Thank you very much for the barnstar. It certainly is a tough page, or at least a tough talk page, to cope with. When people try to egg one on into losing one's temper, it's frequently best to not feel obligated to argue with every theoretical point that they raise, and to focus instead on pointing to sources to back up specific edits to the page. If there is a reliable source saying that such-and-such is criticism, then it really does not matter whether we can change the mind of an editor who is unwilling to change their mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
...nice to meet you. I'm very interested in pursuing your suggestion regarding Criticism sidebars but have no skill or experience that would help in actually making the new sidebars. It does seem like a very useful template to have available, to guide readers through related articles. This page seems to indicate that the Village pump (proposals) page would be a good place for the general discussion. What if we put the Criticism sidebar in place on the Criticism of Islam article, by way of example, then start a new thread at the Pump to get responses and some broader input? Since Matt57 originally added the sidebar there, I'm sure he'll be amenable. I really enjoyed our discussion on that page, it's always a pleasure to interact with such a collegial editor : ) Doc Tropics16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what the best Talk page is to have the discussion. That page you identify may be talking mostly about the sidebar that appears on the left side of every WP page (rather than talking about article-specific sidebar templates in general). The other obvious candidate is the Discussion/Talk page of the Religion project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Maybe put a post in the Village Pump asking other people for suggestions as to the best place for the discussion. As for temporarily showing the new sidebar for Crit of Islam: some alternatives are: (1) just create a copy of the entire Crit of Islam article in a temporary place, such as Talk:Criticism of Islam/candidate version, and put the new sidebar in that temporary copy of the article (and link to that temporary article in the discussion); or (2) just put the sidebar in the discussion/Talk page itself ... all you have to do is write {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}} in the Talk page text (include the curly braces), and the sidebar will appear in the Talk page itself. The problem with putting the new sidebar in Criticism of Islam is that it could be perceived as some sort of consensus decision, and may cause more confusion that it solves. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it would be important to provide a viewable example of how the sidebar looks in an article, but you're right, we can do that on a "sandbox" page. My initial concern with using the "Wikiproject Religion" talkpage was the possibility of getting a rather one-sided response. The advantage of keeping the discussion at the VillagePump is that it will remain in "public view", seen by many more eyes than would find it on the Project page. Either way it will take some time, so there's no need to rush into anything. Thanks for responding, Doc Tropics17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought I had: this issue of which sidebar to use when there are "nested" groups of articles must have come up before. Lets say you had an Animals sidebar; and a Mammals sidebar and a Primates sidebar and a Monkeys sidebar: which sidebar should the "mid level" articles, such as Mammals, use? It could use Animals sidebar (since Mammals is a key article in the Animals sidebar) or it could use Mammals sidebar, since it is the main article for the Mammals sidebar. I'm wondering if this question has already been discussed, and perhaps the resolution or suggested approach is already documented in an essay or guideline somewhere? --Noleander (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there have been previous discussions on this specific point regarding Criticism of Religion sidebars, but you raised a good question about different-but-similar examples of nested articles. I checked Animal, Mammal, Primate, and Monkey and it seems that in these cases, the infobox or sidebar always matches the article title as closely as possible and gives secondary placement to other classifications. While there's not necessarily a direct correlation between biology articles and religion articles, it certainly makes sense and reinforces the idea that "Criticism" articles should have their own template. Thanks, I'll post something at the Pump once I consider the wording for such a proposal, and I'd be happy if you had any suggestions for it. Doc Tropics18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite of LDS articles (and their hierarchy)
Odd how you see my confusion as a need for me to become familiar with the articles yet I see it as indication that, if a reader needs to become familiar with a set of articles before the articles are of use they are, by that very definition, too convoluted and need rewriting to simplify and streamline. But, whatever helps you sleep at night. Padillah (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and apartheid
I just picked up the mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. it would be better if you refactored your table and subsequent commentary to its own section in the Discussion section and made a formal opening statement of your own in the opening statements section. that area is really designed to give me and everyone an overview of people's positions on the subject - actual discussions there get in the way. I'll do the refactoring if you prefer, just let me know. --Ludwigs209:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for messing up the numbering of the table. I'll pay more attention in future. While I was adding extra entries, I wasn't very sure that doing so was a good idea. I'd be quite happy to do some winnowing. ← ZScarpia11:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add a new section into the mediation page requesting input on doing a summary deletion of not-likely-to-be-adopted titles ... and suggest for the chopping-block those titles that have been endorsed/suggested by only a single editor (in the Mediation page or in the article's Talk page). --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was toying with where to post the note.... but figured here was easiest. In terms of English language and in examples such as this the hyphen is generally optional. If the hyphenated and non-hyphenated word have the same definition the OED will use the most common. If it is a close call then they will make note (also nontheism). Regardless both forms of the word would be "correct". I don't think that affects your point (especially as it isn't even in the dictionary) in the slightest but seemed worth pointing out :) --ErrantTmorton166(Talk)14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in Israel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Curvesall (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs217:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:The_Secret_Relationship_cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:The_Secret_Relationship_cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from provocative language
You posted the words "anti-jew" (singular form), as explained it's a phrase used by Neo Nazis, I don't think you are associated with them, but please refrain from it. Thank you for your understanding.Curvesall (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not copy and paste articles to move them. It causes problems with the editing hisory. I have undone your edits. For more information on how to move pages, please see this page. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot move the page as there is a page history at the target. I am not comfortable making the move at this time, but once there is a consensus on the talk page, you can post to requested moves and someone will deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, please realize that you don't WP:OWN these articles. Consensus appears to currently support the logical split indicated by their titles, that one is about Judaism, and the other about Jews. Please leave the logical organization of these articles during the RFC, so readers can fairly assess them, rather than mixing them in the confusing way you apparently prefer, but which no-one else appears to support. Thanks! Jayjg (talk)05:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share the concern by Jayjg. There is clear consensus against what you are trying to do. Accept it, or attempt to solve it using discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions
In answer to your question on my talk page, no I did not, I see you are quite busy against Judaism, Jews, Israel, in your constant contributions routine, any particular reason why?Ip82166 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
I got your message, and sure, will do (but I also have to get back to Christianity and violence, which got on my "line" before you did). But I thought I should also mention something to you here, sort of in the spirit of reviewing an old article. Thinking back to the most recent AfD on Criticism of Judaism, I'm very glad that the heat has cooled down, for the time being, but I'm sure that this is only a temporary situation. If I had better insights into how to improve it, I would have, already, but unfortunately I don't. But I have a feeling that the changes made after the AfD will be seen by critics of the page as incomplete, and they probably will have a valid point about that. It would be very prudent for you to take another look there, and see if you can do more for it, especially with respect to "coatrack" issues. Just some friendly advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there used to be a "Cleanup needed" tag on that article, which I was hoping would attract some disinterested editors to help out. But an editor recently made some formatting improvements and removed the tag. I'll try to get back to that article after I finish working on Christianity and violence ... but that could take a couple of months. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — RS101 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your edit on my talk
The part that I might disagree with the user laras is that portion in Ethipians, that is not based on the blog source, should not be removed.RS101 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Judaism and violence. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — RS101 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As an atheist, I just wanted to welcome you to WP Project Atheism. Welcome. Welcome. Although it's clear there is a direct link between atheism and immorality, wickedness, and irrationality, I'm sure you will find a few of us pleasant and agreeable to work with in our prelude to eternal damnation. Love, PalindromeKitty (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
