User talk:Btmaisel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

AN/I notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear[edit]

I'm very sorry to hear about your financial difficulties; here's hoping they're resolved quickly. DS (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't all like that. This is my opinion:[edit]

Opinion Barnstar.png Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
This may be lengthy, but I, too, use a lot of words to get my point across, and I am often ignored as a result. I feel the English language requires many words from various points of view to be clear. This is why I edit.

Although you may have retired from Wikipedia, I'd like to give you your due recognition. Yesterday I spent a good deal of time working on a project you suggested for blood libel, primarily in restructuring the article to present a more neutral view about the subject. I read your argument against blood libel being perpetrated solely on Jews, and I concur. I took interest because I also had Bob Larson cassettes, and I recall reading once that Jews made the accusation, themselves, against Mormons, in the earlier days of the Church's attempts to proselytize in Russia. Due to the style of beards at the time, blood libel was made against the Dutch in southeast Asia in areas where the natives had received Christian imagery of Satan but not many Christians. Much of this is common knowledge and common sense without known sources to back it up. As I said on the talk page, it's a pretty common argument to make about one's enemies.

You will be happy to know the phrases "almost always Jews" and "usually Jews" exist nowhere in the article. They were broad generalizations and weasel words that have no place in our encyclopedic environment, but your voice was not heard until now.

The other editors preventing you from removing those words and disputing the neutrality of the article should be ashamed of themselves. Edit wars have no place here. I was a better person and used the tertiary source you mentioned but did not link to in the discussion. I understand you were having problems, and I am sorry to hear about them. You were quite coherent, though verbose. I hope you have not experienced undue embarrassment. I hope you are well. I hope you found some peace. If I understand the tone of your edits correctly, you got frustrated and left Wikipedia due to the narrow-mindedness and ad-hominem arguments of some of our editors. I, too, have found that anyone with even a mild amount of power in Wikipedia can be a real jerk when you are editing their favorite controversial subject. I was blocked, briefly and without warning, while editing the article, myself. We aren't all that way, and to prove it, I am awarding you this barnstar. 174.51.31.120 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)