| Revision as of 16:32, 10 December 2012 editEvildoer187 (talk | contribs)4,470 edits →Users like you are the biggest problem of Misplaced Pages← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:43, 10 December 2012 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| :I won't delete this. I am confident enough in my edits to let them speak for themselves. You have me erroneously pegged as some sort of neo-Nazi type (even though I'm not even white) because I categorize Jews as a Semitic/Middle Eastern group, which is wholly grounded in fact and should not be problematic to anyone who isn't motivated by politics or racial insecurities.] (]) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | :I won't delete this. I am confident enough in my edits to let them speak for themselves. You have me erroneously pegged as some sort of neo-Nazi type (even though I'm not even white) because I categorize Jews as a Semitic/Middle Eastern group, which is wholly grounded in fact and should not be problematic to anyone who isn't motivated by politics or racial insecurities.] (]) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Result of the complaint about your edits at ] == | |||
| Hello Evildoer187. Please see of this complaint. The ] is being fully protected, and I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under ]. ] (]) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | image = yes | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page. | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| | valign = center | |||
| | ] | |||
| }} ] (]) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 10 December 2012
Jews in the Roman Empire
Why are you interested in the subject? Crock8 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- You could say that. But we're currently having a bit of a disagreement over there and we need some more people chiming in.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Categorizing Category:Jews
While Jews descend from Asians, one must go back over a thousand years. According to this logic, Hispanics should be part of Europeans, and Polynesians come from Southeast Asia. In fact, all people come from Africa, if you go back far enough. ypnypn (talk)
- I don't think that analogy works. Hispanics are an indigenous Amerindian group with European influences thanks to colonialism. However, Jews are primarily a Semitic/Middle Eastern population centered in Israel, and dispersed throughout the world. That's why it's called the Jewish "diaspora".Evildoer187 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I couldn't help noticing, and having a bit of a laugh. You may consult the work of Cavalli-Sforza on the subject, but I doubt you will convince any Jews they are 'Asian' :-) Classifying "Hispanics" is even more difficult. Polynesians coming from South East Asia is a theory last I heard, but maybe something new came up. Another theory is that they were refugees from "India" c.1,800 years ago.
That "all people come from Africa" is a really big statement to make considering that too is a theory.
- Many anthropologists have a problem with using Semitic as a taxonomic term because it presupposes belief in the authenticity of the Torah :-) Thing is, I doubt the Jews care much. Most would just be happy to be called by their proper identifier, Yisrael, Levi or Kohen. Crock8 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that my overly literal interpretation of things has left a great deal of people confused, if not outright @#!*% off. As another example, I would never classify an Afrikaner or Boer as African, as they are descendents of European colonists and are thus not truly native to Africa. I apply this same principle to Jews, who are by all accounts a diaspora population from ancient Israel, which is located in Asia, hence my classification of Jews as Asian.
In fact, the only people I know who try to frame Jews as a non-Semitic group are those who are looking for an excuse to kick Jews out of the Middle East. I refuse to conform to such bigoted and historically revisionist views in my editing.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you completely missed my point. "People of ___ descent" refers to a few generations back, not thousands of years. Jews left Judea en masse 2000+ years ago. My examples weren't meant to be taken so percisely. -- ypnypn (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's just agree to disagree. I don't want to get into this debate again.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Block talk
I dont want to see you get blocked from editing - just so you know there has been some talk about the fact a few have broken the one revert rule for the List of indigenous peoples article as it falls under {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. Best to talk over editing when it comes to articles like this. We are talking about the refs but oddly the 2 that are reverting each-other are not talking. Pls come to the talk page again.Moxy (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Revision as of 13:11, 7 December 2012 here
- Revision as of 05:32, 8 December 2012 here
- I made the same slip of two reverts within 24 hours, as Tritomex reminded me on my page, reverting me (properly) before I could myself do that. You or someone else on your behalf are obliged to revert as a sign of good faith.
- As a further point of etiquette, deeply contentious edits should not be reposted, but rather discussed until the issues between disagreeing editors are sorted out collegially on the talk page. This WP:OR construction is seriously problematical, not only in my view, and therefore should not be continually reposted in the article space until full discussion takes place.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Pls see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Evildoer187.Moxy (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Users like you are the biggest problem of Misplaced Pages
Taking over articles, adding personal political or even racial opinions using "sources", removing anything you dislike like you're owning Misplaced Pages, refusing to understand what's wrong with your POV edits (and basically almost all your edits are POV), giving warnings to anyone you feel has a different opinion, adding fringe and minority opinions about serious subjects like race, heritage and ethnicity and making them look like "facts". Go ahead, delete this if you want. I'm not going to report you, I just hope that you'll learn what's wrong with your edits, or that more users will see this and our long discussions on my talk page and understand your problematic edits. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I won't delete this. I am confident enough in my edits to let them speak for themselves. You have me erroneously pegged as some sort of neo-Nazi type (even though I'm not even white) because I categorize Jews as a Semitic/Middle Eastern group, which is wholly grounded in fact and should not be problematic to anyone who isn't motivated by politics or racial insecurities.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement
Hello Evildoer187. Please see the result of this complaint. The List of indigenous peoples is being fully protected, and I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
File:YesThe Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.