On [[Talk:Genesis creation narrative]] you called insulted other's religion by calling part of it a "fairy tale".
On [[Talk:Genesis creation narrative]] you insulted other's religion by calling part of it a "fairy tale".
See [[WP:NPA]]. Here is part of it(emphasis mine):
See [[WP:NPA]]. Here is part of it(emphasis mine):
*"There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are '''never acceptable''':
*"There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are '''never acceptable''': Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, '''religious''', political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."
*Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, '''religious''', political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."
Thank you for your help resolving the dispute between Aprock and me on the Ashkenazi intelligence article. It appears to be resolved at this point, but I do have one additional question. The topic of ethnicity and intelligence is a tricky one, and I've noticed that it's a challenging endeavor to find people who place improving the articles in line with policy above promoting their own viewpoints. I'm grateful that the person who responded to my 3O request was someone with a good handle on neutrality and adherence to policy. I'd like to ask: next time I'm in need of someone to mediate a dispute of this nature in this topic area, would you mind if I request your input directly instead of going through the 3O process again?Boothello (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment about the research. I think I've definitely researched the topic well! I guess I'm just waiting for a specific example and argument as to why a part of the article is POV. Until then, it seems there's just this general felling of "Hey! You're not giving equal validity." O well. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really just about weight. Like I say, I agree with the POV but, for example, "false" or "falsely" occurs every other sentence in the first two paragraphs of the "prelude" subsection. I think the article has gone too far in hammering home the point that "death panel" is, all said and done, a bit of stupid sloganeering. That can be conveyed without taking such a severe tone, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe it would be good for discussion purposes to bring that up at NPOVN. Each time I've used the word false I think there's a good source that used it or an equivalent. I did ask for a copy-edit to the article recently. Maybe that would help. Jesanj (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but it is worth keeping in mind if you are monitoring the article. If someone has "TW" in their edit summary, it may be an innocent and oblivious drive-by. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'll try to take all that into account. I haven't looked into it enough yet to no what response I will give, but don't forget that it is non-binding. --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will though only through gritted teeth. Although, there is consensus for the move, and as I have written above this discussion has gone on longer than normal. This name, numbering and country is a perennial issue with the above monarch, and as a result no consensus has been reached regarding the name, however much a small band of editors suggest that that is the case. The move here is impartial and does no particular 'interested' parties down on their ownership of the memory of the man. Brendandh (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Brendandh to move the page since I am not sure how to do it. It was a clear consensus that lasted twice as long as the suggested time and was a fair compromise as the page will clearly show. My apologizes to Brendandh for any discomfort I have caused her and apologizes to you for any confusion I have caused to you. Mugginsx (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[1]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FormerIP, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join!
Your comment on the Wikiproject Ireland page
I would strongly encourage you to do what you said regarding the rfc, you would get a lot of support from a lot of editors, myself included, especially if it will resolve most/all of the petty disputes that the usual suspects initiate or provoke in which articles would get disrupted in the process. Sheodred (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd care to check the discussion page, you'd see that this actually does have talk page support, and that a lot of work went into crafting this compromise proposal. For further enquiries, please check with User:Resolute, whose proposal this is. Cheers, --JN46620:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somatotype and constitutional psychology
Enforcement action taken vs Editor75439 (talk·contribs) banning further editing of said article... I had kind of suspected this would be the eventual result (the admin who did the topic banning commented "It's rarely this straightforward"), but was trying to assume good faith. Thanks for your efforts! Allens (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depictions of Muhammad and other original contributions that you tirelessly add. I find it to be a rare person who becomes an major contributor to the body of articles across many subjects and who writes in a concise NPOV voice. There are plenty of deletionists, one-sentence snipers, copy editors and talk page spectators but not enough main stay contributors. So I would like to reward these traits. Alatari (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I'm trying to come up with a template to warn people they are going to encounter images of Muhammad and how to turn off the images on their local computer. Something like this: Template:MuhammadEditNotice place in the Page Notice content of an article with the aforementioned method of turning off browser images on several browsers. Do you remember where that tutorial is? I thought it was on the Depictions of Muhammad talk page but no. This kind of page warning is used on some sex articles so there is a precedent. --Alatari (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Email
Hello, FormerIP. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Apologies if my comments at AN and ANI yesterday came off as insulting. You are correct—it's not as if there were plans for anything better. Although I'm supportive of the principle, I figured the short time frame would doom that proposal from the start. Regardless, the snarky comments 'exceedingly poor planning' were not warranted. SwarmX03:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep it on the talkpage. However, so as to give you an answer, the wording you are objecting to was added by Tryptofish as the result of the discussion in the section headed "compromise". I think you were too quick to revert, though. Tweak, or else explain and discuss. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at Alatari's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Use /Evidence
I think you should probably enter the mitigating circumstances and your promise not to repeat certain behaviors not only on Workshop page but on the Evidence page as well. You should probably give a link to the rather tame ANI thread on you. I think JN466 has omitted that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.
File permission problem with File:Frog and saucepan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Frog and saucepan.jpg, which you've sourced to James Lee. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a number of times on the talk page of this article, and the consensus is for the current status quo. The article went through a period of slo-mo edit-warring (which I think you were party to) but has now settled down., so why have you reverted my edit? Has some new information come to light? JonCTalk21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Genesis creation narrative you insulted other's religion by calling part of it a "fairy tale".
See WP:NPA. Here is part of it(emphasis mine):
"There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."
.svg){kind=small}
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
