| Revision as of 05:41, 9 September 2006 editPproctor (talk | contribs)1,496 edits →Arbitration: Changes to WK:NOR← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:19, 27 July 2014 edit undo76.174.137.246 (talk) rv experiment ... | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;" | |||
| |align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:<!--#99CC99--><!--#FFCCFF--><!--#e1d1ff;--><!--#CC99FF;-->#dda0dd; color:#000000;"|<center>'''Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.'''</center> <center>— ''Robert Frost''</center> | |||
| |- | |||
| |valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color:<!--#CCFFCC--><!--#FFFFCC;--><!--beige--><!--#FFDAB9--><!--#CADABA;--><!--#e1f6ff;--><!--#e6e3af;--> <!--#e6e9ff;--><!--#e1d1ff;--><!--#ddcef2;-->#faf5ff; color:#000000;"|__NOTOC__ | |||
| {| align="center"} | |||
| {| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" | |||
| |- | |||
| ] | |||
| _<div style="margin-top: 10px;"> | |||
| {{POTD}} | |||
| <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote style="background: pink; border: solid 2px darkblue; padding: 1em;"> | |||
| <p><big> | |||
| <br><big>*Please comment about the content of a specific article on the talk page of that article, not here.</big> | |||
| <br><big>*No personal attacks.</big> | |||
| </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> | |||
| </div> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Semitic == | |||
| I have read the page ] yet I'm still confused by it and a debate I heard on TV yesterday. To what exactly does the term 'semitic' refer? The TV claimed the term refers to not only Jews but Arabs and all peoples descended from those in the middle eastern region. I always thought it referred only to Jews (as in 'anti-Semitic'). Do you care to wade into this quagmire and help clear it up? ] 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think I'll leave this to you. I know how much you enjoy quagmires. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| He started up right after your block expired. | |||
| ]. | |||
| Sigh. ] 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration== | |||
| Perhaps I'm being a bit too ''previous'', but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this ] kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration . --] 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Changes to ]== | |||
| Re: DuncHarris and Slrubenstein. Please seem my comments on ]. I am not attempting to disrupt or troll. Far from it-- I have merely been defending the existing guideline concerning self-citation by "experts" from what seems an underhanded and concerted attempt to change it. At the very least, I am trying to get everyone to follow the proper guidelines when they make such a change. | |||
| Likewise, presenting concrete evidence that an alleged "concensus" is no such thing under ] is legitimate, at least if the rules and guidelines have any meaning. Sorry if this requires confrontational language, but I do not see any alternative, having tried most of them. As I noted, Duncharris has recently been formally cited for "shenanegans" {]}. This does not seem to have slowed his activities in the slightest. ] 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||