Revision as of 03:38, 29 October 2007

Steve is on indefinite wikibreak, but will be around occasionally here and there tidying up articles.

Please feel free to leave me a message here by adding a new section. I'll get back to it as soon as I can. If you have an Advocacy Request or a complaint I would prefer that you leave it on my Desk. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

advice

Hello, you left me a note, what did you want to tell me? By the way I added a link to Lataster's article that shows scholarly opposition :) Byrnes777 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for Assistance with the Get (conflict) article

There has been a lot of new additions to the article by Sagbliss which look a lot like WP:OR. This individual has also been very aggressive with other editors. See User talk:198.23.5.73 and User_talk:Savant1984#Talk:Reform_Judaism and User talk:24.225.137.164. In additional to combining a lot of material from court cases around the world, this person is reshaping the article "to highlight the plight of the agunah." Since he or she claims to be part of an active Canadian court case related to the topic, this could also fall into a conflict of interest.

I, and another anonymous Misplaced Pages have tried to educate Sagbliss (who's probably Bruker from a key Canadian case) on taking a more measured approach to the article. Essentially, Sagbliss ignores the advice and has made broad changes to the article without proper verifiable citations. It may take a while, but read her contributions to people's and the article's talk pages to get a taste of what she's up to.

I picked you from the list of editors willing to help since you also have an interest in religious issues and this intersects civil and Judaic religious laws. We might also want to seek help from wikipedian who are legal experts. Bruno23 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Conflict on Definition of Violence

Saw on Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance you help with the "dispute resolution process, as well as bringing things under a more neutral point of view." As you can see in entries #11 and 12 in Talk:Violence this other individual wants what I believe to be a narrow POV definition of violence which makes smashing and burning property and accidentally harming people NOT violence.

I've been a little accusatory because as a peace activist I've had to put up with these excuses for violence from black bloc types since year 2000. Anyway, if I re-write the definition to reflect a wider range of views, I'm sure he'll revert to his narrower view, and I don't want to get in a revert war.

No one else is opining right now, though Friday I did invite people from terrorism page to do so since that page links to violence a lot. We'll see if there's any response. Meanwhile, help on what to do welcome. Also, make it clear what page I might respond on -- I guess the one you reply to me on? Carol Moore 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Dang, just read your big pink announcement must have missed first time through. Not familiar with issues that have pissed you off but I guess they are discouraging...

Carol Moore 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc