User talk:Mare Nostrum

Welcome!

Hello, Mare Nostrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Happy editing ! --Bhadani 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to get discouraged

Listen, I see that you're new here, so I hope you won't mind a bit of advice (especially from someone who hasn't been here all that long himself). I think Wikipedia is truly wonderful. My biggest criticism, however, is that if you want to get into any kind of substantive editing, you have to have a pretty thick skin. What that means is, some people just don't want to bother with all the hassle of fighting over content and then drift away, and we lose their perspective. I hope that doesn't happen here.

I think you and Radgeek are both making good contributions to the article, and, in fact, the article is improving not in spite of your disagreements but because of them. You act as a check against the article being too Pro-Dworkin, and Radgeek acts as a check against it being too negative on Dworkin, which, to my way of thinking, is putting the article closer to where it should be. Just one editor's opinion. Good luck, whatever you decide. IronDuke 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem like a wonderful guy and terrifically talented.

I agree that Wikipedia is fabulous -- I really am impressed. It does have flaws, though, and we see some here IMHO.

Radgeek is a semi-professional Dworkin campaigner (check his site if you care), an absolute revert maniac, and a serial name-caller. While Wiki disfavors someone like this from leading an effort which he definitely is too close to (he writes on his site of how much he despises people who even question Dworkin), and disfavors his tyrannical revert-ism, and disfavors all his insults (how many times has he called anyone that disagreed with him "sleazy"?), it doesn't preclude *any* of these abuses. As a result, it rewards persistent bullying, obstinacy, and I would even say vandalism (by a *neutral* definiton thereof). So especially in extreme cases like this, the deck is stacked against reason, even though someone like you, so even-handed and wise, is involved (and I don't know why you do it).

I expect to be involved in Wiki, but I don't think it is a good use of my time to edit this particular article for the present. That does not mean I won't remain critical of it so please don't be surprised -- I have put my time in. Maybe the halcyon view will be vindicated and the article will come out more evenly, despite my great doubts. I hope to contribute to other pieces (have done), and I have definitely learned some things by working on this. Best to you,Mare Nostrum 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin

Whatever your intentions are, do not expect to solve any issues you have with Wikipedia articles by conducting experiments and being snarky and obtuse. If you have issues with an article and are disagreed with, the answer is to discuss them on the talk page. Behaving as you have will get you a nice, long block, and then the article will never change. JuJube (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly

I reverted your edits because they contained a few problems. O'Reilly Sucks, is not a reliable source. Ailes was not a Republican Consultant when O'Reilly started working at FNC, to state as such is to make a causal link. Words like "Strongly" and "Only" as descriptors are considered WP:weasel words and should be avoided. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt, and the fact that you sent me a message makes that easier. What makes it harder, though, are two things: that you reverted *all* my edits, and your misguided appeal to the non-standard-English and very unfortunate Wiki creation, "weasel words."

Weasel words is a real abuse of the English language and Wiki should *never* have gone down that unfortunate road. Yucch! Still, the Wiki definition does not support what you said and did, you have twisted their sloppy definition as a means to leave the article about conservative extremist Bill O'Reilly in its misleading and confusing form -- maybe he's not conservative. If Ted Kennedy like to describe himself as not a liberal (and there is a *whole lot* of that kind of silly posturing in the world), would it be worth much consideration? Rejecting clarification, though, you seem to prefer to follow your misinterpretation of "weasel words" to keep the article unclear.

I'm not going to waste my time getting into a food fight with you; I've already gone down that trail of tears with someone who reverted everything to preserve propaganda, and life is much too short to repeat that. I have never had the experience, though, where someone reverted *everything* I had written and was acting in good faith, never. And the failed would-be neologism "weasel words" is a particular red flag for me that someone may be playing games. But I'm supposed to assume good faith on your part and I can do that in sincerity: maybe you really believe this was right.

You don't have the same luxury, though: ask yourself what was really going on here, and how it is better to have an article that misinforms. Thank you, and good luck.

sigbot going wacko

Try erasing whatever you have as your signature preset (whatever that thingy is that people use to get funky sigs) Frotz (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work to improve the Nanjing Salted Duck article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mare Nostrum. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mare Nostrum. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]