RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) archive old |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
:Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
== With all due respect == |
|||
I am Jewish but some of my best friends are Antisemitic, Thy are not Nazi's but they are what I call mildy antisemitic. I think we can work this out without an edit war unless your motives are to help James sell his books. I don't think they are so lets work this out the talk Bailey talk page OK. |
|||
[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think some of my family are "mildly anti-semitic" as you put it and too anti-Israel for my liking but they are not at all Nazis, but I will openly disagree with them on this issue. Obviously I have no connection with James so no interest in selling his books and no COI on this article. I too hope we can work this out amicably. I was a fan of AAB's but many years ago and hadn't thought about her in more than a decade till I came across the article and I personally don't believe she is either anti-semitic or anti black people (I am married to one) but her style was dreadfully old fashioned and anachronistic when it was written and tends to get misinterpreted, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== A few thoughts == |
|||
=== Confusing text / vandalism === |
|||
What does "A Rastaman feeling kind of red" mean? That looks like possible vandalism to me.-- [[User:Mumia-w-18|Mumia-w-18]] 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That is pretty clear from the link, no? It means feeling kind of stoned (red being a Jamaican/Rasta word for stoned). Never heard of anyone vandalisinf their user page, lol, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== The need for search while editing pages === |
|||
Not to have a search feature available when editing hurts. I sometimes copy the entire text into a text editor and use its search features.-- [[User:Mumia-w-18|Mumia-w-18]] 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:In Mozilla you can search the html text whereas you could not before, you can't search and replace. I would use another text editor to do that but rarely do whereas various times each day I use Ctrl F to find text in the editable page, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== My assumptions == |
|||
Hey Squeak, I hope when you wrote "your assumptions about my ignorance are remarkably wrong" that you were referring to cat, and not to me. I make as few assumptions as I possibly can — it's been a central focus of my entire life, in fact. I was merely responding to cat's allegations in a way designed to use them to convince her of my point. Where you actually were educated (or the question of your alleged ignorance) never entered my mind. To be clear, I don't consider you ignorant at all. |
|||
While I don't think you've expressed your point regarding the phrase in question particularly effectively, my response was to try to help you make your point, I believe. In fact, I have been skirmishing around this issue w/ cat and others for months now. I'm convinced that subtle misinterpretation and the use of loaded phrases like this one (and like "new world order") are the biggest threat to NPOV in this article, and I've been nursing a long, subtle strategy to prevent that in this article for months now. So, I certainly agree with you on this issue. (For instance, the new section on Shamballa is unintentionally POV simply because, trying to "locate" the Hierarchy in some definite spot, it completely fails to understand that the lowest point of the Hierarchy exists on the higher mental plane, where space-time simply does not apply. This is basic DK 101, but we can't expect this to be clear to everyone. I believe patience is our best friend, here. :) |
|||
How the Wikipedia process eventually solves all this in the article text remains to be worked out, of course. :) [[User:Eaglizard|Eaglizard]] 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles]] closed == |
|||
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ''[a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on [[Wikipedia:Probation]] by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given''. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time. |
|||
The full decision can be viewed [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|here]]. |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:Daniel|<span style="color:#2E82F4">Daniel</span>]]''' 08:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, and good about Vintagekits, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== AZ's Talk Page == |
== AZ's Talk Page == |
Revision as of 00:51, 2 November 2007
If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser. A new search development in Mozilla Firefox is that we can search the editable html text with search.
![]() | This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) |
Hi
Hi Richard. I just thought I'd drop by to see what you were up to. Far more active than I am, I can see. Well, I hope things are going well in your life these days. All the best. Guettarda 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
AZ's Talk Page
SqueakBox, please don't continue removing the discussion. The general norm is, as I'm sure you know, that editors may decide when to remove content from their talk pages unless something very objectionable is discovered. My guess is that JzG thought his removal would be uncontroversial, in which case it would be a perfectly justified way to avoid drama. But if some editors really want to have a discussion, it's only courteous to allow it (well, IMO, anyway), absent libel or what not. Thanks. — xDanielx T/C 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think Guy was completely right, and I know he won't appreciate what you did. If you keep edit warring like this the page will be in danger of being protected, and the person that would hurt is A.Z., Thanks, SqueakBox 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The Neverending Krystallnacht: A.Z.
I noticed you removed this section from the PAW talk page with the comment that it was a thread by a banned user. I checked the block log and didn't see blocks for either Clais41 or Homologeo, and I was wondering if you could clarify who wrote in this section that you believe to be blocked. Thanks. Enrico Dirac 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I referred to Clais as a likely sock, and anyway this material is being removed from wherever it sprouts right now and certainly not just by me. I thought my apologies to Homologeo made it clear I do not consider him the sock of a banned user. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- SqueakBox, while I accept your apology for deleting my comment, I cannot believe that you're at it again - please back up assumptions that someone is a banned editor with appropriate evidence. You're well aware of the channels that can corroborate your concerns about an editor's eligibility to editing privileges, and these channels are readily available for you to use. There is currently no justification for deleting Clais41's comments from the PAW Talk Page. This individual voiced some legitimate concerns and deserves to be heard. If it is later established that this is a banned user, then you may be justified in removing his or her comments at that point in time. However, you have not yet sufficiently explained why the comment in question should be removed, and thus I will shortly revert your action. Once again, please go through the proper channels to address your concern that this may be a banned editor before removing his or her commentary again. Also, while ArbCom is free to protect individual User Talk Pages from editing and to request that the issues brought up in the section that you deleted be kept off particular User Talk Pages, there is nothing wrong with voicing one's concern over what is happening with editors who edit pedophilia-related articles on the Talk Page of the Wikiproject dedicated specifically to this very same set of articles. Thus, if comments are posted by a legitimate editor with full editing privileges, there is no reason to avoid or remove such commentary. ~ Homologeo 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- My advice is to not revert that particular thread. If it were purely a case of suspected banned suer that would be one thing but this is a case that the arbcom have made clear do not want discussing on any of these pages and I believe we need to respect that. Going against the arbcom doesn't do anyone any good in the structure of wikipedia, especially right now (referring to the encyclopedia as a whole right now and not this specific issue, eg Rfc/Jimbo Wales, BADSITES etc) so I ask you not to revert for that reason.
- I think how we respond to suspected banned users needs to be a theme of the mediation but that your suggestion is not how wikipedia deals with banned users with a history of sockpuppets. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)