Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 26 January 2009 (→Your bizarre and uncivil behavior: rsep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

West End Avenue

I'm enhancing West End Avenue and you appear to be a Misplaced Pages savant. Can you show me how to put the word historicist into a sentence, and have it link to the architectural syyle historicism (art), not the philosophical theory. Gratefully, Historicist (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Take a look at Help:Pipe trick for more complete details, but if you look at the link here for historicist you'll see how it's done by typing ], which says to use the article for historicism (art), but display the text "historicist". I keep an eye on the article, and the easiest thing to do is edit away and worry about the formatting later. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Lopatin

If the under construction tag hadn't been there, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. The notability tag I put on it is a warning to the author that they need to provide some notability or it's going to be nominated for deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?

Among the features on the Misplaced Pages main page is Did You Know?, which highlights new articles. To qualify, articles must have been created (or expanded) within the past five days, be a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose and contain an interesting hook to draw people to the article of less than 200 characters. I took a look at your contributions and saw the article about Asher Lopatin. I did some cleanup, added a few sources and categories and took the liberty of nominating the article at Template talk:Did you know. I have seen some of your other articles, and the one for Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel, which would have been a great example of a hook with its creation over a straw hat. I will monitor the nomination and respond to any issues, and you can check the page at T:TDYK to follow the progress of the nomination. As you appear to have an interest in creating and expanding articles, this may be an outlet to reach a broader audience for your work. Alansohn (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldest synagogues

Historicist: there's not a lot I can tell you, I'm afraid. I knew of the fact of its founding, prob. as a result of Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but beyond that I know little.

DYK for Asher Lopatin

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asher Lopatin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NYT

Have you have seen a paper or microfiche copy of the obit? If so, please remove the note. Otherwise, we need to mention that it has not been checked. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy to take your word on it; I just like to ensure that someone is vouching for the accuracy of texts that are not instantly accessible. I could have made it to my local library on Sunday if necessary, but as you already checked it, that's fantastic. However, I guess we should source the Saudi citizenship to the obit, as opposed to now where it looks like it's supported by a different source. Thanks again, -- Avi (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to ensure that accurate information is properly cited; which is why I placed the {{cn}} tag on the Saudi citizenship, since it was not found in the source supporting the rest of the sentence. Now that you have verified that information, the article is that much more accurate and complete. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona)

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona)

I appreciate what you're saying, but we can still only go with what the sources say. If the article eventually gets to GA status, any unsourced claim will be immediately challenged. Jayjg 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice

Nice to see genuine attempts to resolve conflicts in a collaborative spirit and I give you full props for it. I hope we'll find an agreed upon final version sooner rather than later. Cheers, Jaakobou 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Włodawa Synagogue

On 6 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Włodawa Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim

thank you for your offercan you help me write the artical? here are some links: please tell me you have any questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

there are ready is a page for a st. thomas synagogue but Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim was created first should we just mereger Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim with the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

email communication. Alternatively, you can reach me via email by clicking on Special:EmailUser/Alansohn. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you had a chance, but enable your email or send me one at [[Spe

Kol ami of Frederick

thank you very much. i have cited many newspaper please tell me what you think Psycowitz (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Synagogue

Hi. By including a pipe (|) with a space after it, the article Synagogue shows up as the first article in Category:Synagogues instead of appearing sorted under "S". That's often done with the "main" article for a category. For example, Judaism is the first article in Category:Judaism, etc. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Nice work on synagogue articles recently btw though your attention is needed at DYK for your wooden synagogue nomination so that it can be featured on the main page. Are you going to write an article on Wolpa? Best, DVD 07:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Wooden synagogue

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wooden synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth

Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory 10:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Great synagogue articles!

Your recent additions are most welcome. Włodawa Synagogue and Łańcut Synagogue have some great photos too. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Please remain civil when commenting at CfD. Comment on proposals and not on editors. Your suggesting that I am ignorant is uncivil, and similar comments led to another editor being blocked from editing. Good Ol’factory 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Copied from the discussion FYI

• I have attacked no one. I have repeatedly asked all users to refrain from such attacks, so I was reminding you to do so on your talk page. I again ask you to avoid discussions of me as a user as opposed to the merits of the category. It's irrelevant if everyone disagrees with my opinion or not—that is not a licence to attack me and say I'm engaging in what appears to be "a mild form of Hlocaust denial" or that I have an "extreme enthusiasm for trivializing the Holocaust". If you are unable to restrain yourself and thereby comply with WP standards of civility, please don't participate in the discussion. IZAK's comments and the comments immediately below are examples of how you can participate and disagree without making the issue personal. P.S.: I personally have blocked no editor as a result of this discussion: it was the result of a neutral adjudication that the comments in question violated a pre-existing editing restriction on Alansohn.Good Ol’factory 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that anyone reading this sectionn will go back and read good Olefactory's Holocaust minimizing comments.Historicist (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, doing it on your own talk page doesn't make it "OK", either. Good Ol’factory 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of what makes me question Good Olefactory's motivation, is the absurd amount of time he has spent attacking me and trying to get a prima facie category deleted, with no support form the numerous other editors who have visited the issue. Why? Who has that kind of animus against the victoms of the Holocaust?Historicist (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh). I have not attacked you. As for my motivations, which you are speculating about, please WP:AGF. I'm trying to raise the level of civility on WP, and I don't think a few minutes to write a note to a user is "absurd". These are foundational WP principles. If you choose not to abide by them, you're not welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your bizarre and uncivil behavior

copied from my talk page

I truly don't understand what you are about. You propose to delete a perfectly proper category Holocaust survivors. In your proposal you minimize the suffering of Holocaust survivors in a manner that other editors find offensive. Instead of apologizing when the offensive nature of your Holocaust minimization is pointed out, you spend a lot of time attacking me on my talk page. You get no support for the deletion from any of the several editors who visit the issue. Despite this, you spend a great deal of time continuing to argue for the deletion. Get a grip.Historicist (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, mate—I can't make that any more clear. If you think I have, I'd be anxious to see it. It's not about you, and it's not about me, and it's not about validation or invalidation of real-life Holocaust survivors. Focus on discussing proposals, not on personalities. The section is called "categories for discussion" and even if users disagree with a proposal to merge (which they are entirely at liberty to do), it doesn't preclude further discussion about the proper use of the category. You know nothing of my motivations (you've admitted yourself you "don't understand" them and find them "bizarre"), so in such a situation the principle of assuming good faith comes in. I suggest we all try it. And where do you get the information about the amount of time I've spent in the discussion? All things considered, I've spent very little amounts of time there relative to my overall WP activity. Good Ol’factory 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dere Good Olefactory, Please consider why your language might be considered offensive. In seeking to delete the category Holocaust survivors, you wrote: "because any Jew who lived in Europe during the Nazi-era could technically call themself a "Holocaust survivor", but I think what is worth categorizing is people who survived being in a Nazi concentration camp, not just being a Jew in 1930s/1940s Europe who managed to survive World War II." Any Jew who was in Europe during the war was in mortal peril every minute of every day. It is now known that well over a million Jews were murdered by Nazis and and by ordinary Europeans without ever entering a Death Camp. Entire Jewish communities in Poland and the Ukraine were rounded up by neighbors, pushed into synagogues, and burned alive. Others were murdered in cold blood by neighbors who wished to appropriate their homes, their porperty and their businesses. Some were offered shelter in exchange for gold, then murdered by their pretended saviors. The literature and legal documentation of the brutal murder of Jews during the war for the crime of being Jewish fills libraries and court archives. Yes, as you wirte "any Jew who lived in Europe during the Nazi-era could technically call themself a "Holocaust survivor." Most of us would conclude that any Jew who survived the conditions I have described deserve our sympathy and respect. Yet you dismiss their suffering, asserting that "just being a Jew... who managed to survive World War II," is unworthy of mention as a Misplaced Pages category. Your kind of minimization of human suffering is highly offensive. I am await an apology.Historicist (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to how someone phrases a proposal in a discussion isn't typically what is meant by uncivil language. Uncivil language is attacking other users, using profanity, belittling other users, mocking other users, alleging that other users are racist or bigoted, quoting someone out of context to change the meaning of their comments, etc. Your suggestion that I "dismiss suffering" is an interpretation of what I said. I am sorry that you were offended, because that was not my intent—but you have clearly misinterpreted the intended meaning. That is something that WP:AGF suggests you should consider prior to claiming that I am personally attacking anyone, being anti-Semitic, engaging in Holocaust denial or minimalisation, etc. Good Ol’factory 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)