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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Since it's basically the same thing, why not change the category's name from one to the other? Or put it all under Islamophobia. G'day -- 78.53.37.169 ( talk) 19:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to explain: the very idea of homosexuality was unheard of in Shakespeare's day - one could commit what we would today call a homosexual act (Elizabethans would have said it was "unnatural"), but a sexual orientation was conceptually impossible. Sex with boys (not men) was simply something one might chose to do. Socially and religiously condemned, of course. Also, the usual explanation for the Sonnets is that Shakespeare was exploring a popular Renaissance trope, that of the unresponsive beloved - in intellectual circles the idea of a male (boy or youth) as beloeved added an extra frisson. You need sources!
(Btw - "Islam" is a religion, "muslim" is one who professes that religion - to be anti-Islam would be to oppose the religion - a rather intellectual endeavour I think - and to be anti-Muslim would be to oppose the people. We see a bit of both in Europe and America these days, but perhaps Americans are more inclined to be anti-Islam and Europeans to be anti-Muslim). PiCo ( talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
you refuted the pov-pushers in an admirable way. it was a delight to see you in action. mustihussain 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
i think an administrative action is required. [3], [4], [5]... and he reported me, lol! [6] -- mustihussain 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
[7] here Pass a Method talk 18:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not supporting the idea of keeping these critical editions sections as separate, I think that there is some merit in having these publications appear in the references section under "other sources" or some such name.
As they appeared, the material in each one was overly long and duplicated most of the initial lead of each article. However, reduced down, they could be a valuable addition. Any thoughts? Viva-Verdi ( talk) 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I agree with your moving to another section the mention of the feticide recommendation of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It was because of a misunderstanding that I placed it there. Esoglou ( talk) 08:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you relisted this AfD one minute after it was closed. I could be wrong, but my guess was that there may have been an edit conflict-type situation in which you had been about to relist the AfD but User:Dcoetzee closed it first. It doesn't matter to me whether the AfD is closed or relisted, but if you want it to be relisted, I would recommend checking with User:Dcoetzee first and then fully reopening the AfD. Either result, a keep or a relist, is fine with me. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments!
As per the subcategorization question, I don't think that's something I have power over. At first glance it seems to me that subcategorization is an automated response programmed into the wiki according to how the articles network together through their various categorizations. Do you know how it works?
As per the question of including
rape, of course it is a part of the list! I created this category about 30 minutes to an hour ago and have been slowly adding to it! I'll add that incredibly important one in particular right now before I get swamped with more articles and forget! Please add to the list if you will! My idea behind creating it was to create a uniting thread between the Gender Studies, Transgender, LGBT, Women, etc. portals
Eekiv (
talk) 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point which, quite the contrary to arguing that the CDF statement is in line with clinical literature, was to note that neither mainstream psychiatry nor the Church's own theology backs up the Vatican's contention that transwomen (for example) are simply deluded men who have undergone a superficial change that leaves their fundamental maleness intact. This is not my original research, and there are any number of APA and professional pronouncements, as well as catechetical documents, that could be harnessed to make the same points, and which would be a more constructive option than wholesale bulldozing for someone professing to be concerned with tightening up references. If you would prefer to source this some other way then I welcome your guidance, but I'm afraid the status quo just isn't acceptable: as a queer Jewish feminist with a high regard for NPOV I am sure you would not want an article that tacitly presents one conservative Catholic POV as inevitable and incontestable as your edit does. Carolynparrishfan ( talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you please pop over to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs again where a troublesome anon user, subject of a current sockpuppet complaint about an IP in Carrollton, Georgia, has reverted your speedy keep decision and is now threatening to report you. [8] BlackCab ( talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese,
I have given my input to Talk:False accusation of rape. It seems that someone re-edited the article to include FBI criticism. Also, do you agree that the article needs a total makeup due to its bias towards the male gender? The article basically implies that women lie about rape all the time, and I find that very hard to believe. And, also, false accusations of rape may be more mediated than true ones, and thus we might need to include that in the article.
Thank you ^_^,
-- MusicsColors ( talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Melissa Dunphy, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Dissonance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese, I have replied to your comment at the DYK nomination for Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia and will appreciate your further thoughts on it. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 08:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As requested, I explained my reasoning for my edit. It's at Talk:Corona del Mar High School. I would very much like to have an outside set of eyes take a hard look at my edits and to be brutally honest about any bias I am showing without realizing it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[9] NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I create article tittled as "History of Pudukkottai" for this i curved out information from Pudukkottai main article itself. I am not the contributor for this in main article Pudukkottai. I watched for many months but there is no climbs of copyvio in main article so i step in to create History of Pudukkottai. I am new to wikipedia editing so, from now there will be no copyvio from my side. Thank you... Incrazy ( talk) 09:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I can review the critics, but I don't have any access. If you can copy/paste a few onto my talk page I would sort through them :) unitas ( talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Adele Goodman Clark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman ( talk) 11:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I just closed the AE Report you filed. WP:AC/DS does require a warning of the specific case before sanctions can be made. Further details are in my closing comments. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Catholic Church and abortion, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. In this edit you changed User:Esoglou's comment. Even if you thought the comment was phrased non-neutrally, that doesn't give you a free pass to edit his/her comment. Instead you should have posted your own comment below, saying that you believed the above phrasing to be non-neutral and you would prefer it be phrased in a more neutral way, such as: "[insert your phrasing here]". (I'm not passing judgement on your phrasing or his phrasing and I am completely uninvolved in the issue.) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Your edit at 06:57 was a revert of [10]
Your edit at 06:59 was a revert of [11]
NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my comment on the talk page should not be interpreted as a claim that we shouldn't mention Catholic disagreement with the church hierarchy. I, personally, have not been involved in the article until now and have no opinion about what should and shouldn't be included (e.g. whether it should be just about the hierarchy or about the church as a whole). Based on my initial reading of the talk page comments, I thought that the main argument against including Baudouin rested on the premise that the article was about the church hierarchy rather than Catholics themselves. My point was that such a premise would, of course, count against discussing Catholic opposition to the hierarchy's teachings. I now see that at least your main argument against including Baudouin rests more on the premise that reliable sources don't treat the Baudouin incident as relevant to the church at large. About this claim I have no opinion.
I suppose it isn't very important now, since my comment seems to have been largely buried under others at this point. But I thought I should clear things up. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
On 3 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adele Goodman Clark, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that artist and suffragist Adele Goodman Clark and her partner Nora Houston set up their easels on a downtown streetcorner in Richmond, Virginia, and canvassed passers-by about women's suffrage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Goodman Clark.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a chapter titled "Peace between Muslim and non-Muslim countries" You have deleted the entire chapter claiming that it contains copyrighted material. I have two questions: 1. Which part of my chapter is copyrighted? 2. Why did you delete the entire chapter, rather than its copyrighted part? Quinacrine ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You PRODded
Tea With Terrorists. The
PROD tag was removed by the article creator. I have
taken it to AfD; your comments there would be welcome.
Thanks;
bobrayner (
talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Roscelese
Are the recent articles I created bad topics, or just too stubby for main space? I usually start an article and hope for WP:TEAMWORK to flesh it out. I've hardly ever written an article all by myself, but in my ten years here I've begun over 1,000 articles which other people also worked on. Here are the most recent ones I've created, for your perusal:
Some are small, a few are medium. Several address controversial issues, in what I hope is a completely unbiased fashion. If any of these need work, please let me know ... or even pitch in and do some fixin' yourself! :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Per [12]. We should see if we can get a release. I shall email him. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. Thank you for reverting me here. On second thoughts, I think you're quite right, a hatnote at Sexual orientation is a better approach. Sexual Preference (book) probably belongs within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies; I would add it myself, except that I'm not a member of the project. I wondered if you might want to add it? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I'm confused with your change to my entry. I believe Ben Gidley is talking about member of the English Defense League that he calls "the suited wing." I make no judgment as to the so-called two wings in the Gidley article but I thought this view should be brought to the attention to those doing research on the organization. The hooligan wing was already discussed. I'd like to know your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't help noticing that you've proposed/nominated a number of Ed's latest excrements for deletion recently. You may be interested in this admission by him on my user talk: "Yeah, it's true, I barely know what I'm doing. I just know how to pick a good topic, but I can't write for beans." I think such an admission should disqualify him from creating new articles on Wikipedia (and possibly from editing altogether). Otherwise he simply turns the rest of Wikipedia into his own personal pooper-scoopers. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn, those cases are from 4 or 5 years ago. I've straightened out since then, but some people persist in confusing "adding balance" with "pov pushing". The question is always: when is coverage of a standpoint disproportionate? (And please don't misinterpret my remark about "knowing what I'm doing". All I meant is that I don't know how to write a complete article, all by myself. Let's have a little WP:TEAMWORK, here.)
And I wish you would stop branding me as a POV pusher. I'm adamantly opposed to that practice, which is why I wrote User:Ed Poor/POV pushing.
I think you'll agree that Wikipedia's aim is not to produce articles which produce an "objective" point of view on a topic when it is a controversial one. Rather the aim is to summarize the arguments and evidence for all sides in a controversy, which is why the arbcom has forbidden deletion of information purely on the grounds that "advances a point of view". [13]
If an article at point A in time concentrates mainly on reasons why people on one side approve or condemn something, that article may be unbalanced. But as long as the contributor has not cited that side as being correct, but as "having an opinion" then the article probably is not biased at that point, i.e., not violating NPOV. Further, if someone were to come along at point B in time and give reasons why people on another side have opposing views which contradict the first side, this would (1) provide balance and (2) still remain neutral, because the article would not say that either side is "right" but merely that X says Y about Z in each case.
I recall that one of the stubs I recently created began so one-sidedly that another contributor commented on the lack of balance; he did not, of course, suggest that in was "biased" (i.e., violating NPOV) because I was careful not to imply that the side I was writing about was "correct" or even "in the majority". I was writing for the enemy, in accordance with an essay I wrote 6 years ago. Please don't afd it!
If you can show me where I have created an article in recent years, which violated NPOV policy by failing to adhere to any of the following norms, I hope you will point it out to me specifically (preferably on my user talk page), so I can repair that failing as soon as possible; if I can't do it by myself I will ask you for help, of course:
The last one would probably be my weakest point, as I typically begin an article merely by summarizing points of view; it is only later in the lifetime of an article that I usually begin to pay attention to the levels of support for those views.
Also, it's never been clear to me whether it is sufficient to say, e.g., "while almost all historians agree that the Holocaust took place, there are some (chiefly in the non-Western world) who call it a hoax" and then go on, at length, to describe one of the most distasteful topics to me personally: the reasons Holocaust deniers give for their position.
Is it the number of words in an article about any given viewpoint which indicate the relative levels of support, or can we use polls or something else to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views? Only a tiny fraction of a percent retain belief in a Flat Earth, but that article is more than half the size of the Earth article; no one has ever said the former gives the issue undue weight, because the article contributors have made sure to point out "ball earth" supporters outnumber "flat earth" supporters by over a million to one.
I never said I could write a complete, fully balanced article all by myself. But that is not the standard. It is only that each version of an article should comply with NPOV and other major rules. If something is stubby, it should not be deleted but either (1) fleshed out by other volunteers or perhaps (2) userfied temporarily if presence in main article space of a poorly referenced and otherwise incomplete article offends general sensibilities.
But please be careful about stubs which describe controversial topics. The remedy for being too short or for being imbalanced is usually not to delete it, but either to give good advice on how to fix it (on the article talk page), or to jump in and work on it.
To Roscelese: sorry to rant on your user talk page, but I felt the comments above mine required an immediate response. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifying questions about the LGBT sportspeople category. Are you still in favor of keeping all the subcats? I've been working with the list for the past several weeks, and I'm pretty sure I have the vast majority on there. Is 169 people still "what could otherwise be an overly large category"? Also, that doesn't address the issue I posted - does diffusing by location actually make sense? Are LGBT sportspeople from the UK inherently different from LGBT sportspeople from Australia? Thanks for your input! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese, if law professor Dorothy E. Roberts says that the man-in-the-house rule existed, is that a good enough source for you?
If so, I hope you will withdraw your deletion request. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I hope things are going well with you. I haven't seen you around lately, but I think that's just because I haven't been as active at Afd lately as I was. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement about possible improvements to the article. I wanted to draw some more editors in, so I looked through the talk page and have mentioned this to the 5 or 6 editors that I saw there. If you are interested, please weigh in. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:The Count of Luxembourg for some new discussion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you see this article- Discordia (film)? Do you thing it is also an AfD candidate? 71.204.165.25 ( talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that things have got a bit heated. I can see that you are an excellent editor and I know that you are acting in good faith. You may want to look at this edit again [14]. I think some people might see it as a breach of WP:3RR. Best wishes Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Onward Muslim Soldiers shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've opened up an edit warring report here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that. I was adding the delsorts and didn't see I pre-empted your comment. Nate • ( chatter) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, if you prod an article like here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abortion_exceptionalism&diff=473293569&oldid=468529014) please create a place for discussion. Richiez ( talk) 11:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Carina Vance Mafla at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not call me disingenuous for what other editors are doing and do not call them disingenuous for what I do. I saw your edits on the recent changes page was I was flipping through them last night (this can be verified by my recent contributions). You reverted my edit here, though your summaries are very confusing.
Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been neither a bright-line 3RR violation nor a more general edit-warring violation. Now that a source has been added for "controversial," I'm no longer interested in removing it; on the contrary, my three reverts in the past 24 hours have been (twice) the explained restoration of reliably sourced material that was removed without any explanation and (once separately) the removal of a source that wasn't cited for anything. I've also discussed the content and sources amicably and productively with other users (for instance, see immediately above). Earlier, I left the article in my non-preferred state while discussing on the talkpage, and went to noticeboards for wider input. This is generally considered positive editing behavior, and I intend to continue this source-based discussion and explanation of edits in the course of improving the article. Please note as well that this block came completely out of the blue, without any opportunity for me to revert edits that others might have felt crossed the line, and that if I'd been notified beforehand then I would certainly have considered self-reverting.
Decline reason:
(1) You say that you have not been edit warring. There have been numerous sequences of edits you have made to the same article, in each sequence the same, or substantially the same, edits having been made. On at least one occasion you made five successive identical edits: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], together with at least one edit which contained the same substance as those five, together with other change: [20]. The claim that you have not been edit warring is therefore not substantiated. (2) You claim that this block came "out of the blue". You are well aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy, having previously been blocked for edit warring, and having yourself previously made reports on other editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. An editor who is fully aware of the policy and is editing in conflict with that policy does not need a new warning on each and every occasion. You seem in effect to think that it is OK to edit war as long as you stop when someone points out that you have been doing so: that is not the case. (3) You say that you have been discussing the controversial edits. That is, of course, the right thing to do. However, the fact that you are doing so does not give you the freedom to edit war in the meanwhile. (4) Considering your past history, including numerous short edit wars on the same article going at least as far back as November 2011 (I have not checked further back than that) and a recent previous block for edit warring, a 24 hour block seems to me to be surprisaingly short. I have seriously considered increasing its length, but for now I will leave it as it is. Please be aware, though, that any further edit warring may result in a substantially longer block without further notice. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (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.
{{unblock | 1= I don't think this review adequately considered either my appeal nor the facts of the situation. (1) The "five successive identical edits" are edits I specifically pointed out I'm ''not interested in making'' - indeed, I've been working with that source and that content in my more recent edits - so blocking me on the basis of those edits is not in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy, being punitive rather than preventative. (2) I agree that no new warning is necessary on every occasion of, say, a 4RR, but in an instance where there have been only two substantive reverts and a "cleanup" revert (removal of a source that wasn't being cited), I ''do'' think the situation calls for an explanation of why another user might consider the behavior edit-warring and an opportunity to self-revert. (4) A cursory look at article histories and at block logs is not a good basis for the analysis of user behavior. For instance, JamesBWatson bases his decline partly on the fact that I was "recent"ly blocked for edit warring ("recent" = over six months ago); he fails to note that I was unblocked in barely an hour because two separate admins agreed that, rather than edit warring, I had been doing the ''right'' thing by discussing the content with other users and implementing a compromise. Too, it's easy to look at the November 2011 article history and say I was edit-warring, but what takes a little more time is to look at my edits and see that I was adding new sources in order to compromise with a user who disagreed with the material as cited at the time. Basing a block partly off past conduct is one thing, but basing it off ''incorrect'' views of past conduct is another.}}
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Since it's basically the same thing, why not change the category's name from one to the other? Or put it all under Islamophobia. G'day -- 78.53.37.169 ( talk) 19:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to explain: the very idea of homosexuality was unheard of in Shakespeare's day - one could commit what we would today call a homosexual act (Elizabethans would have said it was "unnatural"), but a sexual orientation was conceptually impossible. Sex with boys (not men) was simply something one might chose to do. Socially and religiously condemned, of course. Also, the usual explanation for the Sonnets is that Shakespeare was exploring a popular Renaissance trope, that of the unresponsive beloved - in intellectual circles the idea of a male (boy or youth) as beloeved added an extra frisson. You need sources!
(Btw - "Islam" is a religion, "muslim" is one who professes that religion - to be anti-Islam would be to oppose the religion - a rather intellectual endeavour I think - and to be anti-Muslim would be to oppose the people. We see a bit of both in Europe and America these days, but perhaps Americans are more inclined to be anti-Islam and Europeans to be anti-Muslim). PiCo ( talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
you refuted the pov-pushers in an admirable way. it was a delight to see you in action. mustihussain 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
i think an administrative action is required. [3], [4], [5]... and he reported me, lol! [6] -- mustihussain 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
[7] here Pass a Method talk 18:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not supporting the idea of keeping these critical editions sections as separate, I think that there is some merit in having these publications appear in the references section under "other sources" or some such name.
As they appeared, the material in each one was overly long and duplicated most of the initial lead of each article. However, reduced down, they could be a valuable addition. Any thoughts? Viva-Verdi ( talk) 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I agree with your moving to another section the mention of the feticide recommendation of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It was because of a misunderstanding that I placed it there. Esoglou ( talk) 08:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
In addition:
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
dance in the air and
follow his steps 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you relisted this AfD one minute after it was closed. I could be wrong, but my guess was that there may have been an edit conflict-type situation in which you had been about to relist the AfD but User:Dcoetzee closed it first. It doesn't matter to me whether the AfD is closed or relisted, but if you want it to be relisted, I would recommend checking with User:Dcoetzee first and then fully reopening the AfD. Either result, a keep or a relist, is fine with me. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:
Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
- Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the comments!
As per the subcategorization question, I don't think that's something I have power over. At first glance it seems to me that subcategorization is an automated response programmed into the wiki according to how the articles network together through their various categorizations. Do you know how it works?
As per the question of including
rape, of course it is a part of the list! I created this category about 30 minutes to an hour ago and have been slowly adding to it! I'll add that incredibly important one in particular right now before I get swamped with more articles and forget! Please add to the list if you will! My idea behind creating it was to create a uniting thread between the Gender Studies, Transgender, LGBT, Women, etc. portals
Eekiv (
talk) 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point which, quite the contrary to arguing that the CDF statement is in line with clinical literature, was to note that neither mainstream psychiatry nor the Church's own theology backs up the Vatican's contention that transwomen (for example) are simply deluded men who have undergone a superficial change that leaves their fundamental maleness intact. This is not my original research, and there are any number of APA and professional pronouncements, as well as catechetical documents, that could be harnessed to make the same points, and which would be a more constructive option than wholesale bulldozing for someone professing to be concerned with tightening up references. If you would prefer to source this some other way then I welcome your guidance, but I'm afraid the status quo just isn't acceptable: as a queer Jewish feminist with a high regard for NPOV I am sure you would not want an article that tacitly presents one conservative Catholic POV as inevitable and incontestable as your edit does. Carolynparrishfan ( talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you please pop over to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs again where a troublesome anon user, subject of a current sockpuppet complaint about an IP in Carrollton, Georgia, has reverted your speedy keep decision and is now threatening to report you. [8] BlackCab ( talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese,
I have given my input to Talk:False accusation of rape. It seems that someone re-edited the article to include FBI criticism. Also, do you agree that the article needs a total makeup due to its bias towards the male gender? The article basically implies that women lie about rape all the time, and I find that very hard to believe. And, also, false accusations of rape may be more mediated than true ones, and thus we might need to include that in the article.
Thank you ^_^,
-- MusicsColors ( talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Melissa Dunphy, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Dissonance ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese, I have replied to your comment at the DYK nomination for Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia and will appreciate your further thoughts on it. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 08:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As requested, I explained my reasoning for my edit. It's at Talk:Corona del Mar High School. I would very much like to have an outside set of eyes take a hard look at my edits and to be brutally honest about any bias I am showing without realizing it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[9] NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I create article tittled as "History of Pudukkottai" for this i curved out information from Pudukkottai main article itself. I am not the contributor for this in main article Pudukkottai. I watched for many months but there is no climbs of copyvio in main article so i step in to create History of Pudukkottai. I am new to wikipedia editing so, from now there will be no copyvio from my side. Thank you... Incrazy ( talk) 09:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I can review the critics, but I don't have any access. If you can copy/paste a few onto my talk page I would sort through them :) unitas ( talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Adele Goodman Clark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman ( talk) 11:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I just closed the AE Report you filed. WP:AC/DS does require a warning of the specific case before sanctions can be made. Further details are in my closing comments. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. -- WGFinley ( talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Catholic Church and abortion, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. In this edit you changed User:Esoglou's comment. Even if you thought the comment was phrased non-neutrally, that doesn't give you a free pass to edit his/her comment. Instead you should have posted your own comment below, saying that you believed the above phrasing to be non-neutral and you would prefer it be phrased in a more neutral way, such as: "[insert your phrasing here]". (I'm not passing judgement on your phrasing or his phrasing and I am completely uninvolved in the issue.) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Your edit at 06:57 was a revert of [10]
Your edit at 06:59 was a revert of [11]
NYyankees51 ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my comment on the talk page should not be interpreted as a claim that we shouldn't mention Catholic disagreement with the church hierarchy. I, personally, have not been involved in the article until now and have no opinion about what should and shouldn't be included (e.g. whether it should be just about the hierarchy or about the church as a whole). Based on my initial reading of the talk page comments, I thought that the main argument against including Baudouin rested on the premise that the article was about the church hierarchy rather than Catholics themselves. My point was that such a premise would, of course, count against discussing Catholic opposition to the hierarchy's teachings. I now see that at least your main argument against including Baudouin rests more on the premise that reliable sources don't treat the Baudouin incident as relevant to the church at large. About this claim I have no opinion.
I suppose it isn't very important now, since my comment seems to have been largely buried under others at this point. But I thought I should clear things up. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 03:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
On 3 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adele Goodman Clark, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that artist and suffragist Adele Goodman Clark and her partner Nora Houston set up their easels on a downtown streetcorner in Richmond, Virginia, and canvassed passers-by about women's suffrage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Goodman Clark.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a chapter titled "Peace between Muslim and non-Muslim countries" You have deleted the entire chapter claiming that it contains copyrighted material. I have two questions: 1. Which part of my chapter is copyrighted? 2. Why did you delete the entire chapter, rather than its copyrighted part? Quinacrine ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You PRODded
Tea With Terrorists. The
PROD tag was removed by the article creator. I have
taken it to AfD; your comments there would be welcome.
Thanks;
bobrayner (
talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Roscelese
Are the recent articles I created bad topics, or just too stubby for main space? I usually start an article and hope for WP:TEAMWORK to flesh it out. I've hardly ever written an article all by myself, but in my ten years here I've begun over 1,000 articles which other people also worked on. Here are the most recent ones I've created, for your perusal:
Some are small, a few are medium. Several address controversial issues, in what I hope is a completely unbiased fashion. If any of these need work, please let me know ... or even pitch in and do some fixin' yourself! :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Per [12]. We should see if we can get a release. I shall email him. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. Thank you for reverting me here. On second thoughts, I think you're quite right, a hatnote at Sexual orientation is a better approach. Sexual Preference (book) probably belongs within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies; I would add it myself, except that I'm not a member of the project. I wondered if you might want to add it? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I'm confused with your change to my entry. I believe Ben Gidley is talking about member of the English Defense League that he calls "the suited wing." I make no judgment as to the so-called two wings in the Gidley article but I thought this view should be brought to the attention to those doing research on the organization. The hooligan wing was already discussed. I'd like to know your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't help noticing that you've proposed/nominated a number of Ed's latest excrements for deletion recently. You may be interested in this admission by him on my user talk: "Yeah, it's true, I barely know what I'm doing. I just know how to pick a good topic, but I can't write for beans." I think such an admission should disqualify him from creating new articles on Wikipedia (and possibly from editing altogether). Otherwise he simply turns the rest of Wikipedia into his own personal pooper-scoopers. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn, those cases are from 4 or 5 years ago. I've straightened out since then, but some people persist in confusing "adding balance" with "pov pushing". The question is always: when is coverage of a standpoint disproportionate? (And please don't misinterpret my remark about "knowing what I'm doing". All I meant is that I don't know how to write a complete article, all by myself. Let's have a little WP:TEAMWORK, here.)
And I wish you would stop branding me as a POV pusher. I'm adamantly opposed to that practice, which is why I wrote User:Ed Poor/POV pushing.
I think you'll agree that Wikipedia's aim is not to produce articles which produce an "objective" point of view on a topic when it is a controversial one. Rather the aim is to summarize the arguments and evidence for all sides in a controversy, which is why the arbcom has forbidden deletion of information purely on the grounds that "advances a point of view". [13]
If an article at point A in time concentrates mainly on reasons why people on one side approve or condemn something, that article may be unbalanced. But as long as the contributor has not cited that side as being correct, but as "having an opinion" then the article probably is not biased at that point, i.e., not violating NPOV. Further, if someone were to come along at point B in time and give reasons why people on another side have opposing views which contradict the first side, this would (1) provide balance and (2) still remain neutral, because the article would not say that either side is "right" but merely that X says Y about Z in each case.
I recall that one of the stubs I recently created began so one-sidedly that another contributor commented on the lack of balance; he did not, of course, suggest that in was "biased" (i.e., violating NPOV) because I was careful not to imply that the side I was writing about was "correct" or even "in the majority". I was writing for the enemy, in accordance with an essay I wrote 6 years ago. Please don't afd it!
If you can show me where I have created an article in recent years, which violated NPOV policy by failing to adhere to any of the following norms, I hope you will point it out to me specifically (preferably on my user talk page), so I can repair that failing as soon as possible; if I can't do it by myself I will ask you for help, of course:
The last one would probably be my weakest point, as I typically begin an article merely by summarizing points of view; it is only later in the lifetime of an article that I usually begin to pay attention to the levels of support for those views.
Also, it's never been clear to me whether it is sufficient to say, e.g., "while almost all historians agree that the Holocaust took place, there are some (chiefly in the non-Western world) who call it a hoax" and then go on, at length, to describe one of the most distasteful topics to me personally: the reasons Holocaust deniers give for their position.
Is it the number of words in an article about any given viewpoint which indicate the relative levels of support, or can we use polls or something else to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views? Only a tiny fraction of a percent retain belief in a Flat Earth, but that article is more than half the size of the Earth article; no one has ever said the former gives the issue undue weight, because the article contributors have made sure to point out "ball earth" supporters outnumber "flat earth" supporters by over a million to one.
I never said I could write a complete, fully balanced article all by myself. But that is not the standard. It is only that each version of an article should comply with NPOV and other major rules. If something is stubby, it should not be deleted but either (1) fleshed out by other volunteers or perhaps (2) userfied temporarily if presence in main article space of a poorly referenced and otherwise incomplete article offends general sensibilities.
But please be careful about stubs which describe controversial topics. The remedy for being too short or for being imbalanced is usually not to delete it, but either to give good advice on how to fix it (on the article talk page), or to jump in and work on it.
To Roscelese: sorry to rant on your user talk page, but I felt the comments above mine required an immediate response. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifying questions about the LGBT sportspeople category. Are you still in favor of keeping all the subcats? I've been working with the list for the past several weeks, and I'm pretty sure I have the vast majority on there. Is 169 people still "what could otherwise be an overly large category"? Also, that doesn't address the issue I posted - does diffusing by location actually make sense? Are LGBT sportspeople from the UK inherently different from LGBT sportspeople from Australia? Thanks for your input! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese, if law professor Dorothy E. Roberts says that the man-in-the-house rule existed, is that a good enough source for you?
If so, I hope you will withdraw your deletion request. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese, I hope things are going well with you. I haven't seen you around lately, but I think that's just because I haven't been as active at Afd lately as I was. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement about possible improvements to the article. I wanted to draw some more editors in, so I looked through the talk page and have mentioned this to the 5 or 6 editors that I saw there. If you are interested, please weigh in. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:The Count of Luxembourg for some new discussion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you see this article- Discordia (film)? Do you thing it is also an AfD candidate? 71.204.165.25 ( talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that things have got a bit heated. I can see that you are an excellent editor and I know that you are acting in good faith. You may want to look at this edit again [14]. I think some people might see it as a breach of WP:3RR. Best wishes Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Onward Muslim Soldiers shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've opened up an edit warring report here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that. I was adding the delsorts and didn't see I pre-empted your comment. Nate • ( chatter) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, if you prod an article like here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Abortion_exceptionalism&diff=473293569&oldid=468529014) please create a place for discussion. Richiez ( talk) 11:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Carina Vance Mafla at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not call me disingenuous for what other editors are doing and do not call them disingenuous for what I do. I saw your edits on the recent changes page was I was flipping through them last night (this can be verified by my recent contributions). You reverted my edit here, though your summaries are very confusing.
Theinactivist ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been neither a bright-line 3RR violation nor a more general edit-warring violation. Now that a source has been added for "controversial," I'm no longer interested in removing it; on the contrary, my three reverts in the past 24 hours have been (twice) the explained restoration of reliably sourced material that was removed without any explanation and (once separately) the removal of a source that wasn't cited for anything. I've also discussed the content and sources amicably and productively with other users (for instance, see immediately above). Earlier, I left the article in my non-preferred state while discussing on the talkpage, and went to noticeboards for wider input. This is generally considered positive editing behavior, and I intend to continue this source-based discussion and explanation of edits in the course of improving the article. Please note as well that this block came completely out of the blue, without any opportunity for me to revert edits that others might have felt crossed the line, and that if I'd been notified beforehand then I would certainly have considered self-reverting.
Decline reason:
(1) You say that you have not been edit warring. There have been numerous sequences of edits you have made to the same article, in each sequence the same, or substantially the same, edits having been made. On at least one occasion you made five successive identical edits: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], together with at least one edit which contained the same substance as those five, together with other change: [20]. The claim that you have not been edit warring is therefore not substantiated. (2) You claim that this block came "out of the blue". You are well aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy, having previously been blocked for edit warring, and having yourself previously made reports on other editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. An editor who is fully aware of the policy and is editing in conflict with that policy does not need a new warning on each and every occasion. You seem in effect to think that it is OK to edit war as long as you stop when someone points out that you have been doing so: that is not the case. (3) You say that you have been discussing the controversial edits. That is, of course, the right thing to do. However, the fact that you are doing so does not give you the freedom to edit war in the meanwhile. (4) Considering your past history, including numerous short edit wars on the same article going at least as far back as November 2011 (I have not checked further back than that) and a recent previous block for edit warring, a 24 hour block seems to me to be surprisaingly short. I have seriously considered increasing its length, but for now I will leave it as it is. Please be aware, though, that any further edit warring may result in a substantially longer block without further notice. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:01, 30 January 2012 (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.
{{unblock | 1= I don't think this review adequately considered either my appeal nor the facts of the situation. (1) The "five successive identical edits" are edits I specifically pointed out I'm ''not interested in making'' - indeed, I've been working with that source and that content in my more recent edits - so blocking me on the basis of those edits is not in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy, being punitive rather than preventative. (2) I agree that no new warning is necessary on every occasion of, say, a 4RR, but in an instance where there have been only two substantive reverts and a "cleanup" revert (removal of a source that wasn't being cited), I ''do'' think the situation calls for an explanation of why another user might consider the behavior edit-warring and an opportunity to self-revert. (4) A cursory look at article histories and at block logs is not a good basis for the analysis of user behavior. For instance, JamesBWatson bases his decline partly on the fact that I was "recent"ly blocked for edit warring ("recent" = over six months ago); he fails to note that I was unblocked in barely an hour because two separate admins agreed that, rather than edit warring, I had been doing the ''right'' thing by discussing the content with other users and implementing a compromise. Too, it's easy to look at the November 2011 article history and say I was edit-warring, but what takes a little more time is to look at my edits and see that I was adding new sources in order to compromise with a user who disagreed with the material as cited at the time. Basing a block partly off past conduct is one thing, but basing it off ''incorrect'' views of past conduct is another.}}