User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive Jan 2008

Samson
I have done several edits to the Samson article see and nominated it for GA Review people who recently edited an article are not allowed to rate it, So I was wondering can you rate it for me it would be much appreciated. -- Java7837 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated--Java7837 (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Chanukkah footer
Hi, I'm surprised you haven't had a comment on this - would you mind letting me know what you think or commenting there? It's possible I have just lost my marbles on this and I would like more outside views. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of neutrality
Hi Shira: See the responses on my talk page to your latest "Bests" (and I wish you would stop "Best"ing the world even as you threaten them! There is nothing "Best" about being attacked!) Point number one: Do not threaten me in your capacity as an admin when you are in a dispute with me in a talk page of all places. That is a basic rule of being an admin, that you cannot misuse your powers and threaten another editor while in that position. If you have to call in a neutral third party who can also understand the issues then do so, but do not let your personal prejudices guide you in your editorial attacks against me. Point number two: By now your total lack of neutrality is abundantly clear in issues relating to subjects like Lanner/Vicki Polin/Awareness Center controversies, and therefore you should not be locking articles that you wish to defend. In this matter too you should be calling upon a neutral third party because you are just too heavily one-sidedly involved. Finally, it is very strange that you will not lift a finger in defense of Lanner but you will go to any length to erase and stop negative information about Ms. Polin. So by all means feel free to be part of a debate, but do not wave the threat of administrative action against me or anyone else in the course of back-and-forth discussions or you will find yourself at the end of a severe complaint that you are violating procedures. IZAK (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very fair and civil response . Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigismont
Thanks for your ongoing input into the saga. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the step of archiving the entire talk page thread (which includes your latest response) to stop it from becoming a trolling tool by Sig himself. I have left a further pointed warning which - in an ideal world - should further encourage him to adhere to policy. JFW | T@lk  20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale needed on talk page, imho
re: FYI... and the usage didn't cover the case, so for future use, define discuss=talk page section title, if you want to make the link using the full name as you almost did. The template was over dumb.

I'm going to fix the template though so your mode is incorportated as well as just giving the section without a page reference. The usage is already covering most of that but for the way you applied it. see template:splitsection/doc (The old version of the template is temporarily in place.) // Fra nkB 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... but then that leaves the question as to when it was hung there... and a proper annotation of same with a signature, as I signed for you. Since you work the page, you have a better idea than I by far when it showed up, so please document that. I'm a bit anal about that... consider the lack of a dated edit trail a deliberate waste of other people's time and quite rude. (I was tending to the template, and making a spot check... etc.) Thanks for the speedy answer. Shalom! // Fra nkB 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment ratings
Hi Shira: I was asked the following, and I as I am not that active with the assessment project, perhaps you can help: "Hi, IZAK. Since I've been away, Wikiproject Judaism has introduced an assessment system on the discussion pages. I just upgraded and expanded the article on Shalom Zachar, which was rated Stub-class and has no importance rating. This article does not appear on the long list of articles that WikiProject Judaism would like to improve, but it did need improvement! How do I go about getting the editors to change the quality rating and add an importance rating now that I upgraded it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your guidance needed at Template talk:Chabad
Hi Shira: There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. If you could drop by and give this matter your consideration and input it may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN RFC
The RFC description section currently contains the following statements:

The trigger for this seems to have been his editing of pages related to the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), an area he works in a lot. While his work on these articles is appreciated, his attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic.

However, evidence in support of these claims appears not to have been provided. The diffs provided are based on edits to WP:NOR and its talk page. Would it be possible to provide specific diffs identifying edits to LDS articles that are perceived as inappropriate to support the above claims? These claims strike me as particularly strong, and particularly relevant to the allegation that User:COGDEN's edits and discussions were not based on good faith, yet there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence provided. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such allegations without providing specific supporting evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your excellent question. I collected a huge number of diffs and tried to provide the key ones that showed the problematic behavior, but I should have included the diffs that gave the LDS history.  I was actuallly working on that when you made your request, and I've posted the evidence here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/COGDEN.  Let me know if this answers your questions! Thanks!  Dreadstar  †  19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

COGden
I think your addition to the RfC is very reasonable and appropriate (and important) but the fact is: I stopped dealing with this guy months ago. Dreadstar is a very sincere editor and if you have any questions you should consult with him. Hope you had a happy Hannukah! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)