User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 9

Hello, I'd like to request that you restore all the deletions you made in the Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World. As you know, the issue of deleting this category is still under discussion and should not have been acted on. I would also again like to request that you stop creating false entries. MK 04:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Andy Mabbett 16:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Me too. It's quite wrong to remove people from the category when it is still under discussion. --bodnotbod 17:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that you submitted Get-back-world-respect to RFC: Comments about Individual Users recently, but that it was deleted because it was not validated. I have resubmitted the request because of another dispute, and invite you to help me validate the request this time around. RFC: Get-back-world-respect. --Zanthalon 14:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi - could you leave some comments on the talk page of Template:Wikipedialang as to why you pulled out various constructed languages from the main listing? -- Kwekubo 21:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

missing semicolon after entity[edit]

Your displayed name (when you enter ~~~) has an HTML numerical entity reference without a semicolon at the end (before the 'sv'). Please add one as this causes improper display on browsers. Specifically, please change "&30505sv" to "&30505;sv". -- pne 12:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. (I think it was a fairly recent change to the software that made the parser more strict that caused those problems.) -- pne 07:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request accepted :-) Hmmmm, now, I go learn to do other things. When I know how to do enough things, and have teach in turn other people to do it as well, I can die in peace. Unsigned.

Last / Seven words of Jesus[edit]

Talk:Last words of Jesus — you disagree? — Matt 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um...what?[edit]

Did you just move "Eastern philosophy" to "Eastern culture"? And can you undo it quickly, please? (see Talk:Eastern culture -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Secretlondon 18:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...[edit]

Dear Stevertigo,

I just came across Wikipedia and have found it on the whole balanced in presentation. Unfortunately, I found the entry on anti-semitism http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/anti_semitism_1.html misleading and more harm than help. I have checked the procedure for criticizing articles, and found the talk page and your discussion, and I'm turning to you for assistance.

Keep in mind that content outside of Wikipedia is no longer a part of Wikipedia, even though this is where their content may get made, its usually updated rather quickly. I did not look at the link, nor am I concerned with the content of Wikipedia knock-offs, but how is such material "harmful?" If it certain parts are factually incorrect, change them. If they represent polemic views, and could be better written, change them. Learn as you write, though. The only mistake one can make is to 1. assume that their own views are neutral, and 2. assume that you know more than others. Both of these serve to engender disrespect rather than to facilitate communication and education. Extreme views and the extremist themselves can be weeded out. What is left is only a reflection of the current state of a dialogue which is constantly changing.

I've written up a few criticisms (use of 19th c term for the age-old problem of anti-Jewish sentiment, no mention of the REAL sources of anti-Jewish sentiment, i.e., the racist and anti-Christian elements of the Talmud and the role of Jews in their host countries) if you are interested.

I missed this part before, but this tells me that you have brought with you some pre-conceived notions about what x is, and you want some help with pushing your theory x. This is not the way wiki works, fortunately. Your notions what the REAL sources of x are 1. assumes that you know what is real 2. assumes that those who disagree with you are not rational, and hold some kind of monopoly on a view. I completely reject the attempts to insert specially-interpreted material as you propose in a any context other than one which deals with that particular material itself. And then, you must be prepared to take criticism for it, and learn from all of your critics. -SV

This unbalanced presentation of a very delicate issue feeds a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of Jews in their host societies at a time when the world is descending rapidly into world war prompted in the view of many authorities (including the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky) by the actions of Israel.

This is false. Neither Chomsky nor Finkelstein attribute the current war solely to Israel. Rather, they attribute to Israel a cultural change which forfeits Jewish and humanist principles, to an elitist and self-agrandizing state idolatry, which is largely a copy of US nationalism. Chomsky in particular is quite clear that it is the US and it's engines that drive the show; Israel has (for survival reasons) chosen to ally itself with the US, and in turn has at times done it's bidding. People like Dershowitx are completely correct to point out the hypocrisy of those who criticise Israel alone for the things the US does without question. The fact that many of Dershy's persuasion rarely put it so plainly is simply a factor of caution; anti-Semitism to them is a very real, ugly, and ignorant thing, which can't be dealt with reasonably. The thing that now comes back to haunt them, in this new connected age, is due to the cross-purposes of educating the public about the evils of Nazism, tyranny, etc, but then asking people to keep a blind eye to what goes on in Palestine. But that this hypocrisy is itself becoming a "potential source" for an increase of uneducated persecutory sentiment, is not going unnoticed. And this attention and reflection will manifest itself with an increased prominence of Israeli and US human rights group alliances, and strengths within their respective societies.

The operating wisdom seems to be an assumption average America is not educated, aware, sensible, and liberal enough to overcome "anti-Semitism," and this (paradoxically) is the reason for why all the excessive pro-War on Terror, nationalist, and anti-Arab pandering has really been going on. I hope that America doesn't substantiate this assumption. But though its quite natural to want to blame someone else, when a bad idea goes utterly wrong, the "moral Chernobyl" of Abu Ghraib, for example cannot be put on Israel, even if some of the methods appear to "originate" from "Jewish" anti-Arabism. After WWI, many Germans held the view that "non-Germans" were to blame for Germany's "tarnished glory," when the failures were exclusively the result of their own ethnocentric aggressions. WWI was so costly, its quite understandable how people tended to avoid personal responsibility for their own mistakes, but we all know where that particular scapegoating led, and what developed in the decades after... In otherwords, I understand where you may be coming from, but history is to be learned from, if youre not too old to learn.

It is telling that in other articles dealing with Jewish matters (Schneerson, anti-Zionism) the entries are qualified with "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Curiously the entry on anti-semitism is BOTH protected and free of this qualification, though I see there is at least some discussion going on the talk page. I'm not interested in engaging in online polemics, and I understand this issue is perhaps the most explosive in Wikipedia, but I see no reason why 'the other side' should not be fairly presented, even if the pro-Jewish POV gets the final word. Can you suggest how I could proceed? Thanks. - Eric Walberg

Page protections are a normal part of the cooling off process, and they are almost never misused to advance a view. I can understand that you personally dont want to engage in online polemics, but you cannot expect to recruit anyone to do your "work" for you. If what disinterests you about "polemic" engagement is the possibility that you may learn something from people you may disagree with, then I would encourage you to get over that phobia. Sincerely, Stevertigo 20:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I am considering my response to you carefully. I encourage you to read up on the articles we have at this point, and to understand wiki-culture a bit, in terms of how things eventually get done. Procedure is one thing. Wiki culture is quite another, as you may soon find out. Sincerely, Stevertigo 17:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stevertigo, please note that there are some disagreements about the persecution template. How disgusting to read in that context on your page about a guy who thinks people hated jews because jews were racists and were currently starting a world war. I am impressed with your calm answers. Get-back-world-respect 04:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks GBWR - people come to encyclopedias not because they know everything, but because they have a lot to learn. How is any of us different? ;) -Stevertigo 10:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is persecution?[edit]

Anti-<anything> might belong under persecution if you can find somewhere some people who are being persecuted for that anything, wherever exactly the lines between opposition, discrimination, and persecution are drawn. If you want a persecution category then obtain clear consensus guidelines for it that detail what constitutes persecution with clear examples of where it applies and where it doesn't. If there is no consensus for such guidelines and examples, then it's all individual POV and there should be no category.

For example, it seems to me that within the US in respect to anti-terrorist government policy that people who strongly support the current government position and those who are against the current government position can probably in individual cases claim persecution by others. jallan 18:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:Persecution and "anti-Americanism"[edit]

I find it questionable that an administrator who tries to defend a template that is opposed by three others in an article blocks that article. I find it intolerable that an administrator personally attacks others and deletes deletion requests. I am puzzled given what I wrote above. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, youre really pushing it, kid. Thats three times now that you have completely misrepresented what I have said or done. I did not remove any VFD material - you added it to VFD as a link (which I simply changed) and to the template itself, both caused it to stretch too wide. -Stevertigo 23:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If your template does not work as you like that is not my problem. A vote for deletion note is necessary in order to help others to join the discussion. A link from vfd is helpful in the same context and is common practice. Please do not further deface my talk page with condescending comments like "kid". I saw we already had a similar conflict where you ignored the wikipedia policy to refrain from personal attacks. I really cannot see why a person like you should be admin, not to speak of mediator. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest you all chill out? Take a break - or edit an article on flowers or something? Secretlondon 23:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It can be enforced ;) Seriously - it doesn't look a constructive spat - more of a slanging match - although I've seen sillier edit wars. Secretlondon 00:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipolicy is clearly that a deletion notice shall not be deleted until there is consensus to keep the article. If you know so well how to deal with things here why did you not do what I just did? Get-back-world-respect 00:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May I ask why you want to keep talk on a deletion vote page that is no longer needed and only diverts the readers from the real subject? I think it would have been in the interest of the communuity if you had accepted my proposal - and not doubled some paragraphs.

Interesting that you request comments on me after you repeatedly tried to insult me, which says more about you than anyone else, and ignores the Wikipedia policy No personal attacks. You also ignored wikipolicy when you deleted a vote for deletion note that clearly said Do not delete this note until there is consensus to keep. Also note that the comment page says Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If you think your condescending tirades were an attempt to resolve the issue I think you make a fool of yourself. Also note that Secretlondon's note was directed to both of us. I deem wasting others' time with a request for comment on you as equally ridiculous as your explanation: "irrational, incoherent process; unreasonable". Get-back-world-respect 10:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Youre misrepresenting me and my actions again. Thats the real reason for the RFC - to see if others have a history of this problem with you. "Note that" I simply trimmed up unnecessary material from the notice itself, and your insane apparent habit of deleting comments you dont like from your talk page isnt helpful either; which is why Im responding here. So, play not the innocent. All that said, at least your writing seems to becoming a bit more focused, and I appreciate that. -Stevertigo 17:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it was Tuomas who deleted the note. But although you knew that it was done and wrote yourself that the text should have been adapted to the template width, you did not do it, in spite of the warning. I have no history of deleting others' comments because only in very rare events have people here treated me in such a condescending way and attempted insults. The only one who used even worse inappropriate language was TDC, who had been banned for such things already before. When at the time I asked you what to do about it because I saw that you were a mediator, which made me think you should be a respectable user with skills of mediation and balancing, I got an offensive comment empty of any productive content. You never answered my question about it.

I once agreed with Cecropia that we should delete our off-topic talk, I thought you might be as reasonable. And I saw other people striking out inappropriate notes. The Wikipedia policy No personal attacks says Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. In extreme cases, users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. I repeat that I really cannot see why a person who engages in such nonsense should be an administrator, not to speak of mediator. Get-back-world-respect 14:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please delete the template now as it was voted to be deleted and if you want to tell me anything let me know at my own page as I stop watching yours. Get-back-world-respect 04:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Another one and I have merged the discussion as you suggested. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prejudice, Persecution, etc.[edit]

You ask, "What categories would you suggest that each of the subentries in the template be classified? This seems like a good solution. -Stevertigo"

I don't think Vfd is the best place to sort this out, but for one suggestion, we could have categories "Ethnic Persecution", "Ethnic Discrimination", and "Ethnic Prejudice" (probably also "Genocide") under Category "Ethnic_groups." But expect inclusions of particular articles to be controversial. Insofar as concerns are specific to ethnicity, we might discuss this further at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Insofar as concerns are not specific to ethnicity, we'll need some other categories that descend from elsewhere in the hierarchy. -- Jmabel 07:26, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion[edit]

Hi, since I know you like to be well-informed about issues you take a stand on, it might be worth your while to take a look at Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Humus wanted it to look: [1] It was a horrendous piece, a blantant pro-Israel editorial disguised as an encyclopedia article, consisting essentially of a list of mistakes made by the western media which thereby "proved" bias against Israel. When I encountered it about a month ago, I listed it on VfD, which may have not been the ideal response. Although a concensus to delete did not emerge, the discussion (which you can read here: [2]) did stimulate several of us to undertake a drastic rewrite of the text. We replaced the dubious and obviously slanted anecdotal material with, as you will have noticed, the results of "scientific" media analysis, ie word frequencies and other statistical information, which, much to the chagrin of pro-Israel faction, does not always favor Israel. Personally, I don't think the topic belongs in an encyclopedia; it lends itself better to a journalistic treatment, but the vote went to keep it, so we have done the best we can with the thing, although that is not of course to imply that it can't be improved. Anway, thanks for your continued help in keeping Wikipedia from turning into a soapbox for Pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian propaganda. -- Viajero 09:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of being afraid of "Pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian propaganda" and adding quotes from el-Intifada, we should work together on improving and NPOVing the article. Here is one typical edit by Viajero: [3]. I repeatedly offered to discuss it (as well as others) line by line. S/He does not engage in discussion, demonstratively does not cooperate, and reverts all edits other than his POV. Given Viajero's unwillingness to cooperate, his anti-Israel bias and his renaming of the article from its neutral title, I don't see how the phrase: "I listed it on VfD, which may have not been the ideal response." can be considered a concession. I don't see how we can proceed without him changing his attitude. Finally, being anti-Israel does not mean pro-Palestinian. The Palestinians deserve better than hatred incitement. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Okay, it's not really of use here to go back into the history with too much detail: Suffice it to say that you both represent poles in the spectrum, and that what you both produce will likely be prejudiced or otherwise considered by the other as biased. Amending to that, you two don't alone determine the article's development, and my favorite way of dealing with that is to simply protect the page, and bar the two main partisans from editing the article. In extreme cases, like with the famous Great Famine article debate, all but two selected moderates wind up editing the protected article. I say this simply to remind us of what must happen, in terms of process, regardless of what will happen in debate. -Stevertigo 21:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to mediate, SV. I am afraid the problem is larger than the two of us. Take a look at any article relating to Israel at WP, there is a lot of activity going on to deligitimize and smear it. In addition to pure editng and NPOV problem, my colleague is unwilling to negotiate/cooperate/discuss, uses condescending tone and heavy-handed tactics and has succesfully agitated others against me. There is nothing wrong to be a Zionist or one against it (well, of course it is wrong, but theoretically speaking...), as long as we respect each other and strive for the same goal of improving WP. I do not believe this is my crusading colleague's intent. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Humus:"There is nothing wrong to be a Zionist or one against it (well, of course it is wrong, but theoretically speaking...)" Zionism as I understand it simply advocated that Jews could return to the territory known (for a little while) as Palestine, right? It says nothing of forcing people from their homes, beating them with stones, chopping down their olive trees, taking their land, etc. Correct? If a philosophy does not express or espouse the harm of others, there can certainly be nothing "wrong" with it. So you are right; Zionism is not "wrong." Of course the reality seems a bit more complicated, in that both "Zionism" and "anti-Zionism" have extremist adherents within who do advocate and do harm to other human beings; and that harm, and the espousal thereof is "wrong," by whatever definition. Correct? I dont think that either you nor Viajero espouse the harm of others, and therefore I cannot consider either of your positions "wrong." -Stevertigo 01:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sayeth Humus Sapiens:"...as long as we respect each other and strive for the same goal of improving WP. I do not believe this is my crusading colleague's intent." If you are suggesting that Viajero is acting out of deliberate mischeif, malice, or ill-will toward Wikipedia, and its goals of neutrality, then I suggest you take that up with the board. I would prefer not to deal with offhand inferences made to desparage the character of a brother Wikipedian; and you both seem to be making insinuations about the other's true intentions. In fact what this kind of inuendo does is it demonstrates the weakness in your respective arguments; which from the perspective of practicality and process, are equally obstructive for the goals of Wikipedia. I will give a little more attention to these articles, and find someone willing to work with me for representing both of youre views. I still have my full respect for you both as intelligent and articulate people; should you choose to wisely extend that respect to each other, some progress will be made that will be mutually satisfying. Like sex is (or at least should be). -Stevertigo 01:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hate speech and listserve[edit]

I appreciate your comment on my talk page (although I think there are lots of editors more respected, and rightfully so, than I!). I think as with any discussion it is or should be evolving. I am irritated by the anonymous editor who responded to my comment to WHEELER mostly because I wanted to know what WHEELER thought, but that's life, at least at Wikipeida. By the way, do you understand the cause of the problem with my e-mails to the listserve? Do you know how to fix it? I don't want to resend my e-mails only to clutter up people's mailboxes unnecessarily, Slrubenstein

reply[edit]

You wrote:

it's not really of use here to go back into the history with too much detail: Suffice it to say that you both represent poles in the spectrum, and that what you both produce will likely be prejudiced or otherwise considered by the other as biased.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You are reducing this issue to an conflict between Humus and me. That fact is, as you would see if you took the time to view the page history and the read the Talk page which you admit you have not, is that the Media article, as it currently stands, represents the efforts on the part of at least a half-dozen users -- who understand Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy as Humus does not -- to turn this article from a crass pro-Israel screed into something halfway decent; we have all contributed material from various sources and we have edited each others contributions. If you don't want to spend time reading Talk pages and looking at page histories, that's your choice, but please spare me the uninformed pontificating and moralizing. For my part, I won't be troubling you any further. -- Viajero 15:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediator in the case of User:AndyL and User:WHEELER[edit]

A few days ago, AndyL listed a request on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page between User:WHEELER and himself:

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER and associated TALK page. Specific complaint about his anti-Semitic comment on Talk:Early_National_Socialism but also about his general conduct around POV editing and unencyclopedic behaviour. AndyL 05:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with sannse, it seems that the first step is to identify one or more members of the committee who are willing to mediate in this case, although before proceeding it will be necessary to clarify the goals of the mediation.

And just FYI, there has also been quite a bit of chatter on the WikiEN mailing list about similar issues.

If you are willing to act as the mediator in this case, please leave a brief note stating so at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:AndyL_and_User:WHEELER. The more people who are willing to mediate, the better, as this will provide more options for the two users to try to agree on.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi again -- I haven't heard from either party except to rule out Ed Poor. If you are still willing could you go ahead and take this on? It would be great if you could just contact each user and give them some info and get things started. You can find an example of what I've done before at User:Bcorr/new_articles#Mediation_Proposal_between_GrazingshipIV_and_Kingturtle. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

well done[edit]

Good sedition rewrite. Marlowe 04:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Picture of the day[edit]

Hi, It's great to see one of my images used for Picture of the day (the image is one of my favourites too), but I thought the picture had to be chosen from Wikipedia:Featured pictures? That one isn't, it's not on the candidates list either. Angela has reverted to the image that was already there for today. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:CFD[edit]

I think Template:CFD should be at Template:Cfd so that it is in the same style as Template:Vfd and Template:Ifd. ☞spencer195 19:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: Either Template:CFD and Template:RFD should be moved to Template:Cfd and Template:Rfd or Template:Vfd and Template:Ifd shoule be moved to Template:VFD and Template:IFD. ☞spencer195 19:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Highway 1[edit]

Even when on vacation I'm working for Wikipedia ;-)

sig[edit]

I don't know much of anything when it comes to my sig ;) Early upon coming to the wiki I tried using different colours, and was promptly scolded by martin. I stopped, but when I saw people using not just colours but small images, etc... I decided to try again, It was REALLY hard to get it the way it is now. Any advice on how to mess w it, (and what rules there are, if any) would be appreciated. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World[edit]

I have just added my name to the list of those in favour of keeping this category. Can you please undo all your deletes, since there is now a majority to keep the category, please. Noisy 17:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't find your comment on Village Pump. Did you mean somewhere else? Noisy 17:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was about to write it - got distracted, and now Ive got to run out for a bit. Stevertigo 18:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople[edit]

I don't understand why you edited Fall of Constantinople in the way you did. "A dog is an animal that barks" is ceteris paribus better than "A dog refers to an animal that barks", and I would say that the latter is incorrect; one should say instead that the word "dog" refers to the animal, thus: "Dog refers to an animal that barks". And then the word dog should be italicized because one is writing about the word rather than using the word to write about the animal. Sometimes it is important to write about the word rather than about the thing. That happens in cases where the word refers to different things in different contexts, or where there is controversy about the appropriateness of the word, or in various other circumstances. But far more often, writing about the thing rather than about the word is more appropriate, partly because to write about the word rather than the thing just adds needless complication. There's a page in the style manual about the over-use of the phrase "refers to"; I'll give you a link to it if I find it. Michael Hardy 16:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here it is Wikipedia:Use of 'refers to'. Michael Hardy 16:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above attacks a strawman. The article specifically says that in some cases refers to is appropriate, especially in dealing with divergent terms. That does not contradict the article's assertion that usually (as when one is writing the article titled dog) "A dog is an animal that barks" is better (even if only because simpler) than "A dog refers to an animal that barks). No one made a blanket claim that refers to is bad style, only that the simpler form should be used when it suffices (i.e., usually). Michael Hardy 21:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: Lest any confusion remain, I've expanded the article Wikipedia:Use of 'refers to' to deal at more length with the concerns you raise. Michael Hardy 21:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)