User talk:GrahamN
Graham, for your reading pleasure I have written a nice little stub for LAW -- I managed to figure out where the abbreviation came from, I think.
Also, I wonder if you might help me figure out something: in the apartheid article, should we mention Israel and/or any Arab nations as exemplars? Or might it not be better to put allegations of apartheid in the relevant nation articles? I'd like your input. --Ed Poor
- The word "apartheid" is sometimes used in a casual way to mean "formalised discrimination". The "gender apartheid" item that DanKeshet dug up is an example of that [and an example of the casual misuse of the word "gender", too]. Apart from Israel, I'm not aware of any state that currently stands accused of apartheid in the formal sense. (When RK wrote Some advocates seek to apply the UN convention on Apartheid to Arab nations..., I suspect that the advocate he had in mind was himself. I don't deny that many other regimes treat their people abysmally, particularly in predominantly muslim states, but I think it is just point-scoring to call it "apartheid".) So, no, I think the Israel thing it belongs in the apartheid article. --GrahamN 20:01 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)
Graham,
Some of your comments in the talk pages are insulting to other contributors. Please tone down your rhetoric and stick to the point: improving the articles. If you need some help on how points of view other than pro-Israeli ones can be represented in the Wikipedia, please ask for it. --Ed Poor, sysop
Graham,
Please refrain from giving your opinion in the Talk pages. Personal opinions of contributors are welcome in the MetaWikipedia (where, by the way, April is hosting a debate) -- as well as on your own User page.
Article talk pages are for discussion of how to improve the article. If there is a point of view (POV) that you happen to agree with, which you think ought to be represented in the article, then please focus on how to describe that POV. Avoid arguing for or against any POV. Instead, help your co-contributors to learn which proponents advocate the POV, and what reasons those advocates give.
For example, Joe Camel might say, "I hate Jews because they smell like lox." We need not debate how often an odor of lox is detectable in the vicinity of Jews (my Mom, who is Jewish, made me an excellent lox sandwich over Labor Day, by the way). We need not debate whether smelling like lox is a "good" reason to hate someone. All that matters is whether or not to mention Joe Camel's POV in some Wikipedia article. And if some contributor decides to describe that POV, we might debate the best choice of words to describe it.
This is a warning: any more personal or provocative remarks, and I will will ban you for a day. --Ed Poor, sysop
- Ed. I have not made any personal comments about anybody, as far as I can remember, I have merely been discussing the issues at hand. By contrast, RK has repeatedly made highly offensive personal remarks against me. People are accusing me of all sorts of terible things on Talk pages, and their accusations are allowed to stand, but suddenly I am not allowed to defend myself! This is just bollocks. The latest thing is Slrubenstein saying I equated Zionism with Nazism , which I clearly didn't. I will correct that slur on my character. For you to ban me for that would be an abuse of your privilege, particularly since as far as I know you have not warned RK for the highly offensive things he has said about me. GrahamN 09:18 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
- You wrote in a talk page, You were deliberately twisting my words. That is a personal remark. This is not a discussion forum. If someone fails to get your point AND making that point is necessary to improve an article, please say something like That isn't what I meant or Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.
- Beginning today, please copy any "highly offensive personal remarks" any other contributor makes about you, to my talk page. Do not take it up with the, um, offender. Trust me to apply the same standard to all equally. --Ed Poor