User talk:Smeat75/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

No "hounding" Simon Adler, just so you know, that is a very warped account of Jenhawk777's experiences on WP that she left on Gerda's talkpage. I am the editor she says "jumped on her for being Christian" and was "virulently misogynistic", ridiculous, you can see for yourself what she is talking about on the talk page of Women in the Bible. And when she says " another guy who I thought was my friend, told me he was cutting me off for a week as discipline for not obeying him by mentioning a subject he didn't want to talk about" she is referring to another editor who I will not name as I know he does not want to be involved, whose talk page she went to over and over complaining about another editor she perceived as antagonistic (not me). The editor who "cut her off" repeatedly told her, for more than a year, that he was happy to help and collaborate with her in any way but that he did not want her to complain about her "adversary" on his talk page any more. She kept doing so however and so he asked her not to communicate with him on his talk page again.Smeat75 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Smeat75, appreciated. Simon Adler (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC) I have posted at the bottom here already, but as I was scrolling up I saw this and was appalled. This was wrong on so many levels: "whose talk page she went to over and over complaining about another editor she perceived as antagonistic (not me). The editor who "cut her off" repeatedly told her, for more than a year, that he was happy to help and collaborate with her in any way but that he did not want her to complain about her "adversary" on his talk page any more. She kept doing so however and so he asked her not to communicate with him on his talk page again". First, it is factually inaccurate, and if necessary I can and will provide diffs going back through my entire relationship with the other editor to prove it. Second, it is really not your business to assert what happened as an uninvolved third party who doesn't have all the facts. Third, reaching out to other editors to undermine me--without ever bothering to get my side--is really beyond the pale! Fourth, you provide no diffs, you provide no proof of any such thing as a thorough investigation or actual knowledge of what happened--which you don't have--then you turn around and ask Ivanvector if making accusations without diffs isn't an attack on you by me! Such a double-standard! I don't know what happened to turn you against me in this fashion, but it needs to stop. My assertions below are the factually accurate statements. This was very wrong. Since you opened this with Simon Adler, the right thing to do would be to go back and look at all the diffs and then go tell Simon Adler you got one side of the story, and the diffs don't reflect what you thought they did. Reason seems to have gone out the window here. Please bring it back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Hello Iam Not Vandalizing the Page Saint Peter ! Martin James Marquez (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Smeat75. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of suspected copyvios What I am doing is called presumptive removal of copyright violations which allows me to assume that all edits by editors listed as copyright violators are copyright violations. This is a measure necessary - and allowed - when the community is unable to perform copyright violation investigations the better way - by checking all potential copyright violations in detail. And even that is not enough, in my opinion, which is why I have called for even more drastic measures. You can see the size of the problem at WP:CCI and the conversation about possible measures at WT:CCI.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not removing copyright violations, you are blanking entire important articles, just looks to me like vandalism. I am raising this elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC) The only way to heal copyright violations is to revert the page before the copyright violations and to revision delete everything in between. And if there is none then it is full deletion. This is by no means a comfortable or nice solution, that essentially destroys the hard work of many authors, but it is neccessary.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Completely unacceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC) @Lurking shadow: - Please stop, now. Report any suspicions you have to admins and experienced editors who know what they're doing. Blanking articles is not in any way acceptable, and is not the way potential copyright violations are handled on Wikipedia. Your 175 edits in two years qualifies you as barely more than a newbie here, and green editors shouldn't be making such drastic edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 24 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Un ballo in maschera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cantilena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Serse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Daniels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector ANI discussion I am here in the hope you and I can work something out. I am making the effort to see and understand your point of view, and am hoping you will do the same, and I am glad I came here because I think I understand a little better now. I was surprised at what seemed like to a virulent--for you--response to my statements in Women and the Bible. But I see now why I offended you so. You say here "I am a ROMAN PAGAN" and so you reacted accordingly. I genuinely and sincerely apologize for offending you and your religion--but I didn't know! I would most certainly have been more careful and considerate in my response if I had known. But I do think that if you are being fair, you will acknowledge that this problem was caused as much by your views as mine. It is not reasonable to accuse me of bias while considering yourself as neutral in this. We have conflicting worldviews, but I don't see why that means we can't respect each other and work together and even like each other. It doesn't have to.

If my pov in the article was non-neutral, then let's discuss that--you could be right--but it is also reasonable of me to say that in order to do that, we must keep religious views out of the equation between us. I genuinely thought that what I said reflected the sources--and while that doesn't prove I'm right--it does indicate the only approach that would actually solve the conflict is just to give me other sources and not to make comments on religion that reflect a defense of your own. Let's agree to respect each other's views and set them aside.

Smeat, I did not plagiarize and I would never do any such thing as intentionally falsify sources. Please believe me. I like to quote a lot--too much by some standards--and apparently in an effort to reflect sources accurately sometimes paraphrase too closely, but I would never intentionally copy anything and would certainly never, ever, falsify a source. That's really a terrible thing to say, and it's wrong.

As to the "other editor," who you refer to in your statement, as telling me to go away because I complained about Jytdog constantly, your facts are one-sided there. I understood and accepted that editor wanted no more griping about Jytdog. If you check, you can see that I agreed to and accepted that. But it is also a matter of fact, that my last mention of Jytdog was a reassurance that Jytdog and I were doing well and working things out. My comment was not a complaint. I did not know that even a positive mention of Jytdog would upset him, and when it did, I apologized. But that wasn't good enough, and he threw me off his page for not obeying him properly--but I swear he had given me no indication that any mention of any kind of even Jytdog's name was anathema to him.

His response seemed unreasonable to me. It seemed aimed at an expectation of "obedience" that would never be required of other guys. Perhaps I misinterpreted his behavior, I'm willing to see that possibility, but I don't see how he or anyone else can claim I disrespected any 'rule' he had ever made clear. No griping, yes, no mention at all? No. Usually, he would go off in a temper over something, then come back and say it wasn't my fault, but this time I left before that could happen. At least Jytdog was always universal in his aggressions toward others. He threw people off indiscriminately without regard to gender or anything else. He was equally obnoxious to anyone who challenged him. This other editor whose side you have taken against me--without investigating all the facts--has not been as evenhanded. He frequently went off in a snit then came back saying nevermind. How was I to know this was different?

Anyway, I had constant conflict with Jytdog, and then I had that one with you, which really distressed me because I thought you and I were good, then the other editor went off on me just for saying something nice about Jytdog! It was a very bad week, and I think anyone in my shoes would have felt the same.

I am deeply sorry for the conflict between us. I hope you will take some time to think things through and make the effort to see the other point of view and meet me part way. I am not your enemy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying "I am a Roman pagan" is a sort of joke to try to deter the quite numerous users who have come to my talk page over several years saying "you say Jesus existed, so you must be a true-believing Christian". I have never attacked anyone for their religion, I was horrified to see you accuse me of that,and of "virulent misogyny", although you did not name me in that post. Bigotry, misogyny, are totally abhorrent to me.Smeat75 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC) No, no! The misogyny had nothing to do with you! Yikes, I never meant that--not you, you have never treated me that way. I will happily tell anyone you want that it was not you! If I have inadvertently slurred your reputation I could not be sorrier and will do anything I can to make that right. You tell me what. So not really a pagan huh? Maybe I will try using that! Pisses you off when people accuse you of bias based on religion huh? How about that? I can relate. So why did you bring my religion into the discussion then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) When I saw you refer to "virulent misogyny" on Gerda's talk page, I did think you meant me. If that is not what you intended, I apologize. I hope this will be the last time that I have to say I did not attack you for being a Christian, I said that section on other cultures in "Women in the Bible" and the article generally were like Christian sermons, and what I meant was that they were very one-sided. Let's just take one thing, which I have put into the article subsequently - Both ancient Greece and Rome celebrated important women - only religious festivals during which women were able to socialize and build bonds with each other, sourced to "Women in Classical Greek Religion" by Laura McClure, Oxford Reference.com and ""The Festival for Bona Dea and the Thesmophoria", Versnel, H. S., Cambridge University Press. Yes, male philosophers in ancient Greece and ancient Rome said women were inferior and should stay at home. Yes, they were paternalistic and misogynistic cultures. But as Sarah Pomeroy says " women played a vital role in classical Greek and Roman religion, sometimes attaining a freedom in religious activities denied to them elsewhere." I felt that aspect needed recognition, not just what I felt was a presentation intended to demonstrate "If you think the way women are treated in the Bible is bad, you need to know how much worse all the other cultures at that time were!" Doesn't it sound rather lovely to have women only religious festivals where women could leave the house, socialize with each other, form bonds and join in communal celebration? There was nothing like that in Judeo-Christian culture. This is not to say that Graeco-Roman civilization = good, Judeo-Christian = bad, it is trying to view things from a rounded perspective. And now I hope that we can move on from these issues. I do ask however that you please not post "Smeat75 attacked me for being a Christian" anywhere else, that was not my intention at all.Smeat75 (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) So you thought I was unfairly attacking you and you struck back--except I wasn't. Why would you think that comment to Gerda was about you? I never mentioned you, not anywhere at all, not until I got notified about Ivanvector and your comments about me to him--and think about the places you had posted negative comments about me by that time. Smeat--be fair--you have sledge-hammered me on Wikipedia over a misunderstanding of yours. If you went and talked to the "other editor" that threw me off for mentioning Jytdog's name, then surely you had to have known he was the one I meant, not you, but that didn't seem to slow you down. I sympathize with being hurt and angry and feeling unjustly treated--but surely you can see that applies to me even more than it applies to you. I never said anywhere that you were a misogynist or even thought that of you or implied that about you. And just look at all the things you've said in anger about me. I will accept that you did not intend an attack on me for being Christian, since that is what you say I will accept your word--yet why you brought it into the discussion at all is still puzzling me. I would really like some explanation of some kind, or at least some acknowledgement, some empathy, some awareness of your own angry response above to people accusing you of the same bias you accused me of, something to indicate that you can see it was wrong to make religion a part of your comment. It wasn't a nice reasoned "this is too one sided." It was a derogatory comment--this is a Christian sermon--which came across as, "how much lower can you go?" We had a disagreement on content--which I think we could have worked out as we have others--then you brought religion into it and everything went to Hell. I don't understand why you did that. I don't understand why you thought my comment to Gerda was about you. I don't really understand much of any of what followed thereafter. You say that "what I meant was that they were very one-sided." Okay. I get that, and I would like to talk about what you perceived me to be saying and what a rounded view would actually look like. That would be constructive. We would probably agree. We would come to some resolution as we always have. But surely you can also agree that "this is a Christian sermon" is not really conducive to promoting that kind of cooperation. Truly, it will never promote a fair discussion with anyone--not even yourself--as your reply above shows. So perhaps my response is not so hard to understand if you try. In fairness, everything you have said about me in the last few weeks should be struck. If you can, I can agree to go strike my comments about you on Ivanvector's page as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC) No I didn't talk to "the other editor", he obviously doesn't want to talk about it and now neither do I any more. I simply ask that you do not say I attacked you for being a Christian again. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Without anything from you that even attempts to make this right, I don't see how you can expect me to agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5