Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 18 June 2018 (→Comments re: comments on anti-semitism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, welcome to my talk page! I'm only human and I make plenty of errors -- if you are here to complain about a tag, a warning, a deletion, or something I've said, please assume good faith. If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help. This user has Asperger's. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. Being rude will get you nowhere. If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it and over it, but I don't like game players When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The Facts stood in front of a crowd of Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers and said: "Hey, I'm The Facts, did you want me?"
The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers replied, "We only want the part of you that supports our opinion!"
The Facts replied naively, "Ha-ha, you can't just take a part of me, silly!"
After having a bite taken out of it by The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers, The Facts sadly and with tears dejectedly said, "But...they could. And did."
True story. Just look at the politically-based articles in Misplaced Pages and their related talk pages for evidence.

"It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that,” as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I’m offended by that!' Well, so fucking what?" --Stephen Fry

"Trust no one here or anywhere on the internet unless they are a personal friend or family member. People love to screw with others online, usually because they have empty, meaningless lives and want to take their personal misery out on others from their computer keyboards." -- Me

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

AN thread re:Andrevan

Apart from Andrevan (who, despite multiple warnings, seems to be walking towards an American Politics topic ban and/or de-sysop), I don't want to name names. But that type of thread will draw a lot of comments that will look awful in any new ARBCOM case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's all in good humor. Lighten up. There's nothing wrong happening there, except on the part of the dude who is using his adminship to scare editors from editing and discussing and is accusing without anything substantive. The only person for whom this isn't going to end up well is Andrevan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I have an over-active imagination regarding what ARBCOM will end up doing, and how bad this thread might get in the next day. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My bet is this will end up to be another incident where an admin has taken a jump off the high dive as at least one other has recently. This will be on a smaller scale - much less dramatic - and behind closed "doors" for any defrocking that may take place. I mean, you gotta admit... it's all pretty humorous. Sad to see such a thing go down with anyone, but the whole premise reminds me of something out of Monty Python. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I honestly thought that well here this guy is an admin and a crat so maybe he is here to snap the article into shape. But now, I am seriously wondering if he isn't just vaporlocking.--MONGO 05:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Or... I wonder if his account has been compromised. If you look at his editing history, he's absent for long periods, months even. Could have been hacked? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a distinct possibility.--MONGO 05:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL, no, it's not. Andrevan@ 19:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You should have stuck with the compromised account story. It would have turned out better for you, Andrevan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Simply because I have not OUTed User:MONGO in a way that would violate his privacy does not mean there is no evidence. I am giving him an opportunity to disclose his WP:COI. Andrevan@ 19:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You really need to drop the stick and back away from the equine carcass. If you do not, this will not end up well for you. Other admins have already advised you in the same manner. Are you really unable to see the writing on the wall if you continue down this path? Then again, maybe you're seeking to implode and go down in flames. If so, enjoy some Stoli while you're at the BBQ. I've heard tenderized horse makes for a fine meal. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

They have hardly edited in better part of a decade since unlikely they care. Let him go ahead and sink his own battleship.--MONGO 21:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikilove for you

	White Russian
	Did you know that the White Russian is not really Russian. Merely accused of being Russian. Kinda like you! – Lionel 10:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll be sure to drink it. Since it isn't likely to make me Russian. Never did like their winter hats lol. Thanks, Lionelt for the laugh! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• OMG - seriously...that's what I had during Happy Hour at my house yesterday!!! Shhhhh...🤐 16:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

With a side of borscht and caviar while wearing your ushanka, right? :-D -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wears it better...? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

Your last edit appears to say that consensus and reliable sources are not important, only THE TRUTH is important. That's called tendentious editing and you are violating the policy on it. Although I am an involved editor, your position violates policy, so please retract said position and agree to abide by our policy consensus mechanisms. If not, I will have no qualms about pursuing further discretionary sanctions or a block. Andrevan@ 01:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not violating the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS policy by voicing my opinion; the policy you are quoting does not apply in this situation. And I certainly never said consensus and reliable sources are not important - you are reading things into my comments that are simply not there. There was no edit or change to content on my part, just an expression of my opinion on the talk page. I never gave any indication I intend to edit according to the opinion I expressed, and truth be told, I would not do so. Editors are allowed to express disagreement with policy. Now, you are free to attempt to seek a sanction for something that has done nothing to actually violate policy, but I don't think you'll get far doing it. What you will be doing is wasting someone's (or several someones') time by doing so. Hopefully, you will realize this and not follow through. I can see why you might be concerned, because you really don't know me as an editor, but I assure you, I had no mal-intent in mind when I stated my opinion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The editors on the talk page are discussing what text to fold into the article. There's nothing else to discuss there and when editors engage with you there it is with the understanding that the discussion concerns article content and its improvement. A personal opinion that you claim is unrelated to editing does not belong on the article talk page. And I think it's obvious that nobody came there to chat with you and that nobody would have responded to you if they thought you were not discussing what should go in the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors voice their personal opinions on things regarding Misplaced Pages and policy at article talk pages all the time. There's nothing wrong with what I stated other than there are those who disagree with me. Which is fine. If we all agreed on everything, life would be not worth living, in my opinion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Editors are allowed to express disagreement with policy." Not exactly. You may go to a policy talk page and opine about the policy there, but you can't exactly argue on an article talk page to insert text that is not compliant with policy. Andrevan@ 02:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing policy that states editors are not allowed to express disagreement with policy. Is there one? Not to mention I wasn't arguing about it, I was stating an opinion. Nor did I "insert text that is not compliant with policy". You're getting into mountains-into-molehills territory, Andrevan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You wrote, "And if the actual term for his comments are xenophobic, who really cares if it's a minority view or not? I know I don't on a personal basis. Right is right, regardless of whether it's accepted by a minority or majority of people overall. And honestly, that's a big part of the problem with consensus decisions in Misplaced Pages: a consensus borne out of the majority being dead wrong doesn't make the minority view any less correct or true" Actually, the majority and minority view is something we all should care about. That's how you determine considerations of WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, etc. Andrevan@ 02:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I know what I wrote. It was a personal opinion on terminology, not a plan to edit anything differently than is already there, not a plan to go against policy, not a plan to insert POV, not a plan to do anything against policy. Like I said: molehillmorphingintomountainquickly. Be careful to not go the way of WP:AOTE, Andrevan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say Winkelvi was a little out of line when with that comment, but not ridiculously so. He's expressing his thoughts on how to improve the encyclopedia, and in that regard he has WP:IAR on his side. It's an article talk page: people make suggestions, and they will be interpreted at whatever value they have. I think the more notable offense here was Andrevan coming here, accusing him of tendentious editing and threatening to bring in sanctions, especially since I read not two days ago that you are possibly facing sanctions and/or desysoping as a result of tendentious editing on your part (although I unfortunately cannot remember where I read that anymore). This could have easily been addressed without the threats and wiki-lawyering. —Compassionate727  03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see where it was: literally two sections up on this very talk page. —Compassionate727  03:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Compassionate727, the entire progression for that incident is here: , , ,. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You will not find someone who will defend a WP:IAR justification for advocating against core policies. Winkelvi clarified that he will follow the policy so there's no problem. Andrevan@ 03:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thing is, Andrevan there wasn't a problem to begin with. I would have clarified it if you had chosen to WP:AGF and asked what I meant by my comments. Rather, you chose to accuse me of violating policy and threatened me with discretionary sanctions and a block. Over a misunderstanding. Tell me, which is the better way to first approach someone - how you did it or how I suggest you should have done it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Come on now, you don't think you can just argue against the actual practice of consensus and RS policy on an article talk page? That is disruptive, and I appreciate that you aren't going to do it anymore. In return, I promise to hold up my end and AGF for your future contributions. I'm not required to AGF in cases of users specifically arguing that consensus doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter what the majority view is in the RS. That's a violation of policy. Policy includes discussion on talk pages. Andrevan@ 03:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

But you are required to assume good faith of those violating consensus: Violations of policies—such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in (emphasis mine). —Compassionate727  03:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There are limits to that. See Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". Andrevan@ 03:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. But I don't think we've demonstrated that Winkelvi is refusing to get the point. —Compassionate727  04:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. He clearly gets the point that he can't argue that consensus doesn't matter, or claim that RS' majority view isn't what will be reflected in the article. Andrevan@ 04:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"he can't argue that consensus doesn't matter" I never did that in the first place. "or claim that RS' majority view isn't what will be reflected in the article" I never said that, either. And if those two things are what you're basing your lack of good faith and threats of discretionary sanctions and a block, well -- Houston, we have a problem (and it isn't my problem). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This looks like harassment at this point.--MONGO 04:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's starting to. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, an opinion on the talk page that WEIGHT, BLP and UNDUE should be considered more strongly by those weighing in on content decisions is not tendentious editing nor is it RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's what everyone should be doing. We have many considerations for forming consensus and disagreeing is part of the process of forming it. Please stop bludgeoning editors in an attempt to remove dissent and opinion that's different from your own. That is not consensus building and has a chilling effect on editing and violates policy. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:44A8:FE7:35B4:CB3D (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for consensus on capitalization of "independent"

Hi, you may be able to provide insight on the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Stylistic question about capitalization of "independent" in an infobox. It's clear that "independent" should not be capitalized in a sentence (except if it's the first word), as is the usage in Independent politician, because it is a common noun and not a proper noun, like Republican. Should it be capitalized in an infobox or when it's abreviated in parentheses, i.e. Bernie Sanders (i) vs Bernie Sanders (I)? I look forward to your thoughts at the talk page, above. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

Regarding ^^^ this ^^^, left on my talk page without any kind of meaningful edit summary or note from the individual who left it here unexplained: This is strange, indeed. My last edits to a DS article were more than 12 hours ago, the talk page of that article almost 12 hours ago. Further strange when you consider it was the individual leaving the notice who seemingly violated the notification and DS "rules" by reverting the challenged content back into the article here, without discussing first or attempting to go by the accepted cycle of WP:BRD. I have made no questionable contributions to an article with DS sanctions or arbitration remedies, and - unfortunately - can only surmise that it was left here as a form of retaliation for this, and this at this talk page. Without any explanation and no edits from me to a DS article for 12 hours, this seems like harassment intended to have a chilling effect. But I'm certainly willing to hear/read a reasonable explanation from the editor leaving the notification. MrX? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Different DS area. As I understand it, there needs to be a notice for each area of DS one wonders into. As it says: “It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.” O3000 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct, this was merely an alert so that Winkelvi is aware that articles like NRA are under discretionary sanctions. I too received one a couple of months ago and I thanked the user who gave it to me.- MrX 🖋 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't make sense considering I mentioned DS in my edit summary that reverted your addition to the National Rifle Association article. That diff is noted above. Clearly, you already knew I was, and am, "aware". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the notices are logged by DS area and you cannot be sanctioned at AE without a log entry. That is,you are not considered "aware" unless logged. OTOH, take care in issuing DS warnings as I believe it’s technically a vio to give a warning to a user that has already been warned for the same area. O3000 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It was "merely" an advisory thingee, but of course. I believe if a year has passed, update reminders are allowable?--MONGO 14:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now the motivation for leaving the notification is clear. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See the chrome notice on the top of my TP - you can list all the areas you plan to edit that are under DS sanctions and save the clutter on your TP. 😉 Whistle britches is the template ark-ee-tect...I just modified it to fit my needs. 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly handy. Thanks, Atsme! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the last time I take the time explaining anything to you (to be deleted momentarily). O3000 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Another disturbing trend

Hi Winkelvi - found you on Dinesh D'Souza today and read your "other disturbing trend". As a Brit I can well empathise - so much crazy on your side of the pond right now - so I thought you might like to hear a note of optimism. In the eight years I have been an editor most of my edits have been "in passing". I read voraciously, across innumerable subjects, and can thus claim a fairly broad perspective. I'm also an NPR. I have seen, (been in), edit wars and have suffered many deletes, but generally I think the quality of writing is consistently improving as people have come to rely more on Misplaced Pages for reliable info. The interface, similarly, has evolved enormously. What's trending right now is merely a reflection of current social turbulance that will pass. Misplaced Pages is a thing of substance that will endure, long after the Orange One . Be well - Mark 03:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

D'Souza

I am a big fan of removing quotations, unless it's Gandhi or MLK; I hadn't noticed it until you placed that tag since I was only looking at the published books, so thanks. It's typically all over political articles--it's like every politician is supposed to have a registered opinion on a dozen topics, and if no one has ever commented on politician X's position on this or that, editors will pull something off the election website. So, yeah, that's why I said "good point". Drmies (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate you doing your part, Drmies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• OH, now I remember how I got to the article: because I saw the edit above go by on Recent changes, haha. I was going to look for this disturbing trend but ran into a man who's got a dozen books or whatever, with few of them actually described in the article. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Liberty University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard to this edit where you have, once again, cast aspersions on an editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Nice try, but I didn't cast aspersions on anyone. A generalized comment/observation about no one in particular is not a personal attack. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bad Grandmas movie poster.jpg

Template:Non free image to be reduced RonBot (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for all your efforts at Liberty University and other articles, remaining civil and ensuring that content is encyclopedic and NPOV. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Marquis de Faux. I try my best to accomplish all those things. Your thanks are appreciated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bourdain

Apropos the Anthony Bourdain suicide discussion, I like your story of the Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers. Very apt in this case. Sca (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Threading your comments

First, you should read this, for help in threading your comments on Talk pages. As for your suggestion, I don't think I will need to take anyone to ANI just yet. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG - don't revert out valid talk page comments, ever. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Then thread them right. Don't place your inane comments above others just because you want attention. Everyone knows you have to be the center of attention and want everyone to listen to what you have to say, even if it's just goofy. Place your comments in the correct place, thread them right, and they won't be removed. Dave Dial (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dave Dial, I'd be interested in a reasonable explanation for the following inappropriate and against-policy reverts of my talk page comments: at the Anthony Bourdain talk page, at my talk page. Not threading in a particular manner is not, to my knowledge, a valid reason to completely revert/remove someone's talk page comments. Is there a policy I'm not aware of? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let the explanations I've already gave be the explanations you have. Dave Dial (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been here long enough, I'm going to assume then that you are you aware such actions are considered intentionally disruptive and are very much against policy. Which begs the question: why did you do it not just once at an article but also here? And then violate policy re:personal attacks several times in edit summaries and in your comments here "Don't place your inane comments above others just because you want attention. Everyone knows you have to be the center of attention and want everyone to listen to what you have to say, even if it's just goofy.", "Warning from the little goofball" , "Honey, you a goofball" , "Here it is, little guy" . I'm just not seeing why your choices here would be considered acceptable. Perhaps you can enlighten me? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Agree that the tag should be there - an RfC needs to be started to get other eyes on this and more input

Good. If you don't start one in 24 hours, the tag comes off. If your comments are unproductive time-wasting, the tag comes off. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to intimidate and bully noted. Brrrr.... (not really) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to !vote yes. However I don't think the RfC is likely to be effective, so if your goal is actual article improvement I suggest you withdraw it and propose some specific changes. If you're not prepared or inclined to propose your own specific changes then I can do that part. I've made some specific proposals but they've been ignored, probably lost in all the battlegrounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vote stacking concern O3000 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just an fyi - re: , I could not find that word in the BLP. 00:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if you go to this section of the BLP, it states he has ordered unjust executions: "Kim Jong-un has also put to death members of Jang's family, to completely destroy all traces of Jang's existence through "extensive executions" of his family, including the children and grandchildren of all close relatives." That said, if someone wants to revert my revert, it's not a hill I will choose to die on. I just get really tired of all the over-sensitivity over certain comments on BLP talk pages while Trump- and GOP-haters are allowed to say anything they want in violation of BLP guideline about same - while no one bats an eye and if you tell them they've violated BLP, they mock you and revert back in what you've redacted. In my opinion, article talk pages where politics are concerned have become just like social media, and that's not a good thing.

As far as Kim is concerned, it's well known he's a murderous dictator, reliable sources have reported it (remember, "we follow the sources" - ha!) and the article here supports that, so I fail to see how stating what's sourced would be a BLP issue. Make sense? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See how they tiptoed around such terminology in Hitler, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundy - and even in Kim Jong-un. If it's stated in a RS, we can quote it, or we can write that he committed murder (n) or killed people (v) but I wouldn't use the more passionate news-style terminology in the pedia, such as murderous (adj), to describe a BLP, although some of our admins have been far more lenient about name-calling on TPs - anyway...it was just a suggestion. 02:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mean someone wrote something really negative in Misplaced Pages about a BLP or bio article subject without really saying it? I'm shocked. Simply shocked. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments re: comments on anti-semitism

Please stop attacking other editors and disrupting content discussions at talk:Donald Trump#rump administration and the family separation policy as you did here and here. It's disruptive and damaging to the collaboration. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or so I've been told.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what appear to be anti-semitic remarks on a talk page for an article that has views which number in the tens-of-thousands where anyone "off the street" could wander into the talk page discussion to be disruptive. Her comments were what was disruptive, not me pointing them out for what they appear to be. She needs to admit her error and the comments need to be struck with an explanation next to them for the strike. When you leave a comment that says that Hasidic Jews are "unwashed" and "dumb" and imply they are greedy, it should never be just left without a qualifier and explanation. As they are written in the original comment, they are unabashedly anti-semitic, full stop. That's just inexcusable. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, why are you importing this nonsense into an unrelated discussion? Secondly, you are blatantly misrepresenting SPECIFICO. Here's what she actually wrote:

"MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 8:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

She did not say Hasidic Jews are unwashed; she posed a hypothetical of what Trump might think, using an idiom commonly understood to mean poor or unsophisticated. She also did not say that Hasidic Jews are dumb. To characterize these comments as antisemitic is ridiculous. I'm not sure if this is a reading comprehension issue or just a lie, but please keep it off of article talk pages. Most of us are trying to improve content, and these mini-battles are very disruptive to that process. See WP:ARBAPDS for why this behavior is unacceptable.- MrX 🖋 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"She posed a hypothetical about what Trump might think..." Sounds like talkpage disruption to me.MONGO 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Hypotheticals and assumptions about the thought processes of BLP article subjects are not productive for discussion on improvements to the article. But that's what's happening at Conservative-based AP2 articles continually of late. It's as if anti-Trumpers, never-Trumpers, anti-GOP, anti-Conservative editors have forgotten article talk pages are not Facebook. Also, I note this just happened at AE. I believe Sir Joseph is Jewish, isn't he? Seems to me that if someone who's Jewish sees SPECIFICO's comments as anti-semitic, the proof is in the perception by those in the protected class, regardless of how many explanations are provided and how many apologists for her comments emerge. And truly, if anti-discrimination law and the ADL would consider those comments discriminatory hate speech, why shouldn't we? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what my religion is, comments about unwashed, dumb and money have no place in a discussion. I've gotten in trouble for pointing out troubling posts in the past and admins have given them a free pass, but I still think it's my duty to point them out. Sir Joseph 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my comments, Sir Joseph. I'm not trying to capitalize on your faith in order to make my point. I'm only saying as a non-Jewish person that if I see them as anti-semitic and a Jewish person also sees them as anti-semitic, then they are anti-semitic. If you didn't see them as such by their nature - regardless of her intent when she wrote it all - then I would likely abandon my belief that they are anti-semitic. My feeling is that if anyone who is Jewish happens to stop by there and read them and is insulted and/or offended and feels discriminated against, then there's damage done. And not just to the person who is offended, but the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Which could also then become a feeling of "Misplaced Pages makes excuses for and allows editors to promote anti-semitic commentary". It's just bad and wrong all around. And I do agree with what you said at the AE report, that it's shocking there are editors defending the comments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Sadly antisemitism is on the rise and in my opinion is being condoned by the left. I am far more worried about it from the left in the US than the right. If nothing happens from this AE report I will be very saddened and I don't know what I will do but I am sure I will do something. I can't abide this site tolerating such comments. Sir Joseph 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)