| Revision as of 14:03, 3 August 2007 view sourceJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Complaint lodged against you.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:42, 3 August 2007 view source PalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 edits →Complaint lodged against you.Next edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| Dear Jayjg. I believe you have made a mistake (failed to link correctly to a reference), fixed it after I pointed it out, then claimed that my report is false and either shockingly careless or (possibly?) malicious. See . This happened at the AfD page for "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", but I have lodged the complaint at the ArbComm page, where various behaviour on the AfD page is under scrutiny. If I were to be mistaken in this allegation against you, be sure that I would retract and apologise. I know how very keen you are on references being correctly linked, and how serious you consider any mistakes made in this regard. However, I did not go to complaint first, I assumed the initial error to be in good faith and treated it as such - though I cannot be sure whether you approve of AGF in these cases. Please leave this notification in place for a reasonable time for people to see it. ] 08:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | Dear Jayjg. I believe you have made a mistake (failed to link correctly to a reference), fixed it after I pointed it out, then claimed that my report is false and either shockingly careless or (possibly?) malicious. See . This happened at the AfD page for "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", but I have lodged the complaint at the ArbComm page, where various behaviour on the AfD page is under scrutiny. If I were to be mistaken in this allegation against you, be sure that I would retract and apologise. I know how very keen you are on references being correctly linked, and how serious you consider any mistakes made in this regard. However, I did not go to complaint first, I assumed the initial error to be in good faith and treated it as such - though I cannot be sure whether you approve of AGF in these cases. Please leave this notification in place for a reasonable time for people to see it. ] 08:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Actually, as I , "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. ''"Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000.'' is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Misplaced Pages requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Misplaced Pages don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | :Actually, as I , "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. ''"Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000.'' is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Misplaced Pages requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Misplaced Pages don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I have made a (nearly) unreserved apology to you at the ArbCom page - but I'm posting the chain of events here in order to avoid cluttering up that page. | |||
| ::I first made a mild complaint at, whereupon you made the fix, and messaged me that you'd done so (I'm almost uninvolved and not taking part in the edit of that article, hence I don't think I saw your note). Meanwhile, I'd complained more vociferously at and your response this time came across to me as denial and as an accusation of bungling against me. I trust you will similarly withdraw any false allegations you have outstanding against me. ] 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:42, 3 August 2007
| Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
Talk archives
|
Holocaust dispute diff
- I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. – Dreadstar † 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sri Lanka page
Couple of editors are suspected to be sockpuppets, initially checkuser said it was a sock puppet, then the case was bailed out. Supposedly these accounst are not supposed to edit the same page beacuse of it but they do all the time to overcome 3RR not jsut in this page but number of pages. This is the . If you need more on this let me know. 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)
Deletion vs. moving
If you look at my original comment here I never said I'd stop opposing deleting articles, I said I'd stop arbitrarily moving articles around if you agreed not to do that either. There is no consensus to move or merge urban apartheid into Allegations of apartheid. If you're insisting on consensus before an article like "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" can be moved you can't turn around and say it's okay to merge Urban apartheid or Social apartheid unilaterally. Please be consistent and please agree that urban apartheid and social apartheid should be individual articles until there is a consensus to do otherwise. Lothar of the Hill People 19:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy
I thought I would let you know that I posted a notice at WP:ANI regarding our impasse at Palestinian people. Tiamat 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the future please do not selectively quote policy. The rest of that paragraph goes on to state: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" Which it was. The section deals with unsourced material. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
RFAR
You have been named as a party in an RFAR at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. --Ideogram 06:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Restoration of old material
You just restored an old version of the DNA section at the Palestinian people after GH and myself worked on it to make it better. Please explain this action at the talk. Tiamat 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit restored exactly the same DNA text that Tewfik had added some time ago. You also restored a section that I deleted because it was not very relevant to the discussion of Palestinian ancestry. So you kept one sentence at the top. Big deal. It's another wholesale revert. Along with the ancestry section. Compare this diff which includes you edit to the DNA section with the edit Tewfik made a while ago: . Now tell me what you changed. Nothing. Here is the diff where you make this wholesale reversion of the DNA section (and the ancestry section) . What did you keep? A set of brackets? Wow. Tiamat 14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Nationalism and children's paintings
1) as mentioned in cat_talk:pal_nationalism, I've put Category:Ethnic nationalism for cfd. 2) regarding edits in sderot, we do keep on bumping in to each other in so many articles, that at times its difficult to keep track of which one is which. --Soman 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
RFAR Comment
Darn it. If I try to be balanced, I get called a troll. If I "take a side", I am not being fair. Lose-Lose.
In any case, If you raise that point I will also second it, as it is undoubtedly true.
I will admit I had little time to organize myself before I commented, but my main point was that there where serious allegations all over the place that needed Arbcom's attention, even if the result is "editing dispute - got back to talk". Thanks!--Cerejota 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Complaint lodged against you.
Dear Jayjg. I believe you have made a mistake (failed to link correctly to a reference), fixed it after I pointed it out, then claimed that my report is false and either shockingly careless or (possibly?) malicious. See here. This happened at the AfD page for "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", but I have lodged the complaint at the ArbComm page, where various behaviour on the AfD page is under scrutiny. If I were to be mistaken in this allegation against you, be sure that I would retract and apologise. I know how very keen you are on references being correctly linked, and how serious you consider any mistakes made in this regard. However, I did not go to complaint first, I assumed the initial error to be in good faith and treated it as such - though I cannot be sure whether you approve of AGF in these cases. Please leave this notification in place for a reasonable time for people to see it. PalestineRemembered 08:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, as I explained to you quite clearly at the time, "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. "Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000. is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Misplaced Pages requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Misplaced Pages don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. Jayjg 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have made a (nearly) unreserved apology to you at the ArbCom page - but I'm posting the chain of events here in order to avoid cluttering up that page.
- I first made a mild complaint at, whereupon you made the fix, and messaged me that you'd done so (I'm almost uninvolved and not taking part in the edit of that article, hence I don't think I saw your note). Meanwhile, I'd complained more vociferously at and your response this time came across to me as denial and as an accusation of bungling against me. I trust you will similarly withdraw any false allegations you have outstanding against me. PalestineRemembered 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)