Ciciarada Utent:MoiraMoira

Benvegnüü a la wiki Lumbarda! Benvegnuu a la wiki Lombarda!

Benvegnüü a la wiki Lumbarda! Benvegnuu a la wiki Lombarda! --Dragonòt 20:32, 12 gjü 2009 (UTC)

Pee Wee Herman

I am not sure why you put the delete tag on Reubens but he ain't going nowhere, we're going to keep him no matter what you say. Could you maybe give us a reason? If the sole reason is, like I suspect, anti-Semitism, we are not going to put up with that. Regards, --Mondschein (ciciarade) 01:56, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Mondschein - No idea what anti semitism should have to do with this. Can't imagine you would accuse a helpful global sysop here frankly. Also on your wiki version there is a cross wiki anonymous vandal active placing empty pages with name and picture only of various famous artists alas that do them no credit. They desever better. If you are the only admin here I do hope you can stop him. The IP-addresses are dynamic so change with every session. He does harm to people who deserve more than he places about him. Please let me know if you are the sysop here and clarify your outrageous accusation or apologise. This in any case is not acceptable behaviour. MoiraMoira (ciciarade) 10:29, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Why would you want to delete a legitimate stub then? What do you have against Reubens? I have no idea where you are from (Spain or Portugal presumably given your name and your English), but here in the US Reubens has been the victim of a horrible witch hunt (based mostly on ill concealed anti-Semitism). Plus, I did not really accuse you of anything, I just asked a question. If your reason is not anti-Semitism, I am sure as heck glad to hear that, but can you please then tell us why you want Reubens gone? Tambien en Espanol, si te quieres hacerlo. Unapologetic Regards, --Mondschein (ciciarade) 19:43, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Please, [@ Mondschein], don't make useless and baseless allegations. MoiraMoira wrote her reasons: "cross wiki compulsive vandal adding empty pages cross wiki". You may disagree with her (as I do by the way, as this is a stub article, not a vandalism) but offending allusions should be definitely avoided. --Ninonino (ciciarade) 10:30, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Please, [@ Ninonino], don't stick your nose in conversations you might not be able to get the gist of. I know what I am talking about. --Mondschein (ciciarade) 19:43, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Let me explain: I did not make an allegation, nor did I make an allusion: I simply threw a possibility out there. An allegation in English is the antonym of a question. --Mondschein (ciciarade) 20:22, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

[@ Mondschein]: "If the sole reason is, like I suspect, anti-Semitism" IS an allegation, a baseless and useless allegation.

Allegation: a statement, made without giving proof, that someone has done something wrong or illegal (Cambridge Dictionary).

[@ MoiraMoira] gave her reasons for such a request: "cross wiki compulsive vandal adding empty pages cross wiki".

You didn't take account of what she wrote and accused her of anti-semitism without giving proofs. This is clearly an allegation and an offending statement, if not a personal attack.

What's worse, you are an admin here and you are supposed to be the first in respecting rules and other users. MoiraMoira didn't delete anything, she only made a request, and as an admin, you are supposed to give an answer to her request without adding your offending point of view on which you assume her intents are (assuming antisemitism definitely IS an offending comment). You didn't assume "good faith" as you are supposed to do, as a wiki user first of all, but even more mandatorily, as a wiki admin. I don't know what other lmo admins think about that, but in my opinion this behaviour is against wiki rules, is uselessly harsh towards another wiki user and eventually sheds a very bad light on lmowiki. And, by the way, writing to me to "don't stick your nose in conversations you might not be able to get the gist of." also is against the recommended "wiki etiquette" and will not help me to have a benevolent attitude towards your behaviour on this subject... :-( --Ninonino (ciciarade) 09:27, 15 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

PS: MoiraMoira is a reputed admin on nl.wiki and very active in contrasting cross-wiki vandalism. This doesn't mean that her requests should be accepted blindly, but at least deserve a better consideration than that...

"Your reasoning is based upon anti-Semitism", "You are an anti-semite" = allegations. "Why did you do that? If it is because of anti-Semitism, like I suspect, I am not going to tolerate it" = asking a question and stating a possibility. <> Allegation.

The logical answer would have been "No, no matter what has been going on with Reubens and the defamatory campaign he has been subjected to, I have nothing to do with it: I put a delete tag on it because the article is an act of vandalism given that it is offensive, racist, full of swear words, what have you". Instead all we got was a little fit and no answer. Me thinketh he/she doth protest too much... :-)

My question stands: why put a delete tag on a perfectly legitimate article/stub?

For what concerns assuming good faith you are right, I could have sure coated it quite a bit more: check out the new thread under this one that I published yesterday. Actually, how did you miss it??

Lastly, for what concerns my words to you: should I remind you of your words to me a year ago or so? You also came on alittle too strong towards me, Nino. Pot, kettle, black. Let's leave at that...

Pö mi, a bun cünt, a sunt minga chi a tacà lit cunt vün u vüna riaa/da chinscì de l'Ulanda u de l'Ispagna a fà spasseta in sül "nost", a sunt chinscì dumà a dà na man mi. Se 'l/la vör fà lüm in sü la quistiun, bun, sedenò s'ciau, nüm en ne fa, la vus la resta e che la sia fenida. Salüd, --Mondschein (ciciarade) 10:49, 15 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

I was very strong and unpolite towards you Mondschein, but it was in a private message where I'm not supposed to be always irreprehensible, and in any case I apologised for that. As concerns your statements against MoiraMoira, if you say that your intent was to ask "why put a delete tag on a perfectly legitimate article/stub?", why you didn't write exactly that? If you had written simply that, this discussion simply never started. Adding suspects of anti-semitism is completely useless, baseless and offensive, and this towards a user that never did or said nothing against you. Wiki rules and good practices are there for a good reason: making our cooperation easier. Not respecting them results very likely in this kind of discussions.

> "Se 'l/la vör fà lüm in sü la quistiun, bun, sedenò s'ciau".

What does MoiraMoira have to further elucideate? She already said why she asked the deletion of this article. She may be wrong, and I also think that the article should be kept, but nothing justifies accusations of being anti-semite. It's you who would have to elucidate why you thought that the reasons MoiraMoira adduced were not her real intent and why you thought that she were moved by anti-semitism. And if you are not able to give plausible reasons (and saying that the object of the article suffered antisemitic attacks in the USA is not enough to believe that the delete request by MoiraMoira is moved by same reasons), then you would have to acknowledge your fault and apologise. --Ninonino (ciciarade) 11:51, 15 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

1. I really hope this useless conversation is not going to drag out forever.

2. I simply asked a question and added a possibility: it is not an insult. I have already said that I could have been nicer (see my other thread below from yesterday), but the doubt is still there.

3. I am not at fault, I am not going to apologize, not even in a million years.

4. I was actually referring to how you posted, in this thread, that I should refrain from doing this, and this, and this: you came on too strong. The other matter is no longer relevant. I did not expect you to attack me publicly in this matter, though. Oh well, maybe you did not mean it that way. Not a problem.

5. To say I am requesting for the page to be deleted bc it is vandalism is not enough: one must explain why they deem it to be vandalism. But how could they? They obviously do not understand the language. It was clearly a slip on Moira's part.

6. The idea of a global police squad going around doing "clean up" work without having a fricking clue rubs me the wrong way.

7. I am being nice to Moira: I could report her for putting tags on things she does not understand. Of course I would never do that, it would be too petty.

8. I re-stated my case in the post below in a more neutral way and no answer has materialized, yet.

10. The answer is no longer relevant: the article/stub is staying. Period.

11. This whole conversation is moot.

12. Have a nice week-end.

13. PS Your English seems to have improved a lot since a few years ago. Congratulations!

14. --Mondschein (ciciarade) 16:25, 15 Lüi 2016 (CEST)

Let's start over

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you acted in good faith: could it be then that you acted impulsively and not really knowing what the content of the article was? Could you otherwise please tell us which part of "Paul Rubenfeld (Peekskill, August 27th, 1952), better known as Paul Reubens, is an American actor and comedian." is untrue and/or constitutes "vandalism"? Regards, --Mondschein (ciciarade) 22:22, 14 Lüi 2016 (CEST) "