I am: OUT
Archives |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Contents
Not covered by TB
Why do you keep reverting my edits under the dubious excuse "TBAN editor". I am not (yet?) topic banned from editing here, or at Western Wall, Women of the Wall or Tefillin. I'm banned from the conflict zone, and the Yishuv template is not one of them. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I believe Palestinian Wine is covered by the TBAN. As you were advised to do on your talk page, you should stop editing in that area until it is clarified. You are only hurting yourself. If you want, you can insert the Tzfat entry but the Wine entry is under TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Where was it agreed that Palestinian Wine is covered by the TB? 2. Why is Jewish textile industry in 16th century Safed not covered by the TB? 3. Is it that you find the word "Palestinian" offensive and therefore conflict related? Chesdovi (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1) Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN. 2) You know very well that you created your Palestinian Wine article to push your POV. and thanks for alerting me to the article, I thought it was an old one. You need to stop editing or you will end up being banned or blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN." LOL. No it isn't; don't be absurd @Chesdovi: -- Kendrick7talk 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It depends. The way the bureaucracy works, you might be able to ask questions to the banning admin. But discussing a TBAN while using the subject of the TBAN is a violation of the TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- But you agree that this is Kafkaesque, right? Such insanity isn't the purpose of the project per WP:BURO. Or maybe I'm the crazy one? I'll redouble my efforts to fix the policy page if you'll tell me I'm sane. -- Kendrick7talk 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- It depends. The way the bureaucracy works, you might be able to ask questions to the banning admin. But discussing a TBAN while using the subject of the TBAN is a violation of the TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN." LOL. No it isn't; don't be absurd @Chesdovi: -- Kendrick7talk 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1) Discussing your TBAN is a violation of your TBAN. 2) You know very well that you created your Palestinian Wine article to push your POV. and thanks for alerting me to the article, I thought it was an old one. You need to stop editing or you will end up being banned or blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Where was it agreed that Palestinian Wine is covered by the TB? 2. Why is Jewish textile industry in 16th century Safed not covered by the TB? 3. Is it that you find the word "Palestinian" offensive and therefore conflict related? Chesdovi (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Great Job Dealing with a disruptive user
I am not much on Wikipedia but I think you should take a look at VanEman's history of dumping lengthy negative material on informational articles of religious Jews in order to promote certain agendas. Aside from WP:RECENT he chooses very specific controversial details out of thousands years of history and articles on the subject. You have done a great job cleaning up and if you have time I think you should take a look at the edit history of this user. Caseeart (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"IP editors not allowed to edit here"?
Hi. You recently reverted a change to the Aliyah article, using "IP editors not allowed to edit here." as your edit summary. While I agree this individual's edit was questionable, and that his/her edit summary "use English" was not helpful, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would have prohibited this particular person from editing this particular article (or articles in general) solely on the grounds that he/she was not using an account. Can you elaborate? Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Certain topics or pages have ARBCOM enforced restrictions, broadly construed. In my opinion, the page fell into that arena. You can look at the notice template for more info: Template:Ds/alert. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I see — you're referring to the "General Prohibition" remedy of the ARBPIA3 case (WP:ARBPIA3). Fair enough. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Order of approximation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Mondoweiss
This is a capture of the source specified at the time the edit was made.[1] The content was added on 2012-03-14 and the capture is for 2012-02-29. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I think we have to go by what they say now. The claim is they do this because of X, but they DID it possibly because of X, but that source and claim is outdated. So in a new edition of the encyclopedia, it would not say it. That is one of the things of a fluid encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable argument for the lead. Whether the content of the article body should somehow capture the history and evolution of things like this is debatable - perhaps in an ideal world it would - but I agree that the very fact that the statement is no longer part of the current site is the key point. Having said that, the removal is inconsistent with the statement "we have to go by what they say now" because information was removed along with the source rather than updated based on the cited source. You can see that the lead no longer complies with WP:V, whereas in 2012 it did. That should be fixed at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)