Misplaced Pages

Edits on United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

Hi there - thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict article. You will see that I am engaged with a discussion of the issue on the talk page of that article both here and here - please engage in that discussion rather than reverting the changes I made without discussing first. Thanks Pexise (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussing is not an excuse for edit-warring. Please self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Israel

No, really, what was your justification for removing that content but not most of the rest of the article? I'm sure you didn't mean to remove content just because it suggests that Israel isn't perfect, so I'm assuming your failure to remove, say, the parts of your "Middle East" section that don't use the word "race" is an oversight. I'm just pointing it out so you can go back and remove it, in the interest of NOR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't expect a real response to a snide-filled comment. I was hoping you learned some sort of lesson from all the recent ANI drama you were involved with.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Absent justification for the removal, I'm restoring the information. Misplaced Pages is not censored, not for the benefit of Israel nor any other nation. Have a nice day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some help with copy editing

Hi BC, here's my new article. May I please ask you to fix my English, when you have a time? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for my friend. By the time I am finished, you will regret that you asked. (revert whatever you don't like) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am going to look at your copy edits as Ayin. Concept of Ayin is that everything is equal, for example there's no difference between ocean and dry land, so my editing, your editing, there's no difference between the two :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

you better hope another editor does not decide that since its nothingness it should be deleted on no-context A1 grounds.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sha, don't call it "nothingness". It is different, it is Ayin :-) OK, I'd like to ask your advise for the DYK hook please. How about: did you know that ... for kabbalists mystical secret of being and non-being became united in profound and powerful symbol of the Ayin? I like this hook, but is a direct quote from the book. Is this allowed to use a quote in a hook? BTW what should be correct name of the article? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

i can't see a problem with direct quote if its in qoutes and its attributed. though i don't claim to know every DYK rule. That said, the quote seems a bit grammatically off. Where is that quote from?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is from this book, page 362.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, with a few additional "the"s and commas ;) Not sure about the hook. If you want to use an entire attributed quote for your hook, it would only really make sense if you're quoting a notable scholar in the field. While the author appears reliable, it does not look like she's a major scholar. My opinion, of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on now, what the difference that "the" makes anyway :-) I hardly use those silly articles at all, and I believe people understand what I meant to say just about right. :-) Care to come up with a better hook?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto - Thanks for the commentary - Can I ask that you also scroll up and review some of the other commentary ? Underworld accociations, his $35 Million building and other concerns ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chzz helping me out

I can't figure out how to use the "named references" feature in the updated format. Please help. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In general,

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 
Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). Please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

I'm not sure what you mean about "updated format" though. So, if that doesn't answer, please give me more info - which article? (I'll watch this page, for your reply)  Chzz  ►  15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A while back editors were given an option of updating to a new format both on pages and when editing pages. I declined both. It appears that the new format is being forced upon us for editing page. The old version had an "named references" option when clicking the cite tab. The current format also has a "named refs" option under the cite tab, but nothing happens when i click on it. Hope I explained it. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha - I think you mean the "Reftools" gadget thing, which you can enable in your user preferences.

I don't use it myself, but I see there are two versions; Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar 1.0 and Misplaced Pages:RefToolbar 2.0. So I imagine that is the change you were referring to. However, 'named references' does still appear to work.

If those links do not help answer, then...as I am no expert on this, I suggest you speak directly to the author/maintainer, who is an active editor, Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs).

But if you don't sort it out, please give me a shout on my talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Actually, yes; I did just try it - and 'named references' did not seem to work.

I wonder if this is related to the update, in the last few days, of the "MediaWiki" software - it could well be. I know lots of script-things have been broken. I still think that asking Mr.Z-man is probably the best approach.  Chzz  ►  18:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There's a discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man#RefTools about this specific problem. Now fixed! Thanks so much for your help.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great, cool. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ayin (Kabbalah)

On 20 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ayin (Kabbalah), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that kabbalists believed that those who think of themselves as Ayin, a mystical symbol of Kabbalah, will ascend to a spiritual world where everything, including life and death, is equal? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

March 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Murder of Shalhevet Pass. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Having disagreed with you once months ago does not preclude a user from ever editing an article to which you have made minor contributions. Please stop making unsubstantiated accusations, which constitute personal attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were you I would self revert. Someone may decide to take you to the AE or 3rr Noticeboard for breaking the 1rr rule as applied to I-A articles. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't threaten other users in order to keep an article in your preferred state. That's probably more likely to draw censure than non-violation of 1RR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to be nice and notify you of the rules lest you get blindsided by a noticeboard. You really can do whatever you want. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'll assume that you're just unfamiliar with the sanctions on IP articles. Here's how they work: a revert is "any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Having reverted once would violate 0RR, not 1RR. But IP articles are under 1RR, not 0RR. If you reverted me, that would violate 1RR. But so far, no one has broken any rules. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm. wikilawering around edit-warring in spirit is not much of an improvement. it's really unfortunate that the problems raised regarding your behavior on numerous noticeboards does not appear to have changed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)