Misplaced Pages

User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:SlimVirgin Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:41, 9 September 2006 editPproctor (talk | contribs)1,496 edits →Arbitration: Changes to WK:NOR← Previous edit Revision as of 22:30, 9 September 2006 edit undoJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 edits your thoughts welcomedNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:


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) 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)

==Editor pushing own article==

]. Was created by the person himself. I doubt that really he is a person of any note - just a guy that's got a website. The same applies to ] - I have never heard of it. Should they be listed for deletion? I'm curious what your thoughts are. I've also caught him pushing his website on certain other wikipedia articles. Seems rather dodgy to me. ] 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:30, 9 September 2006

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.
— Robert Frost
_ Picture of the day Kefermarkt altarpiece Kefermarkt altarpiece Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1


*Please comment about the content of a specific article on the talk page of that article, not here.
*No personal attacks.

Semitic

I 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)

I think I'll leave this to you. I know how much you enjoy quagmires. :-) SlimVirgin 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

He 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)

Arbitration

Perhaps 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 research

Re: 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)

Editor pushing own article

Shahram Vahdany. Was created by the person himself. I doubt that really he is a person of any note - just a guy that's got a website. The same applies to Mwcnews - I have never heard of it. Should they be listed for deletion? I'm curious what your thoughts are. I've also caught him pushing his website on certain other wikipedia articles. Seems rather dodgy to me. John Smith's 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)