Misplaced Pages

User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:09, 7 November 2024 editIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,515 edits →More agile: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:45, 20 January 2025 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers383,070 edits →January music: GA 
(226 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
|maxarchsize=400000}} |maxarchsize=400000}}


== October music == == January music ==
{{User QAIbox {{User QAIbox
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg | image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8 | image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ] | bold = ] · ] · ]
}} }}
You may remember ], my ] as ]. ] was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with ] mentioned in story and music. --] (]) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Happy new year 2025, opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- ] (]) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


] an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --] (]) 19:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Now: ], my ] 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. ] will be my story tomorrow. --] (]) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


Today brought ] of ] to the Main page on the day when ] were performed for him. --] (]) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC) I managed a few more pics and the first precious ;) - If you have a few seconds please look into the ''Sacrifice'' trailer, see her speak ... --] (]) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Great collaboration, Storye book found the pic, MONTENSEM wrote the lead after adding detail, and I feel you know a lot about the person after reading just that. (No discussion about an infobox, as for an estimated 95% of composers' articles. They have become normal, ], did you know?) --] (]) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I made Leif Segerstam my ] story today. -] (]) 08:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


My ] is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --] (]) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Today we have the next composer of the kind, mentioned ] with two others. When I saw the TFP of ], however, I was inclined to help him to more accessibily but dropped it when I looked at the article history. I try to avoid conflict. I only step in when someone ''new'' to the strangest "contentious topic" I have encountered on WP gets treated as a warrior. I wonder what could stop that, - assuming good faith should be the first approach, no? --] (]) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Good faith is so often the key to avoiding and diffusing conflict. But it's understandable why in moments it doesn't happen. Best, ] (]) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his . - ] was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page ''now'' because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --] (]) 14:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Today's focus is another composer because he would have been 90 today, ]. There was a discussion in 2019, still on the talk, in case of interest in the study of good faith. --] (]) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I wrote the article about his opera, and smiled when quoting from it "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" ;) --] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Today a violinist from Turkey, ], whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --] (]) 21:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:: ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ] (who also wrote ]). --] (]) 18:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Today I have ] (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with ] who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --] (]) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Precious anniversary ===
Did you listen? --] (]) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}
--] (]) 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world ]. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted ] in 2016. --] (]) 15:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC) :I've mentioned this before but precious was hugely important to me as an editor and as part of this community. I appreciate the work you do in giving it out (and commemorating it). Best, ] (]) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Thank you! I love to do it. While I slowed down in giving, the daily routine of remembering things to be thankful for is an uplifting exercise ;) - Today, my first objective was to upgrade ] that I brought to the Main page (in poor shape, but I was too tired yesterday), - it's nominated for GA now. My story today. I'll make a story for ], although my first article this year is already off the Main page. - The second was to help finding a FA suitable for TFA on IWD. The third will be to turn to today's article, another recent death. Then a round of telling others the same things, and then I'll probably be too tired to give the first precious of the year. --] (]) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well there is no deadline for telling someone they're precious, but it certainly remains appreciated by me and a highlight of my wiki creer. That other stuff is good too - all . On a different note I've read through the Rimsky-Korsakov RfC and am considering doing a close (if I do I'll need to read it through at least once more entirely). Best, ] (]) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Well, I don't care how that will be closed, seriously. --] (]) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: The choreographer is my story today, although her all-too-brief on the Main page was on 5 January. Her work mentioned is based on ]. I wonder if you are aware that one of the key debates of the infoboxes arbcase is now in ] (there were two earlier), - for background or entertainment, as you like it. It contains the key argument against an infobox (at least as I see it): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." - I think the discussion remained civil, btw. --] (]) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ] today who directed lasting performances --] (]) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Deletion review for ] ==
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice -->


also: ], ], ], ].
]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==


] (]) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello,


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->


== SPI ==
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .


Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI ] with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.


Thank you, ] (]) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Kind Regards,


:@] I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). ] (]) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
]
::I see, thank you.

::<s>Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented warrant an SPI filing for Boksi?</s> ] (]) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. ] (]) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == == Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC) ]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== Nishidani comment ==

Hey Bk, I see you removed Nishidani’s bizarre and offensive comment. I’m not sure removing it helps, as I feel it should be addressed. The offensiveness of an editor citing some joke as evidence that there is a Jewish tendency to gratuitously and abusively accuse non-Jews of antisemitism is pretty bad, but it is secondary to the derailing irrelevance of this particular line of “Everyone knows it exists! Stop asking for secondary sources!” argumentation that’s been popping up repeatedly at that Talk. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 17:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{tps}} <s>If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to ] (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. ]. ] (] • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>Nishidani didn't <em>make</em> the joke, so that part was incorrect. And they've said they weren't intending to communicate anything hateful. See below for clarification. ] (] • she/her) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
::See https://www.jstor.org/stable/538991
::p.218 states the exact joke Nishidani used, and makes the exact same academic point that Nishidani makes.
::Barkeep, please could you self-revert your removal of Nishidani’s comment, and reverse the clearly mistaken ban.
::] (]) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for finding that. I had not thought to search JSTOR. However, I read Katz and Katz's interpretation of the joke far differently than you (even if we ignore the difference in context between two Yiddish speaking people telling jokes to each other and a person - Jewish, a Yiddish speaker, or not - telling it on the Internet to win a point). Specifically, Katz and Kate write, {{tqq|In this story it is not the inanimate machine that is accused of anti-Semitism but a man, who presumably belongs to the majority culture and who has behaved toward the Jews with uncommon courtesy and-be it noted-toleration. The Jew, on the other hand, is at best an outrageous and at worst a repulsive figure. We may in fact be initially amused at his impudence...Here the Jew soon appalls the hearer by his total lack of standards in such ele­mentary matters as hygiene and privacy, not to speak of more subtle areas. as delicacy and good manners. He has already been indulged far beyond the patience any hearer would show and, when the line is finally drawn, his cry of "anti­Semitism" is the culmination of a process that has taken him progressively out of the realm of our sympathy.}} So at best this source says that it was a known joke in <s>early 20th</s> <u>the 1960's</u> century Eastern European Jewry but by 1973 was being criticized. It is now 51 years later. I stand by my sanction for the way Nishdani's comment was, to quote the previous warning, {{tqq|unnecessarily inflammatory language}}. ] (]) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Prior to the quote, Katz and Katz write (my bolding added): {{tq|'''It is quite well known''' that jokes form a prominent part of the Jewish folklore tradition. Jewish folklore itself attributes to Jews a kind of expertise as raconteurs and connoisseurs of jokes… The point of the story '''is familiar'''. A negative reaction to behavior that is inadequate or inappropriate is interpreted by the Jew as reflecting ethnic prejudice… Dorson's story also involves a charge of anti-Semitism…}}
::::Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment?
::::For ease of reference, Nishidani’s entire comment, without the joke was as follows: {{tq| I mean, reaslly Bob, you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism. . Testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go, even in Jewish communities.}}
::::] (]) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment? ] (]) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have already quoted Katz and Katz writing specifically about this joke and the way that it is inflamatory. This is beyond the idea that what may have been common in the 1960s (the time period for the source of the joke) may no longer be common and, crucially, what they describe as common is jokes as part of Jewish folklore tradition, not the specific jokes they cite. And, I will add, what was common in 1973, the date of the source, may no longer be common 50+ years later. ] (]) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sorry but you have not answered my question at all. Nishidani wrote two sentences, and correctly quoted a joke from academic literature, in accurate context.
::::::Which of these two sentences did you find inflammatory?
::::::] (]) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It can be quite appropriate for academic literature to dissect inflammatory language and explain why it is inflammatory and improper. This is what Katz and Katz do. So you don't get to handwave the content of the joke away. Correctly quoting academic literature does not mean it's OK in the context of a Misplaced Pages talk page discussion to reproduce it. The contexts are different and the point Katz and Katz are making is rather different than what Nishdani was doing. ] (]) 19:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What are you suggesting that Nishidani was doing? Please explain with reference to either or both of his two sentences. ] (]) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I am stating that by posting ] Nishidani was inflaming the discussion and further stating that they had previously been warned about doing this. I understand I have not answered your specific questions, because I reject the idea that I can only consider the two sentences you keep asking about. At this point I'm quite repeating myself here and so absent this conversation moving forward in some new productive way, I feel I have met the expectations under the ] and the ]. ] (]) 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Hi Barkeep, while your original revert and block was in good faith, you have already accepted that was mistaken. Further evidence for this is below - the joke is widely published as representative of historical Jewish humor.
::::::::::* {{cite book | last=Sherman | first=J. | title=A Sampler of Jewish-American Folklore | publisher=August House | series=American folklore series | year=1992 | isbn=978-0-87483-194-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dNXemchFutgC&pg=PA152|p=152 | ref=none}}
::::::::::* {{cite book | last=Novak | first=W. | last2=Waldoks | first2=M. | title=The Big Book of Jewish Humor | publisher=HarperCollins | series=G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series | year=2006 | isbn=978-0-06-113813-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xpwbAQAAIAAJ | ref=none|p=85}}
::::::::::The second citation (p.85 of the Big Book) quotes the joke within a particularly detailed section (from page 60 onwards) on self-deprecating Jewish jokes about anti-semitism.
::::::::::I appreciate that you acknowledged above that your initial search was lacking.
::::::::::But since then you stuck to your claim that Nishidani’s comment was inflammatory, without explaining either '''what''' or '''how''' you reached that conclusion. Administrative actions are required to be supported by explanation.
::::::::::] (]) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::As you said, it's self-deprecating humor. Most self-deprecating jokes, especially those relating to minority groups, would be offensive if they weren't told in a self-deprecating manner (or if it wasn't clear from context). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Very true.
::::::::::::The context here was crystal clear. The description of the joke was used to illustrate an academic point – specifically the point that such a joke exists, and thus the existence of the cultural phenomenon of Jewish people being aware of the perception of hypersensitivity to antisemitism.
::::::::::::It was clearly not directed at anyone, or being used as an attempted joke.
::::::::::::] (]) 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Did you think to ask @] if he thought it was an issue? Or do you decide that something is inflaming the discussion without thought as to if the participants a. have a history together, b. dont take offense to such a comment, or c. instinctively know that somebody is not {{tq|mak condescending antisemitic jokes}}? ''']''' - 16:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep, while I'm not sure if I have heard this particular joke before, it is based on an authentic Jewish theme and I've heard many jokes with much the same punchline from Jewish friends. Your edit summary "a joke weaponizing antisemitism" is not correct; rather it is a joke ''about'' weaponization of antisemitism, or at least about oversensitivity towards antisemitism. A Jewish comedian telling this joke would evoke a laugh from any Jewish audience because everyone in the audience knows someone who sees antisemitism everywhere. I would have advised Nish against repeating it on-wiki, but I don't think it deserves a TB. Regards. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:As I note at more length to Levivich below, the difference in context between a Jewish comedian talking to a Jewish audience and Nishidani writing on an article talk page remains core to why I do not find use of the joke OK in the context {{they| Nishidani}} used it. ] (]) 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:<small>Just for the record, Zero , since I mentioned it in response to you, as an acute Jewish community insight into hypersensitivities over antisemitism. But that was 6 years ago. A lot of people, many hostile to my presence here (something i know because in reading the endless reports about me at AE/ANI over the years and not one hostile reader of my page ever noted this remark in 2018 as anything like a 'gotcha' smoking gun piece of evidence to haul me in for a sanction - and Barkeep's is the 6th action against me this year -, I am always impressed by how minutely records are kept of every edit or comment I make on wiki and on my talk page esp. These chaps know more about me than I do- and so I wouldn't have taken your advice. On principle. I don't buckle to the kind of discursive intimidation that would banish, in this case, from[REDACTED] discussions, a disturbing trend, stuff that is amply circulating, and subject to wise analysis out there in the public record. Unfortunately, admins have a remit to hyperspecialize in 'behaviour' <(- meaning, understandably, few have the time to plunge into a deep, comprehensive background reading of the literature on any topic -) for which there are wokist and byzantine rules and cases, and are not required to be familiar with any topic content. To both SFR and Barkeep (and leeky cauldron) this 'looked' inflammatory and rather than just ask me about it, BK did what he did. I think you are seriously wrong to think that there is even an odour of this being read as inflammatory such that an editor should shy from using it heuristically, as I did. There is something disturbingly toxic about the implicit principle laid down here: that an ethnic group's conversation cannot be quoted by anyone outside of that 'pale', and that to do so is to aggressively trouble the sensivities of those within the ingroup who would otherwise laugh at it, a joke in this case which is about one person in an ingroup (Jews) misreading what a kind person (non-Jew) did as evidence of hostile prejudice. This pathetic episode is a palmary case exhibiting the very hypersensitity the joke I cited mocked, to the point that the friendly outgrouper I am is sanctioned for mentioning it. The next step after this inflammatory precedent would be to start saying papers by the world's top Holocaust scholars in the ] cannot be cited on[REDACTED] because the content is 'inflammatory' since it disturbs many readers from Burma to Israel. 'And so it goes,' as Billy Joel once sang. Sigh</small> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

You wrote in your edit summary "I can find no evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke. So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article." Now that you've been shown evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke, why doesn't it change the second sentence of your statement? ] (]) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:What I should have done was remove it and then ask Nishidani about it and only then make a decision with more information about any potential sanction. But the reason I haven't with more information reversed my topic ban, is because use this joke in this context for this purpose remains by my reading and judgement "unnecessarily inflammatory language" which Nishidani had previously been warned for. And not for nothing this also seems to be the reading of the first two editors (one of them an UNINOVLVED admin) in this very user talk discussion. Nishidani is not a scholar suggesting that Jewish folklore humor needs to change (Katz & Katz) nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley) or any of the any other contexts we're talking about. They are instead an editor on a multiculutral encyclopedia debating whether there is the correct content on an article about the Weaponization of antisemitism has adequately sourced and written material in its lead paragraph. And in this context, to repeat what I wrote above, it remains my judgement that it was "unnecessarily inflammatory language". ] (]) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:: I concur with Barkeep49. As to Nableezy's three points - if Nish wanted to banter with Bob ... the proper place to put off-topic jokes would be on Bob or Nish's talk page. The reason I agree with Barkeep that it was inflammatory was that in the context of an article talk page, where others besides Bob and Nish are involved, even if Bob was fine with the joke from Nish, others quite likely would not be comfortable with such a joke, and would likely not consider it bantering between friends. Instead, it's quite likely to put off other editors and make them feel that the talk page is a hostile place. ] (]) 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I doubt many editors would confuse this for banter. The point of telling the joke wasn't because Nish thought the joke was funny. Rather, the joke was cited as evidence that what the RSes said was widely accepted and uncontroversial. ] (]) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Levivich is right.
::::{{ping|Barkeep49|Ealdgyth}} are you aware that this famous joke is recorded <u>only</u> as a joke told by Jewish people about their own community? If Nishidani had retold a joke told by antisemites about Jews in order to make a point I could understand your argument and would be inclined to agree.
::::But this is provably not what this was.
::::The whole thing appears to be based on three false premises:
:::::1. That Nishidani invented the joke, or wrongly described it as famous PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
:::::2. That the joke was an inflammatory joke written by antisemites against Jews PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
:::::3. That Nishidani was telling the joke as off-topic banter PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
::::] (]) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::<small>(Another option would have been to ask about it ''before'' removing it.)</small> What makes it not inflammatory IMO is that it's an old, widely-published, Yiddish folklore joke. I think you had it right in your edit summary: either it's a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, or else--"instead"--it's a joke weaponizing antisemitism. I think you'd agree there is nothing ''inherently'' inflammatory about a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, even a self-deprecating one.
::It might still be inflammatory in the context of how it's told, and point that Katz & Katz p. 219 makes: the joke "can be regarded as anti-Semitic to the degree that the repulsive Jew is meant to stand for all Jews" but not when "the subject does not stand for all Jews". I don't see anything inflammatory about the context in which Nish told this joke.
::In a discussion about a sentence in the lead that gives examples of the weaponization of antisemitism, and whether those examples should be attributed or not (or the sentence removed or otherwise changed), Nish says "abundant sources ... underline the view that it is extremely commonplace for any criticism of Israel to be countered as 'antisemitic'. I've been seeing that for half a century, and I cannot believe that editors are unaware of this obvious fact."
::And then Nish says it's so common that there are even old self-deprecating Jewish jokes about it ("...you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism."), and then Nish re-tells such a joke. It's like a use/mention distinction: the joke isn't being told for the sake of being told, it's mentioned as evidence that the weaponization of antisemitism is commonplace (and thus attribution is not needed).
::Now the thing about the use/mention distinction is that one doesn't need to re-tell a joke to mention it, and in hindsight it might have been more professional to just mention the Jew-borrowing-toiletries joke, or link to it, rather than re-telling it on-wiki, and that's the kind of thing I could see one editor having a quiet word with another editor about, but I don't think it's inflammatory or otherwise sanctionable. ] (]) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The most inflammatory thing here, imo, is somebody saying Nishidani made a {{tq|condescending antisemitic joke}}. Just bonkers. ''']''' - 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) {{od}}
:::Okay. This is a WP:TLDR read, but I've a right to defend my good name which Barkeep and others have impugned by calling or insinuating I am an antisemite, which throws almost two decades of IP work, tens of thousands of edits, under a cloud of suspicion.

:::Sigh. That, ], makes 4 admins (the leeky cauldron’s outrageously silly suggestion that joke means I'm ‘making condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism.’. The joke is not about ‘Jews’ fa chrissake) who didn’t do their job, and concur that I am an antisemite (if I were Barkeep, who says that, I’d have permabanned me). Did you, Barkeep and SFR actually trouble yourselves to read, other than the single diff, the remarks I made immediately before that illustration which was a paraphrase from Sedley? I.e. , then , where I quote from ], ], ] 5 August 5 2019, and tweaked ? No.

:::Amos Goldberg is professor in the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ) Raz Segal is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Both are Israeli. Like Sedley they recognize the problem the joke comments on, and warn that this hypersensitivity is damaging above all to Jews.

:::They give the abstract scholarly analysis for the by now ingrained weaponization of antisemitic accusations which the joke I then added illustrates, in a friendly, come-now tone to Bob. I did so to him because we have a fairly good relationship editing-wise, and he would be familiar with the anecdote since it figured in the ] in 2018 and I quoted it on my page, which I believe he has bookmarked, back then. A reminder that the hostility to this documentation on that wiki page by many editors really does go against the grain of scholarship, and editors should recall the dangers of a habit of mind, historically comprehensible, but still mocked for the exaggerated lengths it can go to in Jewish humour.

:::Barkeep didn’t do his homework, because he keeps saying Sedley’s remarks were addressed to Jewish MPS. They were not. They were addressed to of the ] quietly pulling apart the intense wave of accusations, often coming from Jewish bodies and given wide coverage in the press, that the Labour Party was rife with anti-Semitism. It was not then, as Barkeep keeps repeating, a joke by one eminent (Jewish) jurist giving advice to Jewish MPs (‘nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley)’ - another devastating misreading showing he has not read the Sedley piece which lies behind my paraphrase).

:::It was a Jew if you like, telling a broadly non-Jewish readership that this sowing of suspicions about anti-Semitism has both its politics, unfortunately promoted by core Jewish bodies in the UK, and he pulls the rug from under the impression this lobbying might make among non-Jews it by by telling a joke which captures inimitably this problem of overreacting. If anything Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of'. So much for the way leeky cauldron's <s>spin</s> to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it.. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by ] in his ''Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew','' ], London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.

:::No one here read this, or the article I cited. They just looked at the diff and got the impression I was an antisemite. Onceinawhile at least managed to get Barkeep to google around, but even there he found excuses/reasons to remain stoutly on his given ground. Disappointing, but Misplaced Pages is full of the wreckage caused by not checking the full discursive record, It was inevitable that I too someday would be thrown under the wheels in the usual traffic jam of inattentive drivers. Is there no limit to admin solidarity when a patent error, understandable given the haste, is made, one that brands an editor as an antisemite, a vicious insinuation that would formally demand serious evidence and scrupulous backgrounding work? I know you guys have immensely and (in terms of the pleasure of just reading) tediously tiring tasks. I take what has happened here to be a matter of haste and reader fatigue, certainly not malevolence. ] (]) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I have written {{tqq|So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article}} but that describes a single action not any sort of pattern nor does it describe you as a person. I have no reason to believe you are antisemitic and have not written that you are for that precise reason. ] (]) 03:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Let us say that if you put that remark in its context before any competent grammarian, they would, if they know their job, construe it as lending itself to the interpretation that anyone using that joke, like the joke itself, was 'weaponing antisemitism'. The joke itself does not 'weaponize antisemitism'. The joke is about the fraility of people thinking something is antisemitic, when it is not. A person who cites that joke can be 'antisemitic' or viscerally intolerant of antisemitism, like the eminent Sedley and, I insist in my own defense, my own peonish self since my earliest years. A sanction for having, in an aside, used it to illustrate the abuse of antisemitic charges previously argued via the citation of scholarly work, will suggest to many readers that in using it, I played into the antisemites' worldview. I take you at your word that you do not believe I am an antisemite. Yet, this is the way language works: it gets the better of all of us at times no matter how hard we try, or what we thought we intended to say. And that your judgment was immediately endorsed by ], who said my remark is an instance of hating Jews, underlines this reading present in your phrasing. She, another admin, took the joke and your construal of it as showing I was an antisemite. Thank you, by the way, for the courtesy of hatting NMMGG's abusive jeremiad against me (even though if you follow all of the links thoroughly, they show the opposite of what that editor contends/contended, and I, like the AE cases he made, found them harmless, would not have been embarrassed had they been conserved here). In any case, no grudges. If anything, I anticipated the likelihood of something like this . It's in the nature of the way[REDACTED] works, where the rules can work out to do their function, or make working here, conversely, dysfunctional. Regards ] (]) 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*{{tps}} I'm likely not going to win any friends by saying this, but I respect y'all, so here goes. I've seen the full context for that joke now, and its use was not appropriate. In a topic this fraught, nobody should be making jokes as a means of persuasion (really, Nishidani, if your opposite numbers were not going to be convinced by scholarly sources, do you think they would be convinced by a joke?), and it's far too open to misinterpretation - nobody should need to do some research to recognize that you ''weren't'' making a novel joke in very poor taste. I think you need to recognize a need to temper your rhetoric - yes, it's boring to stick narrowly to source material, but that's what editing a CT on Misplaced Pages requires. I'll go a step beyond Ealdgyth and say that that sort of banter - if intended as such, and not as part of discussing an article directly - shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages at all. Reserve it for a forum intended for such. That said: TLC's reading of this diff above is a very superficial one indeed, and I do think TLC owes Nishidani a retraction. ] (]) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I don’t think that’s wrong, I don’t disagree it would have been wiser not to post that, but I also don’t think that merits anything more than a request to not digress in such a way on a talk page. Certainly not a sanction without even talking to somebody. ''']''' - 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*::In isolation, I agree. This isn't isolated. Nishidani has the unfortunate habit of raising the temperature; he uses rhetorical flourish, he uses strong language, he uses analogies that aren't appropriate, he uses jokes like this one. And before someone inevitably starts complaining about aspersions, that is my summary of the multiple instances I remember of Nishidani being told off at AE. ] (]) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Vanamonde93}} Yeah, I should have recognized that Nishidani didn't <em>use</em> the joke, he <em>cited</em> it. Consider that part of my previous statement struck. But uncritically citing the joke as an example of how Jews are oversensitive to antisemitism isn't better. Per Katz and Katz, the joke portrays Jews in a grossly negative light – greedy, ungrateful, and oversensitive to antisemitism. Yes, I'm aware that it's a self-deprecating joke made by Jews. I wonder if there are any other pieces of superficially derogatory language and culture that are fine when used by the targeted group (reclamation), but take on a very different meaning when used by the outside.
*:More to the point, there's a huge difference between "Israel apologists distort the concept of antisemitism to suit their own needs" and what Nishidani said, which is that Jews have "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". There really is no reasonable AGF explanation for that, and it rules out a reading of the diff where Nishidani mentions the joke but tacitly acknowledges that its protagonist is a gross caricature of a Jew. I guess it's possible that Nishidani thinks Jews have the "tendency" but doesn't think Jews are ungrateful bums otherwise, and he just forgot to mention that, but it does strain AGF.
*:A key tenet of Jewish humor is playing off of antisemitic stereotypes, part self-deprecation and part mockery. But the context the joke is cited in here fundamentally twists its meaning and tone. Nishidani's comment implies that the joke is funny because it's built on a truth about the Jewish community that still holds true for modern Jews, and that is something I do find very offensive. ] (] • she/her) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Nishidani is saying that Jews have made jokes about other Jews being oversensitive to antisemitism. It's a terrible method of persuasion, and as I said to him, inflammatory in context because it's not actual evidence of anything - but he's not telling the joke to be funny. He's not telling the joke at all, really. You're accusing him of endorsing a caricature, rather than pointing out its existence - and that's assuming pretty bad faith on his part, especially given extensive explanation here. ] (]) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Right, Nishidani's not telling the joke. But they are citing it. They say so in this thread and in the diff. They cite it as evidence of, in their words, "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". They say it is "testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go". That is a straightforward argument: ~"Jews (not bad-faith Israel apologists, not even Zionists, <em>Jews</em>) tend to blast everything they don't like as antisemitism. Even Jews say so." The evidence for that argument is the joke and its caricature.
*:::If you're arguing that Nishidani was merely citing the <em>existence</em> of the caricature, not its content... citing in support of what, then? Its existence has no bearing on whether bad-faith Israel stooges distort the meaning of antisemitism for political purposes and no bearing on whether Jews are, as they said, "hypersensitive" to antisemitism. "Look at how the Jews make fun of themselves for being oversensitive. The caricature is bogus, but its existence proves that they really are so easily offended". I find it unlikely that someone as well-read as Nishidani would say something that specious. ] (] • she/her) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::The only way you can remake Nishidanis comment in to one saying Jews as a people blame everything they don’t like on antisemitism is you if you distort it beyond recognition. And if he actually had said such a thing, why haven’t you blocked him as a racist? ''']''' - 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::*'''19 October 2024''', taking out the words 'by Jews' in a wiki article with the edit summary
*:::*
*:::*.] (]) 20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::*:{{yo|Nishidani}} All right, I'm gonna try and make this my last reply, because I think I've explained my view well enough in response to Vanamonde's request that I strike my previous statement. Props on that first edit. If you're really insisting that you don't believe and didn't mean to say the proposition I understood from your statement – that Jews are hypersensitive to antisemitism as a group or culture – then I have no further quarrel with you. I have no interest in "spinning" or prosecuting, so if you're telling me straight that you're not that person, then I can move on to the article I was excited to get started on today. Does that work for you? ] (] • she/her) 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::*::{{tps}} If anyone's serious about stamping out '''toxic conduct''' in ARBPIA, apparently '''Nishidani thinks''' it's acceptable to ] '''(~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors")''' about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. ''']'''. ] (] • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::*:::{{yo|Nishidani}} Copy-pasting my comment along with ] makes for a very confusing reading experience for others later. I'd appreciate it if you made the intention of your comment clearer within the context. (Which is also, coincidentally, how I felt about your original comment!) I appreciate that there was a misunderstanding, and my perception of your original comment is different now with additional context, so sure, I'll strike it. Would you mind striking your calling my comment "spin"? I participated in this discussion in good faith, and would appreciate it if you acknowledged as much. ] (] • she/her) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::*::::] (]) 22:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::TLC, I don't normally vote in RFA but I did vote positively for yours. Please don't make me regret that by carrying this on further. As it stands, Nishidani has been banned from the "Arab Isreal" topic area for three weeks but can still participate in the "Arab Isfake" topic area. While this may have seemed overhasty to many (myself included), it's unlikely to be changed no matter how many pixels get splashed from the well to the screen. I would suggest that, following the adage, fewer is more. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

{{ctop|People have been sanctioned for a long time in this topic area. This discussion goes into some of that history. If you want to go back 11+ years this is the wrong place - and I'm not sure there is a need or right place anywhere. ] (]) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)}}
*This is not the first time Nishidani has engaged in antisemitic discourse. he says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide.
: he has an anecdote about "Jewish eyes", completely unrelated to the discussion.
:Nishidani was one of the first editors to be TBANed from the topic area, prior to the original ARBPIA case and was allowed back in based on the assumption he will be civil which he very obviously isn't and has never been.
:He should have been permanently banned over a decade ago, but it's not too late to do so now and rid the topic area of one of the most toxic editors around. ] (]) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::I could have sworn I’ve seen you make the same claims at AE. That’s right, it ended with your ] for accusing "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds". ''']''' - 23:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, there is a lot of relevant info there regarding the pattern of behavior I mentioned above (I completely forgot the "chosen" remark). Thanks for posting it. ] (]) 00:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::What’s most relevant is the finding that you made specious claims of racism, and having been sanctioned for it previously you return 11 years later to do it again. ''']''' - 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
{{cbot}}

== Warnings and waggings ==

You know how I feel about warnings and reminders, and I know how you feel about my oft open disdain, so I'll keep up the decorum of AE in the future. As for the actual utility, when we've been dealing with editors who are making repeat appearances, with warnings and sanctions, and we're talking about warnings as anything other than an ineffectual finger-wag it really irks my taters. In my mind, warnings are to let someone know that they crossed a line, and if the line is crossed again there will be repercussions. When you're issuing repeat warnings it really is nothing more than a finger wag, or maybe a frown with a head shake from your homeroom teacher. Warnings only work if those that continue behavior after being warned face repercussions. When we warn for behavior that has already been sanctioned in the past it weakens the entire arbitration enforcement regime and reinforces the idea of ]. {{pb}}While I appreciate that you took the heat for the sanction discussed above, further shows the kid's gloves we're using with editors that have already been sanctioned and warned. We're essentially saying that having been warned has less weight than lacking social capital. I understand that is how things play out, because no one likes spending their limited time eating shit and dealing with fallout, but it really reduces the efficacy of warnings, particularly for established editors. {{pb}}All that said, you're right, at AE I should be a bit less flip with the language I use describing the tools in our toolbox. ] (]) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not totally unsympathetic to the "we need to do better than finger wagging" criticism of some outcomes at AE that I propose and I appreciate you bringing up a differing point of view on such things. But yes my point was that is the wrong place to engage in that style of criticism and I appreciate what you and {{u|Valereee}} wrote in response. Best, ] (]) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:Irks my taters? New one on me. Yes, the whole unblockables thing is a very strange phenomenon. ] (]) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::I can't help but read it with a ] accent in my head. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You like that one? Try "had the radish" on for size. ] (]) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{Tps}} I don't find it particularly astonishing that in a volunteer community where volunteer time is our most crucial resource, it can sometimes be the case that very productive members are afforded more leeway in rules infractions.{{pb}}I'm not planning to opine here on the value or detriment of the phenomenon, nor how much leeway to afford – inclu&shy;ding none – is the most optimal, nor where the bright lines and grey zones should be. But it feels logical that this arises naturally from our circumstances. ] (]) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Qwerty talk page ==

Hi Barkeep49 (and also @] as I saw you also made a comment), I saw your comments on User:i.am.a.qwerty's talk page; in my experience, I have never gotten a response from them on their talk page, they usually just delete everything when people leave messages. This has happened even when myself , they just deleted it all. ] (]) 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for sharing that experience. I noticed here they did leave an explanation on the article talk page which I am considering as their response. ] (]) 09:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== WikiCup 2024 November newsletter ==

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}}, who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}}, who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 879 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} with 533 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 432 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Arconning}} with 244 points, and {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AryKun}} with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Misplaced Pages has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|MaranoFan}} wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Fritzmann}} wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Muboshgu}} wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to ''']'''; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

<small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from ].</small> {{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}. ] (]) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1251151619 -->

== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==

] from the past month (October 2024).

]

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]

] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.

] '''Technical news'''
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}

] '''Arbitration'''
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->

== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 20:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 6 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-06}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 15--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1255531917 -->

== I'm so confused ==


== Deletion review for ] ==
With all the page moves etc, but I created those pages by clicking links that were all in my face so I assume you know what is up and i'm not (completely) insane? ] ] 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
] has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> —] 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Second set of eyes ==
:@] you're not insane (at least in this regards). Somehow the pages all got created as JSS (Alerts 0) which messed everything up. I have mostly fixed this; you have 1 or 2 more steps left to do. The step I definitely know you have to do is go to ] and uncomment the template that is on the page (and I think delete your statement that's on there). You may also have to transclude the page to the candidates page. ] (]) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't remember this being the least bit difficult in the past. I'm lost. I'm not running for template editor. I think I got it? ] ] 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what the behind the scenes setup is for all this. I think the lesson learned is to not accidently have some weird text present when you create the candidate pages :). You are showing as a candidate so I agree it seems to be all worked out. Best, ] (]) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing ] at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: {{diff||1270074136}}. Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of ], which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== More agile ==


:Thanks @]. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, ] (]) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding : "more agile" is, of course, a relative term :-), as the arbitration committee wasn't all that quick in modifying the discretionary sanctions framework. But true enough, the community as a whole is too big to reach consensus agreement on major changes, and too ingrained with the idea of deriving procedures from the bottom up to worry about aligning discrepancies in its procedures. (Not worrying about trying to align everything has certain practical advantages which probably outweigh the negatives on the whole, but it leaves a lot of room for argument if everyone isn't willing to go along to get along.) I'm guessing there will have to be a bigger divergence between the contentious topics and discretionary sanctions frameworks before the community is willing to invest time to reach a consensus on the matter, and I imagine that once again they'll just say "like that, with these small differences". ] (]) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:45, 20 January 2025


Archives (Index)

January music

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Now: Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I managed a few more pics and the first precious ;) - If you have a few seconds please look into the Sacrifice trailer, see her speak ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Great collaboration, Storye book found the pic, MONTENSEM wrote the lead after adding detail, and I feel you know a lot about the person after reading just that. (No discussion about an infobox, as for an estimated 95% of composers' articles. They have become normal, project opera removed the "no infobox" recommendation from its style guide in 2019, did you know?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Today we have the next composer of the kind, mentioned in my story with two others. When I saw the TFP of Mr. Balfe, however, I was inclined to help him to more accessibily but dropped it when I looked at the article history. I try to avoid conflict. I only step in when someone new to the strangest "contentious topic" I have encountered on WP gets treated as a warrior. I wonder what could stop that, - assuming good faith should be the first approach, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good faith is so often the key to avoiding and diffusing conflict. But it's understandable why in moments it doesn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Today's focus is another composer because he would have been 90 today, Georg Katzer. There was a discussion in 2019, still on the talk, in case of interest in the study of good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I wrote the article about his opera, and smiled when quoting from it "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton (who also wrote The Rite of Spring). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before but precious was hugely important to me as an editor and as part of this community. I appreciate the work you do in giving it out (and commemorating it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I love to do it. While I slowed down in giving, the daily routine of remembering things to be thankful for is an uplifting exercise ;) - Today, my first objective was to upgrade an article that I brought to the Main page (in poor shape, but I was too tired yesterday), - it's nominated for GA now. My story today. I'll make a story for Dada Masilo, although my first article this year is already off the Main page. - The second was to help finding a FA suitable for TFA on IWD. The third will be to turn to today's article, another recent death. Then a round of telling others the same things, and then I'll probably be too tired to give the first precious of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well there is no deadline for telling someone they're precious, but it certainly remains appreciated by me and a highlight of my wiki creer. That other stuff is good too - all . On a different note I've read through the Rimsky-Korsakov RfC and am considering doing a close (if I do I'll need to read it through at least once more entirely). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I don't care how that will be closed, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The choreographer is my story today, although her all-too-brief on the Main page was on 5 January. Her work mentioned is based on The Rite of Spring. I wonder if you are aware that one of the key debates of the infoboxes arbcase is now in Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 3 (there were two earlier), - for background or entertainment, as you like it. It contains the key argument against an infobox (at least as I see it): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." - I think the discussion remained civil, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Otto Schenk today who directed lasting performances --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1960s in history

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1960s in history. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

also: 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, 2000s in history.


Sm8900 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#7 January 2025 with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I see, thank you.
Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented warrant an SPI filing for Boksi? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scott Ritter on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Thajuddin

Spworld2 has asked for a deletion review of Thajuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Second set of eyes

Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing History of Székesfehérvár at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: . Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of Székesfehérvár, which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Utopes. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Barkeep49: Difference between revisions Add topic