User talk:MPerel/Archive 2007
Note: This is an archive. Please post new comments at my live talk page User talk:MPerel
please comment here
[edit]MPerel, I am not sure what discussions you have had for months, but I doubt they have involved my specific edit or even the need to artificially split Jewish opposition into 5 groups. Also, months of explanations do not justify future reverts without explanation. Also, Jayjg's revert was without any explanation. You opposed the word "generally," so I changed it to "many Jewish groups." If you have an objection to this, please state it. I'm sure you've put a great deal of effort into this page, but that does not eliminate my right to make suggestions or your obligation to respond if you are going to revert me. Thanks, Mackan79 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Weasel Words
[edit]MPerel, your accusations of weasel words are incorrect. According to WP:WEASEL, "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Here, the reference to "many Jewish groups" is fully cited with many Jewish groups. That means it's not a use of weasel words; it's an accurate and sourced statement. As a matter of fact, the qualification is necessary to /avoid/ weasel words, since without it, Wikipedia is speaking on behalf of Jewish organizations generally, with no source to support this. Please note the bottom of WP:WEASEL, also, which specifically states that an exception is when the belief is the topic of discussion, with the example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth." Thanks, Mackan79 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you reread the whole section in WP:Weasel that discusses how and why "Some/many/most/all/few" are weasel words. We wouldn't say "many scientists hold that the earth is not flat" to introduce the notion that there are certainly some who hold that it is flat. Particularly if there was a source that explicitly stated "scientists are virtually unanimous in rejecting the notion that the earth is flat" we would quote the source that states so. Meanwhile, please keep the discussion at the article talk page instead of my personal talk page. Thanks. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The page says "As a rule, writers should avoid using ad populum arguments as a general means of providing support for a position." This is not such a case. The whole point here is simply to note that there is a controversy over JfJ's claims in the Jewish community. The problem, moreover, is that the status quo is not cited, whereas the statement about "many Jewish groups" is. Again, the solution to weasel words is to cite the specific statement, not to simply state it as uncontested fact. At the same time, an introduction is obviously a place where you have to summarize material, as the rule itself states. I would be happy to direct future comments to the talk page if you would participate on the talk page, rather than simply entering to revert peoples' edits with bogus accusations that are being addressed in talk.Mackan79 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
of possible interest to you, see also User talk:IZAK#Mala Zimetbaum. Cheers, Tomertalk 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
JfJ
[edit]Gosh, well I know you like for discussions to stay on talk pages, but then you immediately revert edits with questions that were just addressed on the talk page, without responding. Do you think I could ask you to show a little more courtesy? Mackan79 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I've been completely involved in the recent discussion on the talk page there. Meanwhile you went ahead and made the same old changes ignoring everything people have said. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2.
|
Voting thing
[edit]Hi MPerel, FYI ... while it may not be entirely clear on the Martin Luther talk page, I am the one who started the voting we are trying to have right now. I do not like the fact that JJ is making big edits to the ML page while we are trying to do the voting. I do not like the fact that he does not have a user page or a long editing history here. I've even reverted him myself for not having used an edit summary. I believe I reverted to someone's version who would probably vote for 'long.' Believe me, I'll be able to work with either 'long' or 'short' if we can ever get beyond the perpetual edit war we have been in since I met the article nearly 3 months ago. Thanks for humoring me with the voting thing ... I'm trying to help us get beyond the length of this section so we can do everything we can to make the article FA status. Maybe I'm just putting salt in old wounds ... I don't know yet ... Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Your case for Mediation from the Mediation Committee has been accepted. Your re-agreement is required at the case page under Request for Mediation; prompt action on your behalf would be appreciated in order to commence the mediation as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about my contributions, personal mediation style or otherwise, please contact me at my talk page, or email me at anthony (dot) cfc (at) gmail (dot) com - all email communication is private unless stated otherwise.
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Jews Against Zionism
[edit]You may be interested in my comments on Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) about the distinction bettween Jews Against Zionism and True Torah Jews. --RolandR 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
|
|
The Request for Mediation, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus 2, has been accepted and mediation is now open. You are invited to participate in accordance with the mediator's instructions at the case talk page. |
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good evening (GMT time); the other disputing editors have reached a conclusion at the above Mediation Committee case. However, your input is required to determine if the compromise is unanimously accepted, or if other compromises and/or DR methods require to be implemented. Ergo, I request that you post an agree/disagree statement at the above case's #Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise (2) section; comments are very welcome, but please leave them at the section that the Agree/Disagree area proceeds, entitled "Comments: Final Compromise (2)".
Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome Back!
[edit]Glad to see your break is over. See this FYI; you were the one who originally clued me in on the fact that JJ and PTM were probably the same person. So, thank you! I did acquire some battle scars in the process. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder talk 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just updated the "fyi" link above since I've moved things around. Keesiewonder talk 12:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it!
←Humus sapiens ну? 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it!
Re: CoM, nop, it wasn't needed twice. Sorry, it used to be in the Themes section, and was moved elsewhere. Thanks for catching my duplication. :) Arcayne 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why you removed the last sentence of the Synopsis? As it wasn't OR, and it was as much a part of the synopsis as the rest, i am kinda concerned.Arcayne 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I responded to your inquiryt. Thank you for being polite. I kn ow I shouldn't have to say that, as I have had a lot of good intereaction with most of the other editors in WP. Just one or two that kinda make it more of a chore and less of a cheer. :)Arcayne 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"...smoking a doobie" LOL. You are an interesting and funny man, mssr. Perel. :) Arcayne 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- oops. I actually know a French person named Perel, and I think I made the unconscious connection MPerel ~ m. Perel. Sorry about the mistake. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
RFM Listed you as a Party
[edit]dj-ijc has listed you as a party on this RFM. I didn't see any form of notification on your talkpage or his, so I figured I'd let you know. As you are most likely aware, for a RFM to proceed, it requires approval of all parties within 7 days. If you could please voice your opinion sometime within that timeframe, that would be appreciated. Thanks.
- For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
[edit]|
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ger toshav.
|
For your civility in the Mediation Committe case, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award MPerel the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C]
how can I contact you?
[edit]Dear Miri,
I am an Argentine, married and father of 2, living in Buenos Aires.
I've been researching to find a reliable an uncesored edition of Rav Albo's Ikkarim in Hebrew and in translation, and found that Husik's JPS edition is an excellent way to go. I very much want to study this book carefully.
However, as you know, the book is hard to find and the copies I've seen on the Internet run at around $200. I have no access to reasonable antiquarians in Argentina who would have these volumes.
I'm writing to ask you first if $200 is reasonable in comparison to what you paid for your copy. Second, I've seen in Wikisource you're making an effort to scan/transcribe the entire thing since (you suggested) it's in the public domain.
I am extremely interested in a scanned copy of this or in buying it at reasonable price. Also, if you don't mind, I'd love to see a scanned copy contributed to seforimonline.org, who have made a super-valuable effort to preserve early and valuable editions of Torah material that's in the public domain.
You can reach me at martin.schejtman at gmail.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Martín
ps. I'm sorry I realize I've probably posted this message in an inappropriate spot, but I'm new to this I couldn't find a better way to reach you. Please feel free to erase this message after you see it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.31.99.25 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Your reverting of my edit to article: Purim
[edit]Perhaps the source I gave wasn't the best possible (many of the articles on that Orthodox Yemenite website aren't so professionally written/sourced). However, I and many other people know for a fact that the majority of the Orthodox Jewish community opposes the donning of costumes on Purim (unless they are Biblical). So then, logically following along with the mentality that improving Wikipedia comes through adding something to make well-intentioned edits more effective, rather than simply reverting my edit wholesale, would be a better way to go about things. Let's find a better citation that supports the fact. Noogster 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Settler colonialism
[edit]See talk page of Settler colonialism, please. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There, reverted at your bidding.
[edit]Report me anyways. I guess I can't make any valuable contribution to this encyclopaedia. I was faced with a myriad of editors reverting my edits and only when I asked them to did they provide a petty rationalisation for their actions. This is really frustrating, since you are also in contact with user Humus Sapiens, it makes it appear as if editors are attacking me en masse. If the point was to show me the article was senseless, thanks - point proven. This was a part of the efforts to combat systemic bias. Systemic bias prevails, sadly. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I already nominated the entire article for deletion. Since I wrote most of it, it must be OR also. I hope the damage I did can be quickly undone. Feel free to vote for the deletion of the article at the corresponding entry ([1]). --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Palestinian template
[edit]Did you mean to use the one with the children? If so why? -- Avi 07:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I did. Because there is no consensus to delete it. I've made arguments about this previously on the Talk:Palestinian people page. The arguments given for deleting the picture of the children were quite offensive actually. I think all were open to a replacement picture, but so far there is no replacement put forward that has achieved consensus. If people insist on a collage of representatives, then perhaps editors might consider a collage of adults and children as is done in the Filipino people page. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even though it goes against every single other such template? (see the talk page for my analysis) Not to mention the caption looks stupid
-- Avi 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even though it goes against every single other such template? (see the talk page for my analysis) Not to mention the caption looks stupid
Chad Hopkovits
[edit]I am trying to nominate a page for deletion- it is my first time and I am doing something wrong. I cannot get it listed properly on "Deletion" or "Deletion -Judiasm" page. Can I get a little help?--Jayrav 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone helped me - thanks.--Jayrav 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000 Zeq 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"Jewish descent" versus Jew
[edit]See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Input needed about Hasidic dispute
[edit]Hi Miri, you may be able to help out here with your wisdom: Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). If you are able to help in any way with the issues it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MPerel. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:MPerel/Archive 2006. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-06T22:48:00.000Z-Image:1915_Dance_by_Rodchenko.jpg){kind=link}
Hi I received a message with your name claiming I have vandalised Wikipedia. I have never edited it and would like some information on why you think this. Thankyou.
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for helping me revert all of 75.49.207.220's edits on American Jews. Solo1234 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- And another thank you. It's an honor. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be a ginny pig
[edit]I know you were asked to revert my edits so I can be banned under the 3RR. Your attempts at censorship are not going to work. I have described my edits on the talk page. Please unrevert my edits. 210.84.40.154 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually your uncivil comments on PinchasC's talk page drew my attention. Be civil and get consensus for your edits. --MPerel 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I gave my reasons on the talk page. Pinchas didn't. He is the one being anticonsensus. I have had zero objection to my edits beside from him because I removed his secterian Tanya. 210.84.40.154 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]Thank you for the barnstar, MPerel. I endeavor to live up to your expectations of me, by working up the courage to step outside the safe, refreshing coolness of the shadow cast by your great work on Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
arbcom matter
[edit]Just want to applaud all your great posts, at the ArbCom proceeding. keep it up. please feel free to let me know if I can help you to address anything in any way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR
[edit]There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you first go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. If you have time Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use disputed for Image:Eden Natan Zada.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Eden Natan Zada.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OTJATL
[edit]What happened was that this editor, without discussion, changed the title from On the Jews and their Lies to On the Jews and Their Lies. This needs to be discussed first, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Not sure how to straighten out this mess.--Mantanmoreland 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have formed the opinion that you might have valuable input to put into the above two choices (don't be mislead that that is a mere dispute over and article in an Article).
- PS: I'm the guy referred to above as the one who changed the "t" into a "T" without discussion. "Was that wrong?"
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Watchlist
[edit]Will do. I just have to request it from WatchlistBot's owner. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- WatchlistBot appears to be offline; I would like to help out and run the bot myself. I'll see if I can get it to work offsite. Of course, I'm sure we could find someone else to run it if the bot owner doesn't return soon. —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure
[edit]I apologize for the Nestorian (Iliad Bk.3, not the Church or sect) longwindedness. The loquacity of age, eheu, is getting the best of me. Regards Nishidani 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability of religious figures and rabbis
[edit]Hi MPerel: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Request for input: Notability of rabbis where I have quoted you in full and where there is some discussion about the subject and issues you raised. Thanks so much, IZAK 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, New User!
[edit]Hi, i am username Mistre85 and I am a new wikipedia user. I recently posted a new article about Steady State Systems in Thermodynamics. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and possibly make suggestions for improvements or edits. I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am trying to learn as much as I can about how to use wikipedia and would like to get some experience right away. Than you for your time.
here is the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_%28Thermodynamics%29
Miste85 10:38, 17 October,2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistre85 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Response
[edit]I've placed a response to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon de Rothschild that you may want to read. -- Nunh-huh 02:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The ringworm children affair
[edit]Hi Miri: Please re-read The ringworm children affair article as I have re-written and wikified it with sources and reliable citations. Thanks, IZAK 08:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Horatio George Adamson, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2274.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 08:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone should update the bot to check for inline references. Just goes to show you that the singularity is still out of reach. :) —Viriditas | Talk 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion
[edit]Hi Miri: Your input would be greatly appreciated at the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thanks a lot, IZAK 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Serious discussions about using the names Reform vs. Progressive Judaism
[edit]Hi Miri: Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.) Thanks so much, IZAK 08:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi IZAK, I'll take a look later this evening... --MPerel 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Miri, IZAK 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Canaanite Movement
[edit]Hi Miri: I came across something very interesting in the article about Eliyahu Bet-Zuri, who together with Eliyahu Hakim , assassinated Lord Moyne the highest political British official in the Middle East during World War II in 1944. It says that Bet-Zuri belonged to the Canaanite Movement and I was intrigued by it because I don't know the story behind that movement. The article about Bet-Zuri was written in 2005 by User Danny (talk · contribs) who knows a lot about these kind of things, and indeed when someone questioned what the Canaanite Movement was, Danny gave a brief response, and provided a link this article and some translation, but nothing has been done since. See Talk:Eliyahu Bet-Zuri#Questions, maybe you could look into this and write something up? Thanks a lot, IZAK 07:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile
[edit]
Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! —Viriditas | Talk 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
List of massacres during the Second Intifada
[edit]Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm attempting to catch up, I'll take a look. --MPerel 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure
[edit]I agreed that my comment wasn't very polite, and you will note that I actually apologized for my clashing with him. However, I noted that you failed to counsel your friend on his incivility and personal attacks towards me. As I am aware of the regular contact and friendship you share with Viriditas, it strikes me as disingenuine for you to single out my edits as uncivil. I am the one who suggested that we both just walk away from each other, and try to avoid editing each other's edits. Unfortunately, he took that heartfelt request as a sign of weakness and went on the offensive. And if you believe that to be a cynical assessment, consider that in almost a year, I have not had one single positive interaction with him. This isn't the first time he's responded to my offering of an olive branch with a fresh attack. I keep assuming he's become mature enough to simply leave me alone.
The way I see it, if I offer the scanned images of my copy, I am going to prove that - assuming Viriditas' copy is in fact true - there are two editions, one with and one without the statements in question. Despite his comments to the contrary, the book I own (same edition, same year) doesn't have the passage his does. And then, we will be left with Viriditas' lengthy history of personal attacks and incivility. We all know where a lengthy consideration of that behavior would end up. So I offered Viriditas a choice about how to prompt my proving him wrong, that it isn't some conspiracy by me to discredit him. As has happened before, Viriditas avoids addressing my options and offers the same old (and invalid) arguments over and over - the Children of Men edits he refers to are almost a year old.
Some people do not change, and I for one am trying to figure out why he keeps followng my edits, continually stating that I am stupid, wrong, don't get it, etc. etc. etc. He simply isn't worth my time, and it isn't worth my time to play his games unless it will result in him leaving me alone for good. I don't see that happening, do you?
So it begs the question: when I prove that there are in fact two editions, he isn't going to apologize (since he has never done so in 11 months of interaction), he isn't going to be more polite or make fewer personal attacks. Taking time out of my day to service Viriditas' ego (which doing so amounts to, as the citation isn't used in the article) won't serve any purpose, except to negatively impact Viriditas. As his behavior seems to be - for the most part - only obnoxious when responding to my posts (of course, I don't gollow his edits, so I am not sure of his other interactions), it seems like asking for bad karma to take advantage of someone who doesn't appear to have the capability to disengage from a no-win situation. As his friend, perhaps you can assist him with that. I actually think that Viriditas is useful in the articles where he and I do not interact, and do not believe in disposable people. However, his continued behavior, unattended, is going to lead to some rather severe consequences for him eventually. I would rather not be the one to make that happen. I would much rather he simply avoided commenting on my edits, and I his. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Gil Student
[edit]I have nominated Gil_Student for deletion. I wanted to tell you because you are a major contributor to that article. --Meshulam (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom Elections
[edit]Hi Mperel. I wanted to respond to your oppose vote on my arbitration candidacy. I have voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and I see no reason not to this year - I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I'm not. As such, I've supported all but one of the candidates currently within a stones throw of being elected - and I initially supported him. I'm concerned that this seems to be perceived as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all of the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rebecca, for your thoughtful response explaining your actions. You're certainly gutsy (and always have been), which is actually a good attribute for an arbitrator. I'm quite satisfied with your answer above and in the past have generally appreciated your unique and valuable insight on things. I'm always open to changing my mind, and you've convinced me that we could really benefit from having you on Arbcom again. --MPerel 03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Although you voted against me in the election, I do thank you for telling me why. It helps a lot to know whether a vote is out of opposition to me or out of support for someone else. :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for giving me a second chance! I appreciate very much that you took the time to see what I was about. :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- And Ditto from me - your explanation for opposition was excellent and certainly no offence taken. I regard it as a perfectly legal and quite clever way of working the system :) -- Regards Manning (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Your guidance needed at Template talk:Chabad
[edit]Hi Miri, A Freilichen Chanukah: There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad#Controversy Again! as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. If you could drop by and give this matter your consideration and input it may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
[edit]