This is an archive of past discussions about User:Saranghae honey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
мirаgeinred سَراب ٭, in this comment you accused Strider12 of saying, "gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day." This is your full comment:
Just quote James Dobson to verify your claim that gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day. Before you slander other editors I suggest not making claims that are more reflective of your tendentious editing and would you please have some decency to refrain from disputed sources. If David Reardon's claims are right, try finding other sources that resonates with his findings.мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You did not say where or when she made the alleged comment, and it seems completely out of character for her. I suspect that you just made it up.
If I'm wrong, if Strider12 really did say that, then please tell us where. If she said it, it was at the very least uncivil. But if you made it up then it was worse: an uncivil, dishonest, personal attack.
For the record, I NEVER made any such comments. I also don't see how inserting "Why don't you" would make any difference.--Strider12 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for omitting "Why don't you" in front of my comment which probably resulted in the misunderstanding. You're right in saying that I made the comment up because it's an analogy. James Dobson to homosexuality is almost like David Reardon, a source that she likes very much, to abortion. That was at least my opinion and that's why I said it. Please do not take my comments out of context in the future. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Finding Strider12's comments regarding homosexuality is especially impossible since she is an SPA. She has only edited three articles: abortion, abortion and mental health, and David Reardon. [1] Before you take my comments out of context and warn me not to do it again, I suggest you assume good faith and put some efforts into understanding what I truly meant. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, as unfortunate as it is, homophobic speech is not illegal. You are splitting hairs by saying that I accused her of engaging in criminal activity. She's a tendentious editor at worst. I hope that this is merely a misunderstanding between you and me. If you do not let this issue drop and deliberately make other attacks against me, I want to tell you that I am entitled to WP:SHUN you. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
мirаgeinred سَراب ٭, the criminal activity that you accused her of was "slander." But the far worse offense was your statement that she had claimed "that gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day." Neither she nor Dr. Dobson has ever said that. You just made it up.
To put damning words into someone's mouth which she never uttered, to attack her character, is a terrible, terrible thing to do. Putting "why don't you" at the front of the sentence would not make any difference at all. You wronged her when you attributed to her to a "claim" that she had never made:
"...your claim that gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day."
In fact, she made no such claim. (Neither has Dobson.) Please apologize to her.
I also suspect that you were untruthful when you certified that you "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" with Strider12. You've not tried to resolve the dispute, you've just tried to fan the flames.
The decent thing for you to do is to withdraw your certification of MastCell's complaint against Strider12, and apologize to her. Will you please do the decent thing? NCdave (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
IronAngelAlice, I will credit you for suggesting bold moves to edit the article. Weren't you the one who suggested that the David Reardon studies be removed from the footnotes? I did not know what Elliot Institute was before you told me about it. You were also one of the editors who suggested that the article be moved to abortion and mental health, the current, and hopefully permanent, title of the article. I highly commend you for that.
At times, however, your views are revealed in a not-so-flattering way. We all edit with a degree of bias. I'm trying to assume good faith here but I've been getting an impression that you want to shy away from covering the negative aspects associated with abortion. User: Phyesalis said "The difference between weather and climate - a few days' of rainfall do not constitute a rainy climate just as a few days worth of negative emotional responses do not constitute depression or PAS." Remember when the article was titled "Post-abortion syndrome" and the studies were sorted by countries? When you added "Abortion is illegal in Spain" or "Abortion is mostly illegal in Spain" (something like that) to a Spanish study found results somewhat favorable to the existence of PAS, I felt like you needed to add an explanation to conclusions that you did not like.
I wanted to find diffs to recall other occasions when I felt this way but honestly I am fatigued for many reasons. This is a side note, but if there are certain editors who aggravate you and just won't stop pestering you, please mark them as hidden or ignore them altogether. One of the ways of becoming a productive editor is not wasting your time on editors who take pleasure in bothering other people and bringing out their ugly side. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note in fairness to myself ;) - the Spanish study did note that abortion had been illegal in Spain. It is no longer.
I will try to take your recommendations to heart. Though I'm not one to believe that "balance" is synonymous with proper weight, I will try not to get sucked into endless debates.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that abortion in Spain was illegal a short time ago. This problem could have been resolved with different wording; for example, the section could have said "The study noted that abortion was illegal in Spain." Well, thank you for your constructive reply. My original plan was to take a Wikibreak which so far has not happened. I will be mostly inactive in editing abortion and mental health and other articles that I edit, but please, feel free to leave a message. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't belabor this, but after thinking about it I have to point out what a strange contributor Equazcion has been. For someone who doesn't really participate in the David Reardon or Abortion and Mental Health discussions, I'm baffled as to why s/he will occasionally come to the page, call me names, and then threaten to ANI me.make claims
I don't normally pay much attention to Equazcion; however, it just strikes me as odd that Equazcion's only consistent participation is to compare me to Strider - not to discuss my edits, not to discuss the merits or demerits of the Abortion and Mental Health page, and not to discuss his/her vision of what the page should be. Do you have any thoughts? I cross-posted something similar to this on MastCell's talk page as well.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not qualified to mediate conflicts for many reasons but this is what I suggest. First, get rid of all your assumptions that you have made about him from his previous comments and ask him to the the same, courteously. Since this has more to do with user conflicts than the content of the article itself, I would post this on Equazcion's talk page not on the talk page of abortion and mental health. If he agrees to discuss this with you, start from square one. Ask him why he feels this way about you and cite his reasons with diffs. The most important thing is to remain courteous and civil and refrain from personal attacks. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If he doesn't want to discuss this, I can think of a couple reasons. If you ask him to use diffs, he would have to search through thousands of edits and all those archives that are filed almost on a monthly basis. If he doesn't want to use diffs, but agrees to at least resolve the dispute, I would be glad. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Aside from his comments at talk page, his edits were noncontroversial. I think he genuinely made attempts to improve the article before he decided to stop editing it. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Saranghae is correct in that going and finding diffs is an ordeal. That's partly the reason the ANI posting isn't up yet. But if you're looking for some specific reason for my complaints, I can refer you to the protection/unprotection of the mental health article:
20:46, 10 January 2008 PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) unprotected Post-abortion syndrome (Unprotecting per WP:RFPP request)
17:22, 4 January 2008 PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) protected Post-abortion syndrome (Edit warring, please use talk [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
I requested protection because of the edit warring. The discussion that occurred while the article was protected seemed constructive and was rather lengthy -- and after it seemed we had established a consensus on the talk page, I requested unprotection -- not realizing that you hadn't contributed to the discussion at all in that time (aside from some initial comments just after the protection began). Within 15 minutes of unprotection, you reverted someone. The point of protection was to hash things out through discussion, yet it seems you kept quiet and instead waited until the protection ended in order to start editing again, rather than discuss. I could go and find more diffs, which I will eventually have to do, but in general I've found your editing to be in the same vain. When I announced I was leaving, for example, the "last straw" was when we were discussing a certain edit on the talk page, everyone had agreed not to revert until it was settled, and you went ahead and reverted again just after posting your response to that exchange. Also, very often, you revert with the edit summary "Reverting to version that had consensus", or something similar. You seem to use this often as an excuse to revert to your preferred version -- but just because there was agreement on a version doesn't mean it can't be changed. If there's been a change you don't like, you need a reason other than the fact that the previous version had consensus before you go reverting it, and that's if you revert it at all -- you should probably be discussing instead. As I said in my exchange with MastCell about Strider's RfC, this has been your pattern, in my opinion -- you prefer edit warring over discussion.
On a side note, you would do well to notice that I'm a fairly neutral party in this. I'm not arguing with you or Strider in particular, but with both of you, despite your opposite POVs. I have no vested interest in one POV or another. My goal is to make the article sound neutral. There's no reason I would have anything against you, except when it comes to your editing practices. If you feel there is some ulterior motive at work, don't hesitate to state your suspicions. Equazcion•✗/C •03:57, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I looked through that page (the discussion was about the article when it was still the PAS article), and I have to admit that because it was so long ago, it took me a while to figure out what was going on. I engaged the talk page several times, but I obviously didn't 3RR. Equazcion, I'm not sure why you get to be the mediator now, at this point in time. Lots of people were reverting on those days, not only and simply me. When Equazcion and I did disagreed, I believe I handled myself in a civil manner by saying, "Sorry if I jumped the gun reverting Fishiehelper2's edit. With so many POV edits on this and other pages concerning abortion and science, I believe it best to first hash things out in the talk page." I then went on to give a lengthy description of my argument and evidence. Equazcion, you then interjected again and said, "Both sides of this might consider tweaking each others' contributions until you come to a compromise, rather than flat-out reverting entire edits. I've requested protection for this page. Please consider the way you handle this in the future" - your words were exceedingly reasonable, and welcome. I responded, "Equazcion, thanks for the invitation to slow down. It is worthy to note, however, that it's been brought to Strider's attention by several editors that her edits to the South Africa and Stotland studies are not supported in the references or literature. Please see [9] and [10] and [11] Strider has continually re-added her verbiage without consensus. I would like to request that the edits she has made to those sections be reverted by an administrator." I believe this statement is also reasonable. So, why are you mediating now? What is the benefit?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well firstly I never accused you of violating 3RR. As for why I'm doing this now:
Your interpretation of Strider's edits is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion. And, were you on the receiving end of it, you would have also considered it an attack -- our current exchange being in evidence of that. But more importantly it's another example of the fact that childishness continues to rule the article. Also the fact that the summarization of studies is still included in the article, along with the section titles being slanted to one POV, is also due to you and Strider. I had edited them so that the negative and positive effects had the same wording in the title, but this was of course changed back to the version that implies that abortion has a positive causal effect while negative effects are just incidental -- a notion that is far from agreed-upon. At least in a temporary sense, such things can and should be left with a big question mark attached to them, no matter how strongly you or even the majority of editors feels. This is something I tried to accomplish but could not.
As for the protection, again, you did not engage that discussion, except just after protection and just after unprotection. If I've taken on the role of a mediator, it would be to mediate the battle between the two POVs. If nothing else you should be able to admit that your role in this article has been to ensure that it doesn't slant towards the POV that stands opposite to you -- and the same goes for Strider. I don't stand for any POV. My role has been to try to keep both sides from dukign this out in a POV tug-of-war. Despite the label you've assigned me of moderator, I again only threaten an ANI posting. Anyone can do that. I make no special claims.
Basically, I don't think you'll be satisfied unless the article represents your POV over the other. again the same goes for Strider. Neither of you will be satisfied with a neutral article, and neither of you seem to be willing to hold off on edits until controversy can be settled through discussion -- and when such a thing was forced through protection, you didn't even participate (while Strider did, exhaustively, I might add). This is a state of affairs that simply doesn't bode well for the article. I think eliminating the two of you from the equation will solve the problem somewhat. This is of course just my take on the situation -- I mean no offense, only honesty, and we'll see what others think. Equazcion•✗/C •04:43, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"and when such a thing was forced through protection, you didn't even participate (while Strider did, exhaustively, I might add)" Although it doesn't seem like it at the moment, I do have a full life outside of Wiki. I cannot contribute constantly. Others were responding to Strider quite well, including you.
" Your interpretation of Strider's edits is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion." Isn't this the very reason MastCell brought the ANI of Strider? Because Strider misrepresents the studies? It isn't just me that feels this way, but also Phyesalis, мirаgeinred, KillerChihuahua, Addhoc, Kuronue, OrangeMarlin, Shot info, Akhilleus, and Viridae.
You seemed to get busy with real life for just that 6-day period, and 15 minutes after it ended you suddenly had some free time. I dunno. I try to assume good faith but that seems a bit "odd", to use your words. Others agreeing with you doesn't change an opinion into a fact; you may want to look that up. Again, I wasn't aware of an ANI regarding Strider. "All of this" is a response to you complaining that I'm threatening you with an ANI. Had Strider been so vocal, you'd be seeing "all of this" is response to her, too. Equazcion•✗/C •05:55, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
"I mean no offense, only honesty" Except you called me "prepubescent" a "radical." You've accused me of POV pushing without backing up the claim.[2] You've accused me up "poor behavior" without backing it up. Again, you should have been aware of the ANI against Strider since MastCell told you about it two weeks ago[3]--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I said those things then. I mean no offense in my current statements. I really meant no offense there either, just being honest. Your exchanges with Strider struck me as prepubescent. And you do seem radical in your defense of your POV; that shouldn't be offensive at all... it's not a derogatory term. I've since backed up my claim of poor behavior here. MastCell told me he was planning an RfC, and said that he would let me know when it was ready. He never did let me know. I said that once it was posted I would comment there; but I never did, because I didn't know about it. Equazcion•✗/C •06:04, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
In other words, if you call me "prepubescent," that's just categorizing my behavior. If I say strider has consistently misrepresented studies, that's an "attack." This is absurd. I'm going to bed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was an attack. I said you would interpret it as an attack had it been directed at you. I just said it was an opinion (whereas you claim it's a fact). I maintain that. Pleasant dreams. Equazcion•✗/C •06:14, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, just one more thing, or I won't be able to sleep. For you to imply that in fact I don't have much else going on in my life is maddening. I am a full time programmer, the president of a state-wide volunteer organization, a post-graduate student (in a humanity), I'm expecting my first child in the fall, and my husband gets angry when he sees me contribute to Wikipedia because my time is so precious. I, however, enjoy participating. Okay, now I can sleep. And, thanks, I believe I will have sweet dreams!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that you didn't have much else going on in your life. The timing with which your real-life duties seemed to infringe on your Wikipedia editing, and especially when it stopped impeding your edits, seems to be quite a large coincidence, though. Anyway, you wanted to know specifically what my motivation was for threatening an ANI, and I think you now know, even though you disagree. I pleases to aim. Equazcion•✗/C •06:30, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, I think at this point it is simply best if I WP:SHUN. You aren't interested in making the article in question better. You seem interested only in making judgements about me, though you have never engaged my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect my talk page to be bloated overnight. Alice, unfortunately an attack is an attack even if the statement is true. It's not x or y; it can be x and y. In all fairness, I don't think anyone warned you about this. I don't think Equazcion is saying that you are like Strider12. I think what he(?) is trying to say is that you two have a couple similarities at worst such as reverting several times. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested only in making the article better. The only reason you hear these judgments is because you asked... over and over again... on three different talk pages (forcing me to repeat myself on all three, I should add). And I'm a he, by the way, just to clear that up. The only similarity between you and Strider is that you've both, in my opinion, been a disruptive presence at the article, and both taken a radical stance with your POVs. You haven't actually answered most of the things I've said, Alice, so if you're going to choose berating me just for answering your request rather than actually engaging my arguments, then yes it's probably best to keep quiet. Equazcion•✗/C •21:02, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh and sorry, Saranghae, for the bloat. Equazcion•✗/C •21:06, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)
It's cool. I just didn't expect this. If you already repeated this on three other talk pages, I'm sorry. For now, dispute resolution seems difficult. I guess there are just editors who are just difficult to get along with. I can think of a couple editors that I've had dispute with and never resolved. The article seems pretty dormant for now so we will see. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Karen Hayes
Hey, I've realised you've edited Karen Hayes. I beg of you, please stop. You see, I've been adopted, and its the article I'm improving, for my assignment. It's probably the easiest one for me to do. Okay, sorry, I cant stop anyone from doing anything, it just is easier for me, Chloe O'Brian and Charles Logan (24 character) look too hard for me to cleanup, to a state where it can be removed of all tags. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's quite fine :) And thanks, you have made it a lot easier for me to rewrite the article. Of course, I will tell my adopter you helped me :) I'm doing well, check out my user page, talk page, and my scoresheet. A lot has happened since I talked to you last. Including my wedding :). And I also hate vandals with a passion now, as you can see by my userboxes. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. A few days ago. Been engaged for ages, just never found the userbox until recently. Do I have too many userboxes? They show how much I despise vandals. Oh, and I am member of CVU. Thats CVUnotCTU. So, how are you, anyway? Steve Crossin (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that both of your userpage and talk page have had some major revamping. I don't think you have too many userboxes and I doubt that there really is such a thing. My favorite anti-vandal userbox is the one with the bolt. I took a wikibreak for a couple of days but I could only be partly dormant in my editing since there was a lot of drama in the articles that I've been involved in. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you can never have too many user boxes. I'm just happy I've done so well in my lessons, have a look at my scoresheet. And yes, they have been revamped big time. And, vandalised as well. User page, 6 times, talk page, 4 times. And also, see my userboxes again. I've been on Wikipedia for -1 years, -18 months and 23 days. o_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro0016 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can see that you have some stellar marks! How was your userpage vandalized so many times? I've been editing since 2005 and my user page was only vandalized about 2 times. You know you are doing the right thing when vandals get mad and try to vandalize your page as retaliation. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems that vandals dislike me removing their vandalism. I have a ZERO-tolerance policy on vandalism now. I will tell them to stop. I use Huggle, which is why I can revert vandalism so fast. Actually, I got an amusing comment from someone, it's here. I don't think I'm a bot. But, I can even beat ClueBot now. I get about 500+ edits a day, if not more, just by fighting vandalism. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL I tried VandalProof once. I think my computer was infected with virus, which might explain why the program shut down at random times. Since then, I've never used another program to revert vandalism. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I only really use [WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]. It's very fast, very effective, and also assists in checking a user's history, so in questionable cases of vandalism, it helps determine whether an edit is vandalism or not. And there is a quick way to address vandalism with it, the Rollback and Warn button, and the program determines what warning to give. You should consider using it. Steve Crossin (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You've done a decent job with sources, I'll try to add some more later today. I don't like the lead section, especially the "good looks and controversial antics" part, but we'll fix that. BanRay11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should just break it down chronologically, removing the grand slams section altogether? Thoughts? Sorry for the late reply. BanRay19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2007 occupies like half of the career section, some bits should probably go. 2000, his most successful year, is barely covered. I've been bit busy lately, only had time for some quick minor edits, but I'll help you tomorrow or the day after ;) BanRay19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Saranghae honey, I'm Appletrees. I just come to inform you that you have been exposed to 2channel, Japanese famous bulletin board. Unfortunately, many Japanese editors seem to have abused Wikipedia with the threads for a long time (over 4 years!) Do you remember the long-time dispute over So Far from the Bamboo Grove and WP:RFCU on you and I are are all related to 2channel. The most extreme example in these days is shown at the Talk:Sea of Japan. The discussion set up three days ago, but I let you know of this now.
I translated some of information, but the threads are too many, so if you have a time to look at it, please visit the links listed there. I also add the diff in case you come to the page much later. If it is archived, you would find it in No. 380 or 381. Or use Special:Whatlinkshere Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? I was mentioned on 2chan? Damn, I feel so famous. Just kidding. Thanks for informing me. Should I be expecting vandalism on my user page? I'm so shocked that there is actually an organized effort on Japanese editors (few in numbers but seems very determined) to canvass Wikipedia. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
They decide who should be on their blacklist and the mention on you is due to their suspicion over possible sockpuppetry of me. :D They have tried to block editors in their blacklist. --Appletrees (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, I see you are on the 24 WikiProject. It's been quite dead for some time now, and me personally, I intend to revive it. I considered maybe even a 24 Portal, i see the project founder hasn't been on Wikipedia for nearly a year. What are your thoughts on the project? Are you still interested in it? And would you help revive it? Let me know, I would intend to help out a lot, maybe "take over" the founders position, well not take over, but possibly help lead the project? Was just a thought and I wanted your input. My talk page would be the best place. Cheers, Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk)19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Me again. I really would like to talk to you on IRC. Quite a few changes need to me made to the Martha Logan article, and IRC would be the fastest way. The project has a dedicated channel, too. It's linked above. Also, it's now a B class. You can take credit for it too. :) Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk)13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Saranghae honey, and welcome to WikiProject 24! I'm sending you this message to welcome you to the project and I hope that I will be seeing you around on the WikiProject very soon. Please feel free to have a look at the main page of the WikiProject, located here and make discussions here. I hope that you can help to improve the 24 related articles on Wikipedia and have a nice day! Steve Crossin(talk)(review)16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw, I see you're on a long wikibreak. I hope it's not as long as it sounds, you have been a great help to the project, and you will really be a loss to us. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm still going to check in at least couple times a week to see if there's anything new on my talk page or my watchlist. I'll be in Wikipedia to revert obvious vandalism or what appears to be poor writing, but I won't be checking back frequently enough to edit articles that require long-term work. But as I said, you will occasionally see my username popping up on your watchlist editing some 24-related articles. In practice, it's not really a Wikibreak. I put up the Wikibreak sign because I'm just not checking Wikipedia as often as I used to, but I still will be editing occasionally. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you and I would have done the redirect myself, but I don't have the admin privileges to undo the article move. We should put in a request at WP:RM. --Hnsampat (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. I thought it was strange that House's article was renamed, but Allison Cameron, M.D. didn't follow suit. Since there are no other Gregory Houses, it should be back at the root name. - Dudesleeper / Talk09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are other Gregory Houses according to the disambiguation page but how many readers expect to see some places in New York instead of a House character? I just requested speedy delete of the redirect page so that Gregory House MD can be moved back. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
autoblock lift please
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Thanks for uploading Image:Vslogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a current change to an article that I feel should have the discussion of the whole Wkiproject. It's the article above, the old version is this and the new version is the current version. I think some discussion on which version would be best would be wise in this situation. Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page. Thanks, SteveBot(owner)21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, myself, I like how it used to be. As it stands at the moment, the links to the sections, eg Erin Driscoll, no longer work. If the page could be changed to a better style, I'd be happy for it to stay. Steve Crossin(talk)(email)21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:
Yes, the user is now me. I'm glad that you like my changed name. As for the picture, I just moved it from Flickr and have no relation with the funny guys. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Shavuot celebrates Moses receiving the Ten Commandments.
What's This? Shalom aleichem sports fans, and welcome to the first of what I hope will be a monthly newsletter with the need-to-know information about our fair WikiProject. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to recommend a story for the newsletter, click here to leave a message on the Newsletter Coordinator's talk page. In the News
WikiProject Good Articles is doing sweeps over all our current good articles to ensure they still meet criteria. For more information and how you can help, check out WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps.
GA status for the article Jew has been put on hold pending a few minor revisions. A list of things that need to be done to return this top importance article to its proper status can be found here.
Jerusalem is a Featured Article Candidate! Go forth, my people, and !vote!
To Do
One new Judaism-related article was created this month, the long requested Hebrew Punctuation. Thanks to Epson291 for creating it. Remember, folks, there are over forty standing requests for Judaism articles, so whenever you get the opportunity make sure to go create a few.
In the right column you will see a listing of our most popular articles. All of these articles got 170,000+ page hits in the past month, and they should be on everyone's watchlist so we can keep them vandalism-free.
Spread the word! No, not the Word... (well, you can do that too) I'm talking about inviting knowledgeable users to join the project. You can proclaim your undying love of WikiProject Judaism in methods mild to wild, check the project template page and member list for examples. We also now have a flashy advertisement, to use it add {{Wikipedia ads|ad=148}} to your userpage.
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
24 Project C Class discussion and Merger Discussion
Discussion is currently taking place as to how the project will use images, the quantity of images in our articles, and whether we are currently overusing images. Your input is requested on this page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin(contact)12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now with 200% more Jewishness!
Yes, folks, we're moving on up. This newsletter is now the newsletter for both WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish History, and WikiProject Kabbalah. In the future, I may split them, but for now I think we'll be just fine with one. As always, any questions or comments should be directed to me, L'Aquatique.
A Special Dispatch
Just a note, not aimed at anyone in particular. By order of the administrative cabal, it is officially not cool (and possibly dickish) to call someone an anti-semite when they aren't being anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a very charged word, and it's important only to use it when you're absolutely sure it applies, lest it become the subject of a Godwin-esque law. Remember Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the News
A new class on the importance scale has been added- C Class- which covers articles better than start but not quite to B Class yet. It is up to the WikiProjects to decide whether to adopt them or not. Currently, there has been little discussion within our Projects, so if you feel strongly either way be sure to note so at your Project[s].
Thanks largely to the efforts of Xyz7890, a new navbox has come into being featuring Halakha topics. See: Template talk:Halakha to join in the conversation about how it can best be improved.
To Do
The Simple English Wikipedia is beginning a project of creating and improving articles related to religion, including Judaism. At the present time, volunteers are needed to propose our most important subjects for articles to be created. The official working list is here and a more extended list is here. If you are unsure of proper topics, you might try checking our lists of top importance level articles: Judaism and Jewish History. (WikiProject Kabbalah currently doesn't have such a list)
[Simple English] WikiProject Christianity is considering running a monthly drive wherein two or three top importance articles from English Wikipedia are simplified and moved over to S.E. They have extended an offer to work with us in creating a similar project for Judaism related articles. For questions or volunteer opportunities, please contact User:John Carter.
WikiProject Kabbalah is in dire need of an article rating system for quality and importance. If you are familiar with that system and have some time on your hands, please create one. It could also use some infoboxes...
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
Hi, Saranghae honey, it's been a while. I am really glad to receive the unexpected gift from you. Oh well, I just want to edit articles peacefully, and Wikipedia should only be a serious place for readers, but well I think allowing anyone to write article is the strongest point as well as weakest aspect of Wikipedia. Anyway, you're taking a break, hmm.. that you for the barnstar. Have a good day.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sir Moses Montefore, a Jewish activist who died 123 years ago this month
"Censorship" of names of G-d
There is an interesting discussion currently taking place regarding whether or not it is acceptable to censor (i.e. G-d, HaShem->YodHey) names of G-d in articles to protect Jews who may be reading or editing the article. You can weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Yahweh.
Article Cleanup Lists User:B. Wolterding has generously offered us use of his bot to generate lists that show which articles of ours are tagged for cleanup. You can read more about this service here: User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings and if you would like to take him up on his offer, contact him on his talk page.
WikiProject Kabbalah's only Featured and Good articles have been removed from the WikiProject, on the grounds that neither article (Diane Keaton and David Beckham, respectively) actually mention the subject's affiliation with Kabbalah. If you have sourced information linking either of these people to Kabbalah, please add it so the articles can be returned to the WikiProject.
After a rather heated discussion, there are now two barnstars for use by the Jewish WikiProjects, {{The Jewish Barnstar}} and {{The New Jewish Barnstar}}, and you can choose which one you would like to use.. Remember: barnstars are for rewarding users who are doing good work on the project or on Judaism, Jewish History, or Kabbalah articles, and anyone can give anyone else a barnstar. If you see a user who you thinks deserves a thank you, give them a barnstar!
To Do/Help Requests
If you have some spare time on your hands, we could use an article about a Kabbalah scholar named Moshe Idel. According to HG there are quite a few sources easily available, you can contact him if you have questions. Be sure to nominate it for DYK if the finished article is eligible.
The folks at Shimon Peres need some assistance from someone familiar with both the Hebrew calendar and language to help them figure out the subject's birthday. If you can help, please see Talk:Shimon_Peres#Birthday.
We get a lot of articles that are being created and not announced! By announcing new articles, you attract attention to them, and the more people looking and editing the better they will get. If you would like your new article to appear in the newsletter, add it here for Judaism and Kabbalah and here for Jewish History.
There are some 40 odd standing requests for Judaism related articles. Please make them! I would, but I'm too busy writing this. .
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message]20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
){kind=link}
