Hey, thanks, I like it when people DR rather than threat to ;). -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you mean well, but there was a glitch with your google search:
See: Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes#Against_Operation_Cast_Lead
You'll have to do better than that. -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your rebuttal but it doesn't matter because we both agree that appealing to major news sources not using the term "Operation Cast Lead" is a bad argument. Lot 49a talk 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- With what do you disagree? I mean, it is pretty clear. And please, pup, spare me the grade-school sophism *yawn*: I didn't agree in not using the sources, I said that counting sources was wrong, rather than reading them: we have to use sources, it is the entire basis of Wikipedia.
- I have a feeling you are not listening at all, which is unfortunate: You didn't understand my point at all, which was that the mistake you did led you to introduce all kinds of irrelevant info, which wouldn't have happened had you read the sources. I sat down and read them, and that's how I realized what had just happened. I was inviting you to have more rigor, because even if we disagree, you had been, to that point, a pretty civil and interesting voice.
- I'm gonna reply here to keep the thread all in one place. That seems pretty common as well as your method.
- I disagree with your counting method. The fact that Operation Cast Lead does not appear in the headlines doesn't mean much. When the US landed on the moon, I'm pretty sure that the headlines did not read "Apollo 11 a success!" they read something more like "WE LANDED ON THE MOON". Yet the article is called Apollo 11. I did not raise this on the talk page because it doesn't really impact the issue. We disagree about the details but you and I are on the same general page when it comes to this particular argument.
- The point I was trying to make - which we both seem agree to - is that arguing that reliable sources aren't using the term isn't a good argument. You said it was a strawman in your response to my response to the argument and my response was pointing out that reliable sources ARE using the term, which you also agree about. So we agree on this point.
- Where we disagree is on whether calling the article by the operation's name is NPOV or not. You think that it is POV to use Operation Cast Lead and I disagree.
- Luckily, we both also agree that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the article is named for the next few days, which allows all of us to focus on working on the article itself instead of the talk page :)
- Actually look at my talk page, I only respond on my own talk page to trolls. You can actually follow a couple of threads I have with my wikiprojects by going back an forth the talk pages...
- I think it is valid to say that NPOV is a difference, but hear me out, because it might be a problem of definition. I define NPOV mainly from the perspective of the bias, that is, the ability to walk on someones shoes. When I read a title like "Operation X" I do two things: 1) I get on the mind set of those performing the operation and 2) the mindset of those in the receiving end. And usually, I would first get on the mindset less intutive for me, of the side with less appeal to my preconceptions on the matter: Its about exploring and empathizing with the Other. In Wikipedia, this is seasoned by the need for sourcing and verifiability, which means finding the most neutral among the alternatives.
- If a Palestinian from Gaza whose brother just was killed by the IAF came to Wikipedia, how do you think he would feel about our covenant of neutrality if he read an article named with the same name his brother's killers used? I know I would be pissed, regardless if in truth my bro had it coming for being a murderous terrorist scum. So I think? Oh shit, do I satisfy the need of Israeli to name their operation or do I have mercy with this Palestinian? Trust me, if the sources where unequivocal, I would pitty the fool, but the operation name would remain as the only verifiable name we could use. But if we have alternatives, why insist on the biased one with the potential to hurt over other alternatives that are less hurtful? Some will call this political correctness, but that is in itself a non-neutral point of view.
- And what if the rockets that feel on Sdirot were called "Operation Golden Burqa"? How would those killed would feel?
- Empathy is the basis of neutrality, regardless of our strongly held beliefs.
Is it me, or he is just trolling. Can you help? I think he is just beating a dead horse, and I am just trying to advance the process. Could you mediate or speak to him? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have replied to you on my talkpage. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I put a note on the article's Talk page about why I removed what I did! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found your comment <g>. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Lot49a. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code
Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, I like it when people DR rather than threat to ;). -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you mean well, but there was a glitch with your google search:
See: Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes#Against_Operation_Cast_Lead
You'll have to do better than that. -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your rebuttal but it doesn't matter because we both agree that appealing to major news sources not using the term "Operation Cast Lead" is a bad argument. Lot 49a talk 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- With what do you disagree? I mean, it is pretty clear. And please, pup, spare me the grade-school sophism *yawn*: I didn't agree in not using the sources, I said that counting sources was wrong, rather than reading them: we have to use sources, it is the entire basis of Wikipedia.
- I have a feeling you are not listening at all, which is unfortunate: You didn't understand my point at all, which was that the mistake you did led you to introduce all kinds of irrelevant info, which wouldn't have happened had you read the sources. I sat down and read them, and that's how I realized what had just happened. I was inviting you to have more rigor, because even if we disagree, you had been, to that point, a pretty civil and interesting voice.
- I'm gonna reply here to keep the thread all in one place. That seems pretty common as well as your method.
- I disagree with your counting method. The fact that Operation Cast Lead does not appear in the headlines doesn't mean much. When the US landed on the moon, I'm pretty sure that the headlines did not read "Apollo 11 a success!" they read something more like "WE LANDED ON THE MOON". Yet the article is called Apollo 11. I did not raise this on the talk page because it doesn't really impact the issue. We disagree about the details but you and I are on the same general page when it comes to this particular argument.
- The point I was trying to make - which we both seem agree to - is that arguing that reliable sources aren't using the term isn't a good argument. You said it was a strawman in your response to my response to the argument and my response was pointing out that reliable sources ARE using the term, which you also agree about. So we agree on this point.
- Where we disagree is on whether calling the article by the operation's name is NPOV or not. You think that it is POV to use Operation Cast Lead and I disagree.
- Luckily, we both also agree that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things what the article is named for the next few days, which allows all of us to focus on working on the article itself instead of the talk page :)
- Actually look at my talk page, I only respond on my own talk page to trolls. You can actually follow a couple of threads I have with my wikiprojects by going back an forth the talk pages...
- I think it is valid to say that NPOV is a difference, but hear me out, because it might be a problem of definition. I define NPOV mainly from the perspective of the bias, that is, the ability to walk on someones shoes. When I read a title like "Operation X" I do two things: 1) I get on the mind set of those performing the operation and 2) the mindset of those in the receiving end. And usually, I would first get on the mindset less intutive for me, of the side with less appeal to my preconceptions on the matter: Its about exploring and empathizing with the Other. In Wikipedia, this is seasoned by the need for sourcing and verifiability, which means finding the most neutral among the alternatives.
- If a Palestinian from Gaza whose brother just was killed by the IAF came to Wikipedia, how do you think he would feel about our covenant of neutrality if he read an article named with the same name his brother's killers used? I know I would be pissed, regardless if in truth my bro had it coming for being a murderous terrorist scum. So I think? Oh shit, do I satisfy the need of Israeli to name their operation or do I have mercy with this Palestinian? Trust me, if the sources where unequivocal, I would pitty the fool, but the operation name would remain as the only verifiable name we could use. But if we have alternatives, why insist on the biased one with the potential to hurt over other alternatives that are less hurtful? Some will call this political correctness, but that is in itself a non-neutral point of view.
- And what if the rockets that feel on Sdirot were called "Operation Golden Burqa"? How would those killed would feel?
- Empathy is the basis of neutrality, regardless of our strongly held beliefs.
Is it me, or he is just trolling. Can you help? I think he is just beating a dead horse, and I am just trying to advance the process. Could you mediate or speak to him? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have replied to you on my talkpage. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I put a note on the article's Talk page about why I removed what I did! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found your comment <g>. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Lot49a. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code
Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Talk:Twenty One Card Trick/code during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)