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did forget to sign my comment! No-itsme ( talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very open minded and wise person interested in justice, peace, languages, cultures and minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We think there shouldn't be barriers between human people and knowledge but at the same time we also want to preserve our culture and language as the others which are a part of biodiversity. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot ( talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen it, I think you need to be aware of this. -- NSH001 ( talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK--but I hope you understand where I'm coming from: saying Chavez is influenced by Chomsky is, in the US, easily seen as guilt. But while it may be well-attested, it's not attested at all in the article--can you provide a reference? Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite ( talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done. I'd started an AfD at about the same time, and was surprised to see mine come up as a 2nd nomination and had to scurry around fixing it (it didn't look to me as though yours was on the daily log, did you do it manually?). Anyway, that was faster than a prod. I'd already removed some images. I must see about them being deleted as they were being used with what was clearly an inadequate fair use rationale. That was faster than a Prod! Dougweller ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. -- Ludwigs2 06:01, 12 July 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Take a break from the article or I will block you for edit-warring. I encourage you to continue to discuss your concerns on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going near the page of course, but having spotted the latest flare-up the other day, I couldn't help but notice that the translation at footnote 18 talks about "purging vermin". Is that a serious translation of what that (source unidentified) extract says? It may well not be of course, but I'm not sure - regardless of the merits of the dispute - that that specific footnote should be there at all if it is. -- Nickhh ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
ps: I'm not trying to sway the debate by writing this note here either, in case anyone wants to make an issue of it at AE or anything pointless, it's just that it made by jaw drop a little when I saw it, and, if accurate, I'm not sure it's the kind of thing we want footnoted on any WP page
Please note that per the edit warring policy it is not permitted to use WP:TW or other similar tools in a content dispute (especially with no useful edit summary) as you did with this edit. Repeated violation of this policy may lead of confiscation to those editing tools or a block. In your defence it is reassuring to see some attempt made to resolve disputes and the relevant noticeboard. Thank you, GDonato ( talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Excepetions
...
- Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
Please don't blame me for having POV while one should be not only blind for not seeing yours. What's more that the criticism on Sand was drwan by many good ones and it's realy not hard to find those (even in the article itself). The open section is full of praises which you oddly enough didn't find bias. As I wrote on the talk page-if you want' ask for new source or improve the language (while keeping it authentic copy of the meaning) -don't delete and don't imply that I had 5 edits while it was in a row. The 3rr trick would not work here sir.-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's me from the Chomsky page. I've found a number of sources (it's pretty easy with google "chomsky skinner misread") supporting the claim that he misread Skinner. Would it be original research to use the volume of such claims to support a statement that it is hardly a unique criticism?
Also, just FYI, my edit was not anti-Chomsky. I was worried that the sentence about misrepresenting Skinner gave the impression that Chomskyan linguistics hinged on something that turns out to be false. Allformweek ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
[1]-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:RolandR reported by User:Gilisa (Result: Protected). Though the result was protection, the case does not reflect well on either party. Even a small amount of negotiation could have avoided this, in my opinion. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
[2]-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Roland, just letting you know I started a discussion on WP:RSN about the sources of the Mandela quote. I imagine you'll want to join the discussion. Thanks! Factsontheground ( talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. An admin reviewing the unblock request can sustain the block for a reason other than that given by the blocking admin, regardless of whether or not that reason was correct. And that reason included edit warring, both in the on-page template and the log. I found that supported by these edits: [3] and [4]. This edit I also find a bit gamey ... I can understand what the other editor meant, and FotG pretending she can't is needless complication (although at that point both of them should have just backed off. Long before that point, actually). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Roland - could you take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Baked barney and tell me if you think this is Runtshit? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me during my latest block. If there is anything I can do for you in the future just let me know. Factsontheground ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is significant knowledge that the German revolution was lead by a small minority of the country & wiki shouldn't hide that.Which weren't Jewish then? paul ,leo & clara must have been, I don't see any reasons to doubt communist websites(no communist source for clara though, but I remember it). I was sure karl was but i can't remember what I read about Him now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No autoaim ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it called spartacist uprising aswell, the main founder & leader of the party was, & almost a majority, atleast, of the other members were.
No autoaim (
talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. The recent conflict between you and another user gave me occasion to look at your user page. I would like to ask you to remove these two images from it:
This is because these can reasonably be understood as "anti-people" images, i.e., as representing a rejection of the respective group of people, Nazis and Israelis. That is probably not very controversial in the first case, but very, very divisive in the second case. I believe that this is incompatible with our guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", notably "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". This is especially important when that content, as in this case, is within the scope of WP:ARBPIA (see notably Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles: "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") I would appreciate your action on this. Regards, Sandstein 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Malik, please, refresh your knowledge before you shoot accusations. You are an admin, I would expect from you to more than that. Please my friend, google this sentence +Amalek (עמלק) and/or plus Haman (המן). While Esua is the father of all of Edom, this sentence specifically refer to Amalek only! Please don't get things out of context. So, if I hurt any Amaleky, I deeply apologize-- Gilisa ( talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is regrettable that you have declined to remove the images. As an arbitration enforcement measure, therefore, for the reasons given above, I have deleted the flag image from Commons, where it was also out of the project scope. Do not attempt to reintroduce it there or on this project, or you will be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to the process for appealing against this arbitrary decision? Do I do so at ARBPIA, or on Commons, or somewhere else? Thanks. RolandR ( talk) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, for a page containing multiple examples of images showing crossed-out national symbols that you might like to take action over, see this user page. A type of userbox that you may consider divisive and worth considering for action under the scope of WP:ARBPIA: ZScarpia 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure that I'm helping your case much, so I'll shut up now. ← ZScarpia 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the subject of the userbox, I think it would be worth bearing in mind this. ← ZScarpia 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi RolandR: What exactly would you like me to explain in relation to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Karl_Marx&diff=354070818&oldid=354006624 ? -- Pedant17 ( talk) 01:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
So, first of all, let me say that you have probably my favorite userpage ever. That being said, I must insist that to this day, Dr. Chomsky claims to be a left-Zionist. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate- really I don't think it fair to the good Doc- to place him in the Jewish anti-Zionists category. I think out of fairness to the now archaic notion of Zionism, that of a socialist home for Jews and all other inhabitants of Palestine, that he be allowed to be in the Zionist category. Indeed, he would be among the few articles within that category that was there correctly.
I understand you identify as anti-Zionist, and I respect that, but Chomsky, while as critical about the abuses perpetrated by Israel as you or anyone else with any honest grasp of the situation, he still ought to be recognized as the Zionist he wishes to be. Gold1618 ( talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I think it's ridiculous that you've been given this crap. Oy vey!
I think I see your point; it might be odd to categorize him as a Zionist in 2010. But yeah, I also think we ought to take away his categorization as anti-zionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold1618 ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Stellarkid has reverted you on this page. annoynmous 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
That was, of course, perfectly helpful. I'm not one who subscribes to the (rather peculiar, IMHO, though it exists) view that it is a travesty if someone corrects my obvious mistake. Though I was criticized some time ago -- not by the poor speller, but by another editor -- for fixing a couple of spelling mistakes by a poor speller in a discussion I was party to (my spell-check didn't only turn up my errors).-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Do you happen to have the Hebrew edition of the Lehi memoir "Wanted" by Yaacov Eliav? (I'm not sure of the Hebrew title.) There's an ambiguity in the English edition that should be clearer in the original. Thanks. Zero talk 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Your user subpage can be speedy deleted under {{ db-userreq}} (since its under your userspace), and I have tagged it as such. If you want the MfD you created to be deleted, feel free to add {{ db-author}} to it. Cheers, Cunard ( talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This nonsense seems to have been going on for a few days now, and it looks like the user in question has a dynamic IP address. I'd be up for requesting semi-protection on the affected articles. (Ironically, I've just argued against protection - I'm not a huge fan). Cheers, TFOWR This flag once was red 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
...before checking the
SUMMARY!!!!
Please, read
this essay when you get a moment.
Anyway, I removed the template from
that page, and the wlink to Marx in the
template, which was exactly what you had to do. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
After the user had an edit reverted by ClueBot, I just want to make sure it isn't more "Runt".
mechamind
9
0 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, it was a false positive, but I'm still concerned about "Runt".
mechamind
9
0 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Momma's Little Helper used an edit war message. That appeared to be incorrect, although such edits can lead to the assumption of ownership via rollback. mechamind 9 0 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Momma's Little Helper has left a reply to your three revert examples on my user talk page. I just want to make sure that unless users are actually talking to me, it will remain outside, so I suggest either posting the reply on your talk page or MLH's talk page. mechamind 9 0 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
hmm, MediaWiki was apparently confused, it claimed that it was still blocked, but you're right, that wasn't actually the case. I thought that only happens when the watchlists are also lagging, but apparently not. IP is blocked now.
Cheers,
Amalthea 12:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to list these at WP:OP if they're not hard-blocked for a long time. They're almost always open web proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Roland R.— I see that you're a translator that knows Hebrew. Do you do translations of Yiddish? I'm leerily circling a book project on American radicalism in the early 1920s and will be needing Yiddish-language translation help at some juncture. Drop me a line and say hello if you've got Yiddish in your arsenal. Best regards. Carrite ( talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if you had read this article? And comment #32? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This account was created and in a few minites made four edits all to revert you. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.
Ronk01 ( talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
They were talking on one another's talk pages.- Sinneed 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
He has asked that you also refrain from posting on his talk page, please avoid doing so.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just noticed that, a while ago, you deleted part of the data I had added about Respect's election results for the second time in a row. I have again reverted your deletion. I have now laid out my argument why I consider the info relevant on the subject's talk page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Respect_Party#2010_Election_results . If you still disagree, I'd suggest discussing the issue there, and not deleting the info for a third time, to avoid some kind of further edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No-itsme ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I did forget to sign my comment! No-itsme ( talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very open minded and wise person interested in justice, peace, languages, cultures and minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We think there shouldn't be barriers between human people and knowledge but at the same time we also want to preserve our culture and language as the others which are a part of biodiversity. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot ( talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen it, I think you need to be aware of this. -- NSH001 ( talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK--but I hope you understand where I'm coming from: saying Chavez is influenced by Chomsky is, in the US, easily seen as guilt. But while it may be well-attested, it's not attested at all in the article--can you provide a reference? Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite ( talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done. I'd started an AfD at about the same time, and was surprised to see mine come up as a 2nd nomination and had to scurry around fixing it (it didn't look to me as though yours was on the daily log, did you do it manually?). Anyway, that was faster than a prod. I'd already removed some images. I must see about them being deleted as they were being used with what was clearly an inadequate fair use rationale. That was faster than a Prod! Dougweller ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. -- Ludwigs2 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)