| Revision as of 02:57, 9 September 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Arbitration: I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:41, 9 September 2006 edit undoPproctor (talk | contribs)1,496 edits →Arbitration: Changes to WK:NORNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| ==Arbitration== | ==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) | 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) | |||
Revision as of 05:41, 9 September 2006
snow-coat.jpg)
SemiticI have read the page semitic 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? DocEss 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
FYIHe started up right after your block expired. WP:AN/3RR#User:DeathSeeker_.282nd_violation.29_reported_by_User:Nandesuka_.28Result:.29. Sigh. Nandesuka 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) ArbitrationPerhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration . --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Changes to Misplaced Pages talk:No original researchRe: DuncHarris and Slrubenstein. Please seem my comments on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. 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 Misplaced Pages:concensus 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" {Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture}. This does not seem to have slowed his activities in the slightest. Pproctor 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |