User talk:LuckyLittleGrasshopper

Welcome!

Hello, LuckyLittleGrasshopper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. You should also place a little bit of text on your user page - "red users" arouse suspicion :-) William M. Connolley 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute

I'm going to stay out of the dispute - sorry, but its not my field; as admin I only hold the ropes, so to speak. My only suggestion is that you review some of your comments on that page which to me seem rather harsh and ~~strike~~ some of them; in order to start again; discuss peacefully and edit incrementally, backed up by the evidence. These things do seem to attract controversy, though, so be prepared for strife; but your position in any future dispute will be immeasurable strengthened if you have be unfailingly polite, WP:AGF assumed good faith, backed up your edits with sources, and not reverted more than once per day - see WP:1RR; etc William M. Connolley 18:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRmep

Maybe you did it accidently but there is a checkbox right above the "Save Page" button that you are supposed to click for typos and such, you clicked it when making your edit even though it was a substantial change.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

If the claim is probably true, and some evidence exists of this, the custom is to generally just add a fact tag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will add back some claims that are also probably true in the IRmep article. I hope you treat them as I am treating your currently unsupported additions to the CNI article. Best. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Loyalties

Hi LLG. Actually, you're working from an incorrect assumption. If my edits don't change anyone's mind regarding Cole's "Anti-Semitism" that's absolutely fine because that's not why I made the edit. It's there simply to disclose that Cole's defense of the paper is a clear case of him attempting to be both player and referee. Members of Cole's fanclub will, as you say, use Cole's self-serving rationalization that if he hasn't included every single Jew in the universe as having "dual loyalties" (but only the bad Jews who don't agree that Israel must to return to its 1947 borders) then he is somehow insulated from the charge of Anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. To use your Witney Houston example -if someone referred to her as a "druggie" who is probably on crack because she is black and from the ghetto AND has provided no evidence to back up that claim -just an "I think so" and a "I don't trust her to stay off drugs", then we'd have no problem identifying that person as a bigot even if they claimed "some of their 'best friends' are black". That is precisely what Cole does with his ad hominem assumptions on his blog regarding Firth, Eli Lake, and other Jews. In any case, it's cited, it's from the primary source, and it is presented without commentary, so it's up to the reader to decide. What I object to is Cole's fanclub attempting to either suppress Cole's own words, or injecting his ridiculous conspiracy theories into the article, such as the capital "L" in "Lobby" business. Armon 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neumann

You are right, the sources are persuasive, Neumann is Jewish (of the antisemitic variation) feel free to edit back. Incorrect 06:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing paragraphs from pages wholesale

Hi Grasshopper. Could you consider using the article talk page when you feel something is not appropriate. I have shown this courtesy to you. (see my talk page comments on original research). Please lets keep wiki a collegial place and consider returning my courtesy. elizmr 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As SlimVirgin has made clear to me on previous pages, if something is not properly supported by a RS it is fair to just remove it. Kramer's speculation on Cole's language abilities on his blog is setting bar pretty low for both notability and RS, especially considering Kramer's stated position on Cole's ideological stance. If we can not come to a decent resolution, let's take it to RfC. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't feel strongly at all about it staying in. I think it is a sort of a fair enough but cheap shot against Cole. I put it in because other editors had orig put it in and it had fallen by the wayside. I was putting it back. Really, my point was just your lack of courtesy in just removing stuff rather than using the talk page. I could remove some of your stuff based on "no orig research", but I've not done that. elizmr 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civility

Hi LLG, I just looked at your user page (which actually looks kind of familiar ;=)) and note that you are pretty new to Wikipedia. Some of the comments you put on the Cole talk page about my "ideology" and intent to smear, etc, are quite personal and out of line by Wiki guidelines such as "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks". Just because we may disagree on some stuff, it doesn't mean we can't have a collegial relationship working on articles here. elizmr 23:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing things you don't agree with wholesale, engaging in original reasearch, attacking other editors

Grasshopper, if you don't agree with something, please use the talk page to discuss and comment out rather than just chopping away at stuff people have put time and energy into. Give this courtesy where this courtesy has been given to you, especially on controversial pages. You just took out some cites because the articles had been cited before. Well, there was a reason for that. They were making different points both time. Why snip that??? It doesn't make sense. Also, your introductory statement that Cole has attracted controversy is because he is liberal, or something like that, is your own original research. This belongs on your blog, not on Wikipedia. The controversy is more straigtforward: Cole has attracted controversy because he is speaking as an "expert" out of his field of expertise, because he promulgates anti-semetic conspiratory theory, because he makes ad hominem attacks on people rather than address their points, because he changes his blog posting after he makes them, etc. To dismiss these kind of points as politically motivated by labeling them "conservative criticism" or the like is dishonest and POV. And attacking me is just rude. elizmr 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]