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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Please read: WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added) You can consider my removal twice to be a "challenge". Please condsider reversing yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
hi there. curious if you'd like to weigh in on the discussion happening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#http:.2F.2Fwww.shmoop.com.2F
to refresh your memory, you had some helpful things to say on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jane_Eyre#New_External_Link and on my talk page.
we've avoided COI/spam issues. A number of our fans took it upon themselves to post links to Shmoop articles from WP. Many of these links stayed in place for over a month - so editors didn't seem to have a problem. the user who started the thread on the External Links Talk page wiped out all of our links very quickly (his only reasoning being "we aren't encyclopedic" which seems like a vague standard). now his argument has changed to say that he doesn't like the tone of our site (again, doesn't seem like a justification to not have these in EL. if you care to weigh in, i'd be interested in your opinion. thanks! Barriodude ( talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [1]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful. Mattnad ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, tagging as no source was a mistake. I meant to use no permission as the source doesn't show evidence of public domain status and the website itself is protected by copyright. Jay32183 ( talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Zsero, what do you mean "it doesn't exist" [2], it's from a Mishpacha article?
Yonoson3 ( talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
fyi, i left you a reply on Debresser's talk page. -shirulashem (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Zsero. I also disagree with the idea. But the fact remains that the non-messianist character of this site is evident only to those who know the signs, and no sources have been found to prove it. So I just don't see we have any choice. Sincerely, Dovid. Debresser ( talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for explaining it to me. Good to know it is at least an authentic portrayal: guess we just don't know when it was produced, and therefore it is hard to license properly. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to say this to you, but we have to be clear about this. Nobody asked for you to agree with this sourced information. Nobody cares whether you consider it nonsense. It is sourced. It is relevant. And that's it. I have noticed your aggressiveness of opinion and editing before, but while having clear opinions is an asset, aggressiveness can not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I myself don't like the opinions of the guy, but that may not influence my editing. So please, be reasonable in your editing. Or don't. Edit, I mean. Please understand that I am your friend. We have a lot in common. But being on the same page with you is hard. And it shouldn't be that way. Debresser ( talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC
I am posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring on Chabad messianism. This is getting out of hand. Debresser ( talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you placed Rashi in Category:French Orthodox rabbis. Although this is the case, that Rashi was indeed Orthodox, I think the "Orthodox" label was only introduced after new movements within Judaism started forming in the 1800's. I therefore propose that all rabbis living before the 19th century remain in the general "rabbis" category, while others, from let’s say 1800 onwards, be categorised in the relevant category which labels their modern classification, i.e. Orthodox, Reform, etc. Do you agree? Chesdovi ( talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Zsero. Please see this outcome, in which both parties are warned against continuing to revert. Blocks may be issued if editors continue to revert without getting a Talk page consensus first. If agreement cannot be reached, either let the issue go or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as opening an WP:RFC or asking for a third opinion. If you think that wrong claims are being made about a specific living person you can open a report at WP:BLP. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? I am not as well versed in these things as I used to. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Set Sail For The Seven Seas 271° 19' 15" NET 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Living persons are presented by current factors: "Subject is". I shall cool off for 24 hours or so to give you and the other user Loodog a chance to rephrase it so somehow it conforms to this. Only dead persons are presented with past tense verbs following headwords. This is one of the official standards here. I could give you a list of dozens of examples of this. Evlekis ( talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Some more for you to feed your hobby: Dan Quayle, Kjell Magne Bondevik, Zeljko Sturanovic, Algirdas Brazauskas, Komlan Mally, Thabo Mbeki and Konstantinos Stephanopoulos. There's more where they came from. Any time you feel like running around like a tit, you let me know and I'll provide you with them.
Look kid. Let's talk like humans whilst we continue to battle elsewhere. What do you mean "see fit"? What is special about the ones you changed whilst you haven't touched others? Or will you seriously embark on a marathon to amend thousands of articles? Plain old "seeing fit" isn't an argument either. I wasn't claiming that having stood for a long time is an argument, but why has nobody out of hundreds of thousands of English speaking editors so much as touched them? Why is it only you? Evlekis ( talk) 04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've had an idea which may create peace. As an act of good will, I have reverted my own edit on George W Bush to put it back to yours. If we return the US leaders and Mrs.Thatcher to how they were before I changed them last week, then allow the other world leaders to keep their presentations as they had been before you began to reduce them. I won't touch the US presidents for this issue again, that's a promise. The other world leaders also sat harmlessly with their presentations before these past few hours. If we halt all further battling at this stage, all can continue as it did before we entered this personal conflict. Are you all right with that? Evlekis ( talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
All of the articles have been restored to the revisions you prefer. I hope this will bring an immediate end to the last days of warring. I won't write in this space on matters of this nature again, and shall return to editing in all other fields of interest. Good luck. Evlekis ( talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested: Talk:George H. W. Bush#Public image. Your input is valuable. Happyme22 ( talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the transliterations! Jheald ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that the title of the Semicha article has been changed from "Semicha" to "Semikhah" ?
This article has been around for a long time under the old spelling. The editor who changed it seems to be new to Wikipedia. I know the question of spelling has been addressed in the past but nothing had ever been altered. I request your feedback on this. Is "Semikhah" indeed the proper spelling?
Thank you very much. CWatchman ( talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So it is politically correct then ?
I am still interested in knowing more about the transliteration from Semicha to Semikhah. Could you perhaps elaborate more on this or direct me to a source that does?
Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am just interested in the details of the change. I am not opposing it, I just want to understand it better. What is the basis behind the change? Why does the editor think it is more appropriate? CWatchman ( talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have inquired of him. I am awaiting his reply. However, since you have a more established presence on Wikipedia I came also to you. Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Please read: WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added) You can consider my removal twice to be a "challenge". Please condsider reversing yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
hi there. curious if you'd like to weigh in on the discussion happening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#http:.2F.2Fwww.shmoop.com.2F
to refresh your memory, you had some helpful things to say on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jane_Eyre#New_External_Link and on my talk page.
we've avoided COI/spam issues. A number of our fans took it upon themselves to post links to Shmoop articles from WP. Many of these links stayed in place for over a month - so editors didn't seem to have a problem. the user who started the thread on the External Links Talk page wiped out all of our links very quickly (his only reasoning being "we aren't encyclopedic" which seems like a vague standard). now his argument has changed to say that he doesn't like the tone of our site (again, doesn't seem like a justification to not have these in EL. if you care to weigh in, i'd be interested in your opinion. thanks! Barriodude ( talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [1]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful. Mattnad ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, tagging as no source was a mistake. I meant to use no permission as the source doesn't show evidence of public domain status and the website itself is protected by copyright. Jay32183 ( talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Zsero, what do you mean "it doesn't exist" [2], it's from a Mishpacha article?
Yonoson3 ( talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
fyi, i left you a reply on Debresser's talk page. -shirulashem (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Zsero. I also disagree with the idea. But the fact remains that the non-messianist character of this site is evident only to those who know the signs, and no sources have been found to prove it. So I just don't see we have any choice. Sincerely, Dovid. Debresser ( talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for explaining it to me. Good to know it is at least an authentic portrayal: guess we just don't know when it was produced, and therefore it is hard to license properly. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> ( talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to say this to you, but we have to be clear about this. Nobody asked for you to agree with this sourced information. Nobody cares whether you consider it nonsense. It is sourced. It is relevant. And that's it. I have noticed your aggressiveness of opinion and editing before, but while having clear opinions is an asset, aggressiveness can not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I myself don't like the opinions of the guy, but that may not influence my editing. So please, be reasonable in your editing. Or don't. Edit, I mean. Please understand that I am your friend. We have a lot in common. But being on the same page with you is hard. And it shouldn't be that way. Debresser ( talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC
I am posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring on Chabad messianism. This is getting out of hand. Debresser ( talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you placed Rashi in Category:French Orthodox rabbis. Although this is the case, that Rashi was indeed Orthodox, I think the "Orthodox" label was only introduced after new movements within Judaism started forming in the 1800's. I therefore propose that all rabbis living before the 19th century remain in the general "rabbis" category, while others, from let’s say 1800 onwards, be categorised in the relevant category which labels their modern classification, i.e. Orthodox, Reform, etc. Do you agree? Chesdovi ( talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Zsero. Please see this outcome, in which both parties are warned against continuing to revert. Blocks may be issued if editors continue to revert without getting a Talk page consensus first. If agreement cannot be reached, either let the issue go or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as opening an WP:RFC or asking for a third opinion. If you think that wrong claims are being made about a specific living person you can open a report at WP:BLP. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? I am not as well versed in these things as I used to. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Set Sail For The Seven Seas 271° 19' 15" NET 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Living persons are presented by current factors: "Subject is". I shall cool off for 24 hours or so to give you and the other user Loodog a chance to rephrase it so somehow it conforms to this. Only dead persons are presented with past tense verbs following headwords. This is one of the official standards here. I could give you a list of dozens of examples of this. Evlekis ( talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Some more for you to feed your hobby: Dan Quayle, Kjell Magne Bondevik, Zeljko Sturanovic, Algirdas Brazauskas, Komlan Mally, Thabo Mbeki and Konstantinos Stephanopoulos. There's more where they came from. Any time you feel like running around like a tit, you let me know and I'll provide you with them.
Look kid. Let's talk like humans whilst we continue to battle elsewhere. What do you mean "see fit"? What is special about the ones you changed whilst you haven't touched others? Or will you seriously embark on a marathon to amend thousands of articles? Plain old "seeing fit" isn't an argument either. I wasn't claiming that having stood for a long time is an argument, but why has nobody out of hundreds of thousands of English speaking editors so much as touched them? Why is it only you? Evlekis ( talk) 04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've had an idea which may create peace. As an act of good will, I have reverted my own edit on George W Bush to put it back to yours. If we return the US leaders and Mrs.Thatcher to how they were before I changed them last week, then allow the other world leaders to keep their presentations as they had been before you began to reduce them. I won't touch the US presidents for this issue again, that's a promise. The other world leaders also sat harmlessly with their presentations before these past few hours. If we halt all further battling at this stage, all can continue as it did before we entered this personal conflict. Are you all right with that? Evlekis ( talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
All of the articles have been restored to the revisions you prefer. I hope this will bring an immediate end to the last days of warring. I won't write in this space on matters of this nature again, and shall return to editing in all other fields of interest. Good luck. Evlekis ( talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested: Talk:George H. W. Bush#Public image. Your input is valuable. Happyme22 ( talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the transliterations! Jheald ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that the title of the Semicha article has been changed from "Semicha" to "Semikhah" ?
This article has been around for a long time under the old spelling. The editor who changed it seems to be new to Wikipedia. I know the question of spelling has been addressed in the past but nothing had ever been altered. I request your feedback on this. Is "Semikhah" indeed the proper spelling?
Thank you very much. CWatchman ( talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So it is politically correct then ?
I am still interested in knowing more about the transliteration from Semicha to Semikhah. Could you perhaps elaborate more on this or direct me to a source that does?
Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am just interested in the details of the change. I am not opposing it, I just want to understand it better. What is the basis behind the change? Why does the editor think it is more appropriate? CWatchman ( talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have inquired of him. I am awaiting his reply. However, since you have a more established presence on Wikipedia I came also to you. Thank you. CWatchman ( talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)