User talk:Leifern/Oct 2004 - Jan 2006

Archives of Leifern's talk page from October of 2004 through January 28, 2006

Controversies_in_autism

Thank you for restoring NPOV to that article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:42, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Norwegian language

Thanks for your excellent clean-up! What we need now is an in-depth article on Norwegian dialects ;-) contrapuncti 19:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Palestine

Thanks for the cleanup. It's certainly a big step in the right direction (although eventually I would like to see the content from Region of Palestine merged back into this article, where it belongs). Anyway, I'm happy to see there are still sensible people around here. -- uriber 21:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Norseman(!?)

Yep -- based on a peek at your contributions, I took the liberty of adding your name to the list of Norwegian Wikipedians. If this was a premature, ill-informed act, feel free to revert of course. :-) --Wernher 20:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

History of Lebanon article

You might be interested in the recent edits to the History of Lebanon article (see history), and the Talk: page. The current anonymous author seems to be relying almost exclusively on Chomsky. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Campaign boxes

Hi, have you created a Template:Campaignbox Gunboat War? It doesn't appear so, but you will have to do that before it shows up in the table. I've only ever done this once, Template:Campaignbox First Crusade, so you can use that one as a model if you want. When you've created that, you can just put "Gunboat War" in the "campaign" line, you don't need to write "[[Gunboat War]]". Adam Bishop 02:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

I really like that article so far; do you have plans to finish it? Here are a couple of links that might be helpful to you: [1] [2]. Let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi friend, User:Zero0000 is requesting that you clarify a certain part of a sentence with an example in international law, specifically a sentence that deals with the status of refugees. This is the contentious sentence:

"Critics also argue that UNRWA's residency requirements is in violation of customary law and relevant treaties and invites false claims of refugee status. In all other known refugee situations, refugees have had to have lived in the vacated area for some minimum length of time before their departure, and they also had to provide some documentation to establish eligibility."

We will be waiting for your comment.

Thanks again,

Guy Montag 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrt. coats of arms

I have now asked Ralf Hartemink for permission (of http://www.ngw.nl/) for permission, and he said "Sure, no problem".

Wrt to fetching the coats of arms, settting transparency and uploading: I can see if I can manage to do something automatically. Just give me a day or two! (Your time is surely better spent on the articles if this process can be automated) -- Egil 16:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can upload them to the commons, if you like. Just send me the ZIP to egil at kvaleberg.no I will also coordinate the naming policy with the Norwegian Wikipedia -- Egil 07:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: (I have uploaded the county coats of arms to Commons, as a proof of concept).

Coat of arms to commons

I see you are in the progress of uploading all norwegian coats of arms. Wouldn't it be a better idea to do this at commons:, so that other Wikipedias, especially the norwegians, could benefit from your effort? –Wintermute 22:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The legal state of the Norwegian coats of arms is not Public domain. But there now seems to be consensus on the Commons that they will allow these images as long as they are marked {{insignia}}, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives02#Image:Steinkjer_komm.png. So it is presumably OK to upload to Commons. -- Egil 07:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irgun article clean up

If you need any help cleaning up the article, I'll assist you as much as I can.

04:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continue to work on IL

I hope you dont think I have any personal animosity towards you or your edits. I see we might have found a compromise in the IL article, and hope you'll continue to ensure my edits are correct, and I will do my best doing the same to yours ;). Some of our differences are probably based on different views on international law, traditionally there have been differences across the atlantic, so I hope we may continue to ensure both sides are represented in these articles. There _are_ different and both deserves to be heard. Og så er du kanskje interessert i å vite at det våren for alvor er kommet til Oslo ;) --Cybbe 18:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pcpcpc

Arguing with him will get you no-where. He is as stubborn as a mule and agressive impolite to match. Xtra 02:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with that, but I've been on the verge of RfM'ing/RfC'ing him in the past (because of his persistant abuse of people disagreeing with him). It may become useful at some point to do just that. Radiant_* 08:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes or No?

Pick One, Yes or No? --218.103.151.9 18:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation ...

... to Wiki Business Project. Don't assume that just because I may not join formally (I'm really not much of a joiner) that I won't be helping out from time to time. Rlquall 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hebron

Could use some help in the article in keeping it NPOV.

Thanks in advance,

Guy Montag 06:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New article: Women for Israel's Tomorrow

Please consider reading this new article I just created. --AladdinSE 11:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Would you mind weighing in on a dispute I am having with User:Majestiq at Israeli West Bank barrier. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good edits, but they didn't last long, as User:Majestiq reverted them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, along with putting back your own information, you've re-inserted the "facts on the ground" stuff I removed. Would you mind taking it out again? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but you accidentally cut out the link to the article: [3]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Powergrid

Please note the "contributions" of User:Powergrid; he seem determined to violate Wikipedia's content and NPOV rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You'll probably find the edits of User:Islamist equally enlightening. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copyvio?

The images you have just uploaded appear to be Copyright © 2002 Ian Sinclair All rights reserved[4].Geni 13:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got permission from him and have tagged the images accordingly Why am I not surprised that you are doing everything you can to squash facts that question the wisdom of vaccines? In any event, I appreciate your efforts, because the data I've been able to dig up only strengthens my convictions that this vaccination craze borders on insanity. Probably not your purpose, but still. --Leifern 13:11, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

you call typeing suff into google digging up data?Geni 13:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's pure speculation on your part; meanwhile, it's always better to reference online resources so people can easily check. --Leifern 15:26, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

OK I'll ask you directly. Are you doing any research beyond typeing stuff into google?Geni 16:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I have several books on the issue. I'll ask you directly: are you interested in being anything but a shill for AMA attorneys? --Leifern 19:23, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Your question commits the false dilemma logical fallacyGeni 20:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Imagine that. See the question that started this debate... --Leifern 21:46, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I've submitted those images to IFD, as Ian Sinclair does not appear to have the right to give permission, being as they're from Greg Beattie, per his own words. Thsgrn 16:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

It appears that User:Irishpunktom is reverting my edits blindly on several articles, primarily Arab-Israeli conflict, Terrorism, and Popular Resistance Committees. I'd be interested in a 3rd part take on the controversy, if you don't mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent articles of note

Take a look at my recent suggestion at Talk:Alternative medicine. Also, I am having a bit of trouble in Rabbi. Although I have several sources for each of my claims, Izak seems to take offense at any version of the article that doesn't attack those whose beliefs differ from his own. What bothers me as much as his reverts is his lack of sources and citations, his tendency to use articles to sermonize, and what appears to be ad homenin attacks against me. (Oh, and the fact that he doesn't take "yes" for an answer; he hasn't noted that I agree with his main point, and I state so quite explicitly.) RK 02:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Conservative responsa, David Golinkin and Paul W. Ewald are my own creations, and as always any critical thoughts you have on any of the content or discussions would be welcome. RK 02:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist vote for deletion

I think you will be interested in the outcome of this convoluted POV stub.

Guy Montag 14:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace

Hi Leifern:

• The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace article remains a stub, which is a great pity. This subject deserves to become a comprehensive detailed article because it is a clear demonstration of how Israeli-Arab peace WAS and CAN BE achieved. Often it is just "brushed" aside, or brushed under the carpet, or ignored, even by those writing articles about Jordan, see Jordan#History and Jordan#Foreign relations, and in many other related articles where such an article would be helpful to them as a link with good information. If you are at all able to, please contribute material to Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. Thank you. IZAK 05:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The same applies to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty article. See what you can contribute. IZAK 11:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BCE versus BC

re your change of BC to BCE, I can understand how BC is alkward dealing with Israel, but the trouble is that no-one but academics and a tiny minority of the public use BCE. In fact they can't even recognise what it means. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common term, because it is recognisable to most people, unless it is wrong. BC is recognisable to 100% of readers of wikipedia. BCE would be lucky to be recognised by 10%. I had to give up using it in lectures to third level students because they hadn't a clue what it was - and that was to international students from the US, the UK, Ireland, France and it so happened Israel. People do not read any religious meaning to BC. They simply read it as meaning the number of years back from 1. There is no point putting an unrecognisable term in an article, no matter how politically correct it may seem to use it. We need our readers to understand our articles, not be thrown off by terms they never use. FearÉIREANN 02:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 1. If your students didn't know what it means, shouldn't you teach them? 2. I read a religious meaning to BC. It is, after all, Before Christ. Just my 2 cents. --Kbdank71 14:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Category: Heir Apparent

Hi, I noticed you nominated this category for deletion (as I had been planning to do) but I couldn't find the discussion section. So I started one on WP:CFD. Would you like to cast a vote? Sympleko 10:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I see you have added this category to the Delete me section of CfD. I'm going to remove it since it hasn't been listed for seven days yet. I've been archiving and listing things for deletion on a daily basis, if you'd like, I'll just take care of it tomorrow when its week is up. Thanks. --Kbdank71 14:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi Leifern: Your very well researched and well-written article about International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict has been subjected to various edits recently. Since it was something you put much work into, I thought it would be helpful to urge you to be involved in how that article is now being edited in ways different to what you may have had in mind. See also Talk:International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Best wishes, IZAK 07:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Autism & vaccines

Thank you for taking the lead in cleaning up the thimerosal article. That sort of dedication is admirable. It would be nice to find someone to balance the POV introduced by anon(s) at the Andrew Wakefield article. And the autism epidemic article has a long way to go, if you're interested in helping... Ombudsman 03:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, could you please weigh in on the 'edits' by an anon at autism epidemic? Your attention would be greatly appreciated. Ombudsman 23:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for adding the introductory material. Perhaps, the most significant relevancy of the Danish enforced ban on TCVs is that it speaks to the reason autism rates there are a fraction of the UK and US rates. Bush's recent expression of support for removal of thimerosal from vaccines, sans enforcement of a ban, mirrors the industry's lackadaisical commitment to ordering a recall of TCVs still in the distribution system. The Geiers have reported childhood Hg exposure continued increase through 2003, which does not bode well for US children. Ombudsman 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Israelis

Hello Leifern, please see current discussion at Template talk:Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Jizyah

There's a fair bit of apologetic POVing going on at Jizyah; you might be interested in taking a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

New York photos

I just want to say that I love the two New York City photos you added to Wikipedia today. I'm a big believer in adding more photos of locations to Wikipedia, and I love the natural shots not of touristed sites but of various streetcorners and so on. If you ever find yourself in the outer boroughs, the New York City page could certainly use more non-Manhattan NYC pics as could the various pages for individual neighborhoods around NYC. Anyway, thanks. Moncrief 23:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and there will be more coming. My goal is to photograph every avenue. I'm not much in outer boroughs, unfortunately, but will make sure to bring a camera when I am. --Leifern 20:28, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Leifern, you've been reported for violating 3RR at Vaccine controversy. If you revert again, you may be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Overdue 1st Barnstar

Leifern, on behalf of the Wiki community, you are hereby awarded the Wiki Wiffle Bat in honor of the exceptional skill you have demonstrated in the areas of logic and rationality, for your meritorious efforts to allow facts to get in the way of obfuscation on vaccine articles, and for your general attitude that betters Wikipedia as a whole. Show it with pride! Ombudsman 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) (KC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for breach of the three reversion rule for continuous revertion of Vaccine controversy. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This block was immediately reversed by another admin, who noted that I hadn't been warned, hadn't continued the reversions. The block itself was reported by the person whose questionable edits I was reporting, and put into effect by an admin who had to concede on an editing disagreement after I presented overwhelming factual evidence that he was wrong. The block was an example of admin abuse. --Leifern June 30, 2005 10:16 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

There's a discussion and a vote on this topic going on at Talk:Jesus#Reversions & Consensus on BCE/AD; I thought you might be interested. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

Hello! I saw your comments on Talk:Jesus and left a brief reply and thought I might direct your attention to it. Happy editing! -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

10 East 40th Street

Hello! Are you sure that the height of the building is 212.5 m? I found this page on the emporis website, is it the same building? RustyCale 18:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - it looks like the same building, though the managing agent was pretty clear that the name simply is "10 East 40th Street," and that it used to be the Chase Tower. Here's where I got the height: http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc2.html#30 189 meters actually sounds more likely... --Leifern 19:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV-problem

Huff, er du også her? Vær klar over at Wikipedia bygger på nøytralitet, ikke den type israelsk/jødisk propaganda du pleier å spre andre steder på nettet, som den nå nedlagte(?) høyreekstreme hjemmesiden din tenkselv.no og på Aftenpostens debattforum.

Translation: Oh, are you also here? Be advised that Wikipedia builds on NPOV, not the the type of Israeli/Jewish propaganda you like to spread other places on the web, as the now shut down (?) right-extreme (sic} home page tenkselv.no and on Aftenposten's debate forum.

Answer

You requested an explanation of the move, now am I requesting that you answer to the questions at the talk page before you continue to revert. //83

Also, a wise advice from your user page: "No, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your version of the truth" //83

Neither is it a place to make drastic anonymous edits without discussing them first, abusing other editors, and violating Wikipedia policy. I am open to changing the title following a vote for deletion. Your constant reverts are attempts at imposing your opinion outside the agreed-upon process. If you had any courage, you'd register and make all the changes under your registered name, instead of constantly changing IP addresses. --Leifern 15:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did. Anyway, I'm not the person violating Wikipedia policy. Courage 16:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are. But since I won't presume to have a monopoly on truth, I put the issue to a vote. Violating NPOV doesn't open you to being blocked or suspended; but deleting tags does and repeated reverts does. --Leifern 16:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

reply

I have replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#German.2FNazi_occupation_of_Norway. Cheers, Sam Spade 15:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Good day, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish Renegades. Thanks IZAK 15:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Deir Yassin cleanup

Mah Shlomha ahi! The Dier Yassin article needs clean up and imput from Jewish sources. I think that we can provide that imput. Would you help me clean up the article?

Guy Montag 05:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Citizens vs Subjects

Thanks for responding to my query. Please don't misunderstand my critiicsim, I am trying to assist what might be a hole in your arguement (my interest is really as a student of rhetoric). "Citizenship" implies rights, among these is the right to vote. The other day you posted that the Nazi regime was illigimate, which may be taken to assume it did not respect citizenship rights of its inhabitants. One source for understanding the difference between citizens of a state and subjects is, oddly enough, a chapter in Mein Kampf, entitled "Citizens and Subjects". Just trying to be of assistance. Thanks. Nobs 19:23, 18 May in the Vulgar era 2005 (UTC)

Good point - I wasn't sure where you were going with it. It should probably be noted in several articles. My sense is that a similar attitude prevails across all totalitarian systems. --Leifern 19:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Blacks were not citizens of the Aparteid regime of South Africa. 97% of Soviet subjects were excluded from citizenship. Only Communist Party members had citizenship rights. Today it can be safely postulated that Palestinians and Chinese are not citizens of the land of their birth (Cubans and North Koreans too). On an International plane, what determines "citizenship", in my estimation, (to take a large and complex subject and boil it down) is the right to aquire and hold a passport (freedom of movement, or the right to emigrate). Thanks. Nobs 20:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Great insights. Thanks. --Leifern 20:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Just rereading this interesting quote from the above mentioned reference: "At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done in this matter. It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalized as citizens, they have begun to introduce principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People's State. " [5]

IDF Chiefs of Staff articles needed

Hi Leifern: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I will try - Shomron should be the easiest of them, on account of his role in the Entebbe rescue. But it may be that someone with a better understanding of Hebrew would have more success. --Leifern 12:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

They are now done, but they could all benefit from extra information. David Elazar is a short stub at this point, there is research on the web that one can utilize about his life and career, especially since he was the Chief of Staff during the Yom Kippur War. Thanks again! IZAK 06:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, colleague

At Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As I've mentioned at Talk, I believe it's an important issue worth defending. BTW, that article contains an extlink to the maps in Palestinian text books and other docs. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Dear Leifern: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 06:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Leifern, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Golan Heights photo

Hi, Leifern. It appears that you uploaded Image:New_community_on_the_Golan_.jpg, which is described as "New community on the Golan Heights, approximately, 1978. Photography by Leif Knutsen". To me it looks like Majdal Shams, which is an Arab village (and not new). The village structure and colors of the houses are typical Arabic, and after consulting a topographic map I'm quite sure the Israeli settlement of Neve Ativ is above the left part of the village (you can barely make out the red roofs in the high resolution image). Could you drop a line at Talk:Golan Heights#Al Qunaytirah?--Doron 16:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. There is Kibbutz HaDati (religious), Kibbutz Arzi (Shomer HaTzair), and Kibbutz Ichud and Meuchad (labor zionist, the two movements merged). There are also two kibbutzim from Poalei Agudat Yisrael, Shaalavim and Chafetz Chaim. I will take a closer look at it tonight. I was hoping to begin organizing them too. It would be great to work on this together. Danny 15:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Geni#Geni.27s_talk_.3C.3E_Geni.27s_talk

Please keep in mind WP:NPA, even when the editing gets hot. Thanks. --W(t) 13:17, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I've petitioned for arbitration against Yuber

[6]

I hope you join in the commentary against him.

Guy Montag 07:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian editor

Hey, Leifern, looks like we have an interesting new Norwegian editor on Wikipedia: 129.240.243.239 (talk · contribs); he's even edited some of the articles you've creatd. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Israel-Palestine stub proposed

Hi Leifern: I received the following and am posting it here FYI. Thanks IZAK 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK - I would welcome your input on something that I have proposed at WP:WSS/C (the stub sorting wikiproject). I am largely responsible for the split of geography stubs into separate categories. At the moment, Category:Middle East geography stubs is getting fairly large, and the most obvious split of it is to make a separate category for Israel. BUT - and here is where the problem lies - understandably, several of the stubs could be just as easily stubbed with a template for Palestine, especially if they are to remain NPOV, and especially given the volatile claims to different parts of that troubled region.

I am proposing a category called Category:Israel-Palestine geography stubs, with two separate stub templates {{israel-geo-stub}} and {{palestine-geo-stub}} both leading to it. The resulting stub category would be a subcategory of both Category:Israel and Category:Palestine. It is, quite honestly, the only way I can think of to get around this delicate problem.

If you can think of any better way of working this, I would welcome any suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Israel-Palestine. Thanks - Grutness...wha? 10:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Grutness, thank you for requesting my input. I will respond soon and will circulate your request to others for further input. IZAK 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The more voices the better - if you know anyone willing to comment from the Palestinian viewpoint as well, it would be appreciated. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian opposition to anti-Semitism

Hi Leifern: Care to copy edit Christian opposition to anti-Semitism? IZAK 6 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Sjakkalle's dictatorial move

Hello Leifern: Can you please research and re-open the ridiculous move by User:Sjakkalle. I have sent him this message: Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reopening the VfD

• Hi, User:Danny has called for the VfD to be re-opened. See Talk:Religious persecution by Jews#Reopen debate, please voice your opinion. Thanks, and be well. IZAK 12:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Hi Leifern. As a Yiddish speaker, you might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Have you seen this RFA? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority

Hi, I wrote a response to your statement on the Pseudoscience talk page.I thought that you would benefit from the correction, you don't appear to be active on the page much anymore so I thought I'd repost it here. This is in response to you claim that referencing physicians is an "Appeal to Authority". (I don't mean to come off as hostile, from reading your web-page it seems we might have a lot in common.):

If you would have paid closer attention in your Classical Logic courses Apeal to Authority is not a fallacy. What you are thinking of is Appeal to Improper Authority which is considered a fallacy. For example "dentists generally agree that Einstien's Theory of Relativity has been well confirmed by experiment" would be an Appeal to Improper Authority, even though the claim referenced is probably true, whereas "physcists generally agree that Einstien's Theory of Relativity has been well confirmed by experiment" is an Appeal to Proper Authority. Both are Appeals to Authority but only the former is fallicious (even though claim being supported is the same). If all Appeals to Authority were to be considered fallicious just about every single scientific paper ever written would have to be considered fallicious, as referencing the work of other scientists, i.e. authorities on a subject that the author may or may not be familiar with,and most always not nearly as familiar as the person they are referencing, is ubiquitous and necessary in science, as we can't all study every aspect of such a broad subject as physics or medicine.

Also note, as someone has already pointed out, if all Appeals to Authority were considered fallicious you would have no argument yourself, as the idea that Appeals to Authority are fallicious comes from your misunderstanding of logic, which is a field I'm assuming your not very familiar with yourself since you don't understand the different kinds of appeals to authority, and therefore you are obviously appealing to authority (authority which you apparently misunderstood).--Brentt 04:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, which may not have been hostile but was certainly condescending and in fact wrong.

It is in fact a fallacy to say that "the medical community agrees that X is true; therefore it is true." It is not a fallacy to say that the medical community agrees that X is true, if it can be demonstrated that the medical community agrees that X is true. I agree that "appeal to authority" is a rather misleading term; it may be that we can agree that it would be fallacious to either make improper appeal to authority or make an appeal to improper authority.

But this is the case with all fallacies - they work because they bear a resemblance to valid arguments.

The problem with the pseudoscience article is that those who are trying to write it seem to believe that if a certain number of people, so called "experts" label something a pseudoscience, then it must be a pseudoscience. In fact, pretty much any authority on anything you can imagine has - and in all likelihood continues to be - dead wrong on some of their tenets, and any honest expert will admit as much. (Though he/she will also say the problem is that they don't know what they're wrong about and must do their best on the basis of imperfect knowledge.)--Leifern 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi Leifern, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

If you think that you are free to report in on WP:VIP. Otherwise I would advise you to read wikipedia:vandalism.Geni 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting frivolous Jewish categories

Hi Leifern: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your objection to the Jewish American category, as some people included do not identify themselves as a Jewish American. However, this applies to all the (ethnicity) American categories so I propose that either all the (ethnicity) American should be renamed Americans of (ethnicity) descent to remove any problem with giving a person a label which they do not apply to themselves or make those new categories and only put people in the (ethnicity) American categories when we are absolutely sure they identify as such. Arniep 14:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish categories

I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote on these as the previous vote was only on categories which link Jewishness by country not by occupation. The vote did not deal with any categories such as Jewish philosophers or Jewish classical musicians, therefore to claim there was a consensus to delete these previously is misleading. I really do not see how these two categories are at all frivolous. However, I do agree that Category:Jewish baseball players is too specific, and Category:Jewish American actors is unworkable as people may identify as Jewish as well as quite a few other ethnicities so could end up in multiple variations of these nationality-ethnicity-occupation categories. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people Regards Arniep 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dialectics in Judaism

Hi Leifern: I saw your note about your intentions for Dialectics in Judaism. However, it seems you are overlooking some fine articles that already exist:

1. Schisms among the Jews which covers many areas you outline;
2. Relationships between Jewish religious movements which deals with modern issues as well as
3. Jewish views of religious pluralism;
4. Who is a Jew? contains more information about opposing views;
5. Jewish denominations outlines the origins of many "Dialectics";
6. Jewish ethnic divisions involves your subject;

These are some of the main articles, there may be more, I wanted to bring to your attention BEFORE you create double work for yourself or other editors. Best wishes. IZAK 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I am in IRC en-vandalism, if you have any problems with any of the actions that I have taken there, I have utterly no objection to you undoing them. I have no personal interest in the article, I am making decisions at the usual speed necessary to deal with the ever increasing stream of vandalism, which is never enough time to always make the right choice. I apologise if this one was wrong. Alf ^melmac 22:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User Eliezer is making outrageous personal attacks and reverting articles

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lies about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his messianic religious tirade.

Eliezer is trying to ban me from Wikipedia by making dishinest accusations, such as (a) I am writing under sockpuppets, and (b) that I am making more than three reversions in a single day. In point of fact (a) I use no sock puppets, and I proudly sign the discussion page of each article, and (b) two reverts on one day is not more than three. Eliezer's latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

• Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.

• Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.

• "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.

• Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger as Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and deliberate insult in the Jewish community.)

• Inserting personal attacks towards academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices. His non-consensus version censors the quotes of many prominent authorities in the field, and replaces all of their POvs with his sarcastic aside. "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations

Hi Leifern (not related to our other ongoing discussion): Please see the Vote for Deletion (cfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 12:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

homeopathy

You threaten to report me for vandalism. It's been done. You threaten me with a long block. I've had accounts blocked indefinetly (ok to be fair that was because the admin doing the blocking didn't know what I was doing). At present we have a straightforward POV dispute. Trying to rule lawyer your way to victory isn't going to work. I used to inforce the 3RR. I know more about the rules than any sane person would want to.Geni 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not a POV dispute. It's about your misconduct here in doing wholesale reverts, dismissing all objections to your point of view. There are issues honest people can disagree about, but you're being dishonest. --Leifern 02:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject International law

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kåre Kristiansen, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Welcome to New Jersey Edits

We've been crossing paths in Millburn, New Jersey, one of the many pages I've been working on as part of Wikiproject New Jersey, and attempt to fill in the holes and expand on the details of all things New Jersey. We share some subjects of interest (including Judaism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict) and a few that I couldn't even conceive of touching (e.g., Norwegian Monarchy). I invite you to participate in WP:NJ, if interested. I'd just point out re Millburn that I've gotted enough headaches about creating pages for the County Board of Chosen Freeholders, including a rather contentions VfD. I'm not sure that pages for Millburn council members would fly. Thanks again for all your hard Wiki work! Alansohn 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a test

For some reason, the word mystic gets deleted everytime I use it in Wikipedia - not sure why that is. So I'm trying it here.

Homeopathy

Simple fact cannot be denied, despite your wish to suppress the truth. Jooler 00:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an endless wrangle with you on this. The facts speak for themselves. Jooler 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What facts? I only see yours, and Geni's opinions. --Leifern 00:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just this -

• Just what is most notable about homeopathy is a matter of interpretation, therefore opinion. It is plainly biased to say that the ultradilution aspect is "notable" at the expense of anything else.
  • It might be more notable for being a complete fraud, but this would be POV. Let the facts about dilution (which is both notable and controversial, and hence highly important to mention) speak.
• It is not a simple fact that homeopathy does not meet minimum scientific and medical standards. It is, in fact, a bald-faced lie and fraudulent statement. Homeopaths claim in fact that the efficacy and safety of homeopathy is an observable fact, and seek to prove this through their trials. You may say that these trials are unconvincing, and this is a common criticism, but anything else is an outright lie.
  • Yes I'm very impressed that mere water is declared safe by homeopaths. I'm sorry but there is ZERO evidence of any actual physical benefit from taking homeopathic remedies above what one might expect from the placebo effect, plus all theories proposed by homeopaths about what makes it work are complete hogwash and are not accepted by the scientific community. Jooler 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • There two elements have been in the introduction for quite some time (something like at least a year), and NOW you object to them? What's going on? Jooler 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have tried to edit it into something approaching NPOV several times, but Geni simply reverts without explaining and without addressing the objections. There is plenty of evidence that homeopathic remedies work, but if you knew how much it costs to do a simple clinical trial, you'd realize that only companies that can claim intellectual property rights for a compound can afford them. Asking homeopaths to put their remedies to the same rigor as regular medicine is a reasonable request, but it's an impractical one. --Leifern 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Both you hand User:Jooler have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

regarding your emails

Regarding your first email:

This is an abusive and incorrect block. Please revert immediately.

No, this was not an abusive block and you'll see that I didn't just blocked you I also blocked the other party in the edit war you were involved with as well even though the complaint was against you not them but 3RR should be applied equally.

Regarding your second email:

I'm not even going to quote the whole thing here because I frankly don't care about your content issues with another editor and I don't have the energy to get involved in an edit war, needless to say that as I said above 3RR applies equally so if you note up on 3RR that he is breaking the rule then he'll be treated like any other editor when it comes to enforcement.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

excerpt from our exchange on Talk:Homeopathy

"This habit of wholesale reversions has actually led to the establishment of an entirely new category of vandalism in Wikipedia."
Were you speaking metaphorically or specifically? Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Specifically. Geni has employed this tactic both here and in articles about the vaccine controversy and thimerosal. He finds one sentence or word that is objectionable and then reverts the entire edit. I listed it on the WP:Vandalism page, and it got no objections. --Leifern 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

regarding more of your emails

First of all regardless 3RR applies when you are reverting the same edits over and over again to a preferred version which appeared to be the case, and yes I did look at Geni's contribs and despite you accusing of him of vandalism and your reversion with him I neither saw a 3RR issue nor did I see an issue in need of blocking, especially since the edit warring between you and Geni stopped some time before you had your later issues (and 3RR violations) against Jooler, thus the both on both of you... Also threatening to report an administrator for enforcing 3RR rules as written is not the way to get unblocked early. Just for your future reference most administrators (I can't speak for other administrators mind you) are more than willing to unblock early if the parties are willing to discuss changes on the talk pages instead of edit warring. Btw, I'll be watching this page at least until the block is over so if you wish you can reply here and I'll get back to you as soon as I log back in. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points here: First, I have to disagree that my edits amounted to reversions - there was a clear pattern of attempts to forge compromise wording. I'll concede that it would have been better to give the issue a rest, but if you'll take a look at the article now, you'll see that Geni is doing what he's always done: simply reverting to the version he agrees with, without any concession to an opposing view. A comparison between the late October version and the early December version here [7] makes the travesty pretty apparent. Second, you'll also note that my edits were accompanied by entries in the Talk page, both on the article and Jooler as to why the edits were necessary. It is not as if I mindlessly edited without discussing. Third, I find the "protesting will gain you no sympathy" stance of admins pretty insufferable - admins go ahead and revoke editor privileges but aren't open to criticism for such an action? I looked for the right avenue to lodge a complaint against your block, and there isn't one! Fourth, you'll see that I've stayed away from the homeopathy article for weeks at a time because it simply is futile to move the article forward; other editors are doing the same, and the result is a crappy article. I can not but suspect that a non-admin editor would have been penalized for such behavior. --Leifern 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagee with your analysis of my stance, I never said and never would say that protesting wouldn't get you anywhere, if you have good points discussing will get you everywhere. Threatening to file an RFC against an administrator for just enforcing the rules on the other hand won't get you anywhere. In regards to the content 3RR does not have a right or a wrong person, if you continue to edit war you are just as wrong as the other person, 3RR (most of the time) does not take sides in edit disputes, although if in cases of repeat violations and editors who blatantly ignore 3RR then in that case if a person is continously edit warring it become a factor but that did not seem to be the issue in this case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But the edits weren't even reverts - there were edits. From what I can tell, you just went with the complaint without examining. --Leifern 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the first diff given is not entirely relevant since it's an issue with Geni and isn't entirely the same thing as the later ones, however the other ones are clearly issues with the same paragraph and roughly the same content, just because there are some slight differences due to the way that each of you keeps trying to format the paragraph doesn't mean that it's not reverting especially when it's the same content and that's a judgement call I had to make and at your request double verified the diffs on when I decided to block both you and Jooler for 3RR violations. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Autism rates in Denmark

I now realize that my entry into the autism article about autism rates in Denmark and its lack of relationship to thimerosal was not referenced. I've now included the reference to Madsen's paper in Pediatrics 2003;112:604-6 to provide the data supporting my argument. Andrew73 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote on "topics"

AFD is a vote on articles, not topics. If it were a vote on topics, then on the one hand it would be almost impossible to delete any articles (since most topics are valid, even if many articles are not), and on the other hand, it would result in censorship if nobody could write an article on a particular topic, just because somebody else wrote a bad article in the past. Mirror Vax 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Au contrair: articles aren't deleted because they're poorly written; they're deleted because the topic is meaningless, frivolous, redundant, inherently biased, etc. Go through the log of deleted articles, and you'll see that the case. --Leifern 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not as a matter of policy. As a practical matter, people vote for all sorts of reasons. It's a stew of opinion. And people do read/skim the articles before voting, usually. There is very often reference to the content of the article. Mirror Vax 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and you'll see that all the valid deletion reasons relate to whether the article should even exist, not whether it's poorly written. I have no doubt people vote for or against deletion for reasons that have nothing to do with the policy, but you accused Jayjg of being a rogue admin for sticking to the policy. --Leifern 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.

It seems perfectly clear to me. A different article (by whatever name) may not be speedy deleted on the grounds that it covers the same subject as an article that was deleted. That's the policy that Jayjg flouted. Mirror Vax 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila massacre changes in Lebanon article

Thanks for clarifying my addition to the history of the Sabra and Shatila massacre in the article on Lebanon. Please review the changes I've made to your changes if you have a chance, to be sure that my grammatical changes and typo fixes haven't altered your intended meaning. --George Saliba 18:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Links as POV

You reinserted long lists of links added to Thimerosal and Vaccine controversy. I doubt you've missed the ongoing warfare on Talk:MMR vaccine concerning the use of external links to destabilise articles. I will remind you of the basic premise that WP:NPOV applies to the external links section like any other part of the article, and that adding long lists of obscure links to support one point of view is a subtle NPOV violation. External links is not a safe haven for views that would otherwise not be included in the article. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Long list? In one article, it was one link; in the other it was three, if I remember correctly. Actually, I have missed that article - I have to be somewhat selective (given time constraints) in what I get involved in. But as far as I can tell, deleting links is impoverishing and not enriching this; and is a not so subtle way to push a POV by keeping readers in the dark. I find it reprehensible. --Leifern 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keeping readers in the dark? Did you examine the content that was added? JFW | T@lk 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes - presentations to the IOM, articles in Rolling Stone, videos, etc.? Meanwhile, I went to the MMR article and found that AE findings were presented in a way that the lawyers in a pharmaceutical company would never permit. This topic is completely contaminated by POV pushers who apparently believe medical doctors are infallible. I don't know if there is anything that discredits WP more than the treatment medical science gets here. --Leifern 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, can you please explain the last statement? What part of medical science is getting an inadequate treatment? And which statements suggest that medical doctors are infallible? JFW | T@lk 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of the articles are treating current positions in medical science as if they were final truths, when in fact they are the most favored hypothesis at the moment. There is scarcely a field of science that is subject to as frequent challenges and revisions as medical science. The MMR introduction that discusses AEs for the vaccine is a typical example. This is related to the SPOV discussion as well. --Leifern 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The current position is always the "final truth" until the paradigm is challenged. Why should medical articles be different from quantum electrodynamics and Crusades, both of which are subject to reinterpretation with new facts at any given time.

You are mentioning the MMR vaccine article, probably just because this happens to be one of your interests, but why did you attack "medical science" on Wikipedia in general? Frankly, I think some qualification of that statement is in order unless you can be more specific with your criticism. JFW | T@lk 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm mentioning the MMR vaccine because it happens to be something I know a bit about. I also know a bit about HGH Quackery, which is a complete mess, and the Autism article, which everyone agrees is sorely lacking. If every article on a medical topic I am familiar with has serious shortcomings, then I can certainly hypothesize that the same applies for topics I am not familiar with. And no, the current position is never stated as the "final truth" by people who are intellectually honest. --Leifern 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So which truths are stated as "final truths" in the articles you happen to know a bit about? Who exactly are you accusing of being intellectually dishonest?

Do you really think that the limited articles you "know a bit about" can serve as a point for generalising about all medical content on Wikipedia? Your hypothesis is easily disproven by a number of very high-profile articles that are now featured, such as pneumonia, multiple sclerosis, asthma and prostate cancer, as well as the more obscure not yet featured topics like esophageal cancer, pulmonary hypertension and so on.

Thankfully we have a number of medical editors who are working hard to expand the factual content of medicine-related articles. If articles are a mess this usually means they have been touched insufficienty by the medical editors. As for HGH quackery, I have no idea why you call this a "mess". It is adequately sourced, provides historical context, and examines an immensely popular but notoriously misunderstood concept. Perhaps you need to reconsider your statements. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Chill out, dude. The HGH quackery - the contents of which I agree with - is a mess because it is full of ad hominem attacks and POV rants. If I didn't know anything about it, I would discount it. --Leifern 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the articles you mention are pretty good (as far as I can tell) because the editors took great care to define the illnesses properly and use the right qualifiers. For example, it is made clear that "pneumonia" has several different etiologies, and that many factors contribute to the prognosis. Similarly, it points out that it is very difficult to reliably diagnose MS and that the etiology isn't clear. I'm sure more work can be done, but compare that to the MMR vaccine, where I had to make very basic corrections in the opening paragraph, or the homeopathy article, which until recently read like a polemic, and you'll see that we need to hold ourselves to higher standards. --Leifern 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad Ad-Dura Revision

Hmm, how was it not minor. That is what happened, is it not. Mustaqbal 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that what happened was that either a) the whole incident was staged, and nobody died; or b) Palestinian terrorists murdered the boy to score a PR point. Since I am not insisting on imposing these two versions as the final truth, I think it is reasonable that you not impose yours, either. --Leifern 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression this situation was pretty black and white, apparently not. My apologies. Mustaqbal 04:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hi Leifern, yes, the Holocaust images from the museum tend to be public domain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Aegeis edits

I'm more than a little baffled by your comment that his version is better than anything that Geni and I have done. First of all, I have hardly made any significant edits to the article in many months. Secondly, Aegeis' version - aside from being chock full of wildly POV statements, terrible grammar, worse spelling etc. - destroys dozens upon dozens of improvements large and small made by numerous editors (since he keeps reverting back to a version he created back in the summer). And third, Geni and I are on polar ends of the issue. Geni is actually pretty close to Aegeis, he just has the the good sense to revert Aegeis' anti-homeopathy rant. What is especially mystifying is that your talk page comments indicate that you and I both approach homeopathy with an open mind. Are you sure you're not mistaking me (and perhaps Aegeis) for someone else? --Lee Hunter 04:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Clinical references are not necessarily POV, but the substance of what you reverted was much more than that. You deleted a reference or two that did not support homeopathy, as well as more content and phrasing critical of the subject. I realize that, despite claims of objectivity, you are a supporter of homeopathy. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. Just be careful when reverting material you don't like. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally used a computer with a cybersitter software that seems to delete all "mystic, so I'll cop to that. My own opinion about homeopathy is that I don't know if it works or not; the evidence is pretty inconclusive, but I don't think we can ignore it, nor can we discount the experience of millions of people who use it. --Leifern 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

I know it's not the capital, I hate when people say it is. But the fact that some countries do is indisputable, let's try and keep this as NPOV as we can.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that some countries say so. Please document. --Leifern 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You may dispute it all you want. The fact is that they do. (I disagree with them, BTW) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jtdirl, but Leifern, I can ask you to prove that NOBODY disputes... it may be even harder. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You state it as a fact, but you have done nothing to substantiate it. --Leifern 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

When we protect an article, we are making 0 judgement on the version that is protected. We just protect. We don't decide which side is "correct". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. --Leifern 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I wish people would understand this concept of a "neutral admin". I live in Madison, WI, USA. I have 0 interest in Tel Aviv. Why would I possibly pick a side? I've had 0 contact with anyone involved with the article (including you, the admin who asked for protection and everyone else who has edited the article). I'm neutral. Really. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should note that the admin who requested protection asked for this immediately after he had reverted to his own version; and that there is no other dispute than that I have asked for a source citation for an assertion that seems patently false. --Leifern 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of being told of all of these biases that I do not have. Page is unprotected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I don't have any basis to guess on whether you have a bias, or which direction it went. But it was pretty apparent that Sebastiankessel played a game unworthy of an admin. --Leifern 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me play your game. If you sincerely believe that, PROVE it. Besides, try to keep in mind WP:AGF. On the other hand, your latest edit was good, I can live with (and provide) the "citation needed" link. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My problem is and will remain inaccuracy and wording deliberately phrased to hide a fact. That is not an option under NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is not in evidence. I am sorry that your opinion isn't the same as fact, but there it is. --Leifern 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, as the debates here and elsewhere show, no-one's else's contributions, opinions or facts matter, just your own POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a single good citation of this, and nobody can find a single one. --Leifern 19:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Brw12's comments (moved)

=

You wrote: "If I wrote that the Republic of Georgia should cease to exist, Georgians are not a separate people, etc., would it be safe to assume that I harbor prejudice against Georgians? I think so. The same applies to Jews and Israel." --Leifern 20:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, statements that Jews are not a separate people are another matter -- that was not what I edited out. I said that the statement "the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic" was wrong.

In fact, there are many people in Georgia who feel that Georgia should not exist as a state -- not because they are prejudiced against Georgians, but because they feel that the various ethnicities within Georgia should be valued equally, and each be given their own territory.

As for Israel, I am a Jew and I don't think Israel, as such, was a very good idea. While I will defend it against those who hate Jews, I would like to see Israel, the Jewish state in which Jews are legally privileged over others, cease to exist and a non-ethnic-nationalist state with true pluralism take its place. Do you really think I can only feel this if I am secretly prejudiced against my own people?

And do you really think that the only reason someone could, say, oppose the idea of kicking out thousands of people from an area and forming a Gypsy state, would be prejudice against the Gypsies? Do you really think that the only reason a Native American could criticize the right of the US to exist would be prejudice against americans?

The basic truth is that Israel has been a mixed bag, and you can't throw out critics with false claims about their motives, any more than those critics can dismiss supporters of Israel by calling them Arab-haters. Israel is very needed, and also its foundation was complicated, and different from the foundation of other countries. There is more than one reasonable position on the matter.

Brw12 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

With reference to your comment on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article talk page: "It sounds to me, Ian, that "reputable sources" = "sources that fit Ian's opinion." Come now, grow up" I think you have misunderstood the issue. The claims can be included in the article if any decent history of the period even mentions them in passing. After weeks of asking no one has come up with a single source for any of the disputed claims. It's really not puerile to insist that evidence is provided before an entire culture is labelled as "genocidal". --Ian Pitchford 16:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say hello, I am 12.5% Norwegian. 100% New Jerseyite, and 100% pharmaceutical. My ancestors were from Farsund. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Norwegian photographers

I can find no basis in policy for wanting to delete this article. There must be thousands of "list of" articles on Wikipedia, and we're just getting started on the topic of photography in Norway. This is new entry patrolling gone berserk, and you've just wasted a lot of people's time and causes unnecessary annoyance. --Leifern 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian photographers page for my main response.

Incidentally, I was involved in stub sorting and not new entry patrolling when I created the article. Stifle 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But why? There isn't even a basis for it in the policy, it conforms to thousands of other similar lists, and it was newly created. Aside from the comment about going berserk, the other stuff does not constitute personal attacks - the AFD only created extra work and annoyance. You should be aware of the effects of what you do. --Leifern 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Region?

We need to review the terms used for various types of regions of Norway, esp. the current erroneous term "landscape", but also landsdel and tettsted. See for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#.22Landscape.22. -- Egil 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Norwegian photographers

Best wishes on your list. I hope you like the table. Durova 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Info Box

I like the info box you put in on the 1st Connecticut Regiment. Marc29th 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also now that I see how it is set up I'll help by adding it to more units. Marc29th 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Move article to Peter Christen Asbjørnsen

Hi! Could you please have a look at Talk:Peter Christian Asbjørnsen? Since Peter Christen Asbjørnsen was the gentleman's name, not Peter Christian Asbjørnsen, the article should be moved. Previously there were two separate articles (history, history), which were unfortunately merged to the wrong name. Your comment would be appreciated. --Eddi (Talk) 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

1. The same sorts of wars occurred in the past when the name of the article was different, and I don't see why changing the name back would stop them.
2. You are one of the warriors and your edits often inflame the situation.

The way forward is to replace the parts that don't belong by very brief neutral mentions plus links to the proper articles. For example the para about refugees should be something like

During the 1948 war, over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from the areas that became Israel. During the following years, a similar number of Jews fled or were expelled from Arab countries, many going to Israel. See Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands for details.

Or it could be even briefer:

For a description of the massive population movements, Arab and Jewish, at the time of the 1948 war and over the following decades, see Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands.

--Zero 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be OK with either of the versions you propose, but the fact remains that you moved these articles without getting input. I'll move them back. --Leifern 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

I think the real issue is convincing editors to abide by policy, and stop inserting POV, factually incorrect, and off-topic material into articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Jews

What well known facts were you complained had been deleted by me? Have you read the talk page? Paul B 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the talk page, and it appears to me there is an attempt to accept every ancient account and allegation about Jewish misbehavior as true, without considering the evidence that would dispute such allegations. SlimVirgin pointed out that there is a longstanding reluctance among Jews to convert people into Judaism that makes the one charge dubious; similarly, the timing of the presumed persecution of Christians doesn't make sense, either. --Leifern 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica accepts the activities of John Hyrcanus as fact, so does the Jewish encyclopedia [8]. What more do you want? The other material is not about Persecution by Jews, but Persecution of Jews, so is in the wrong article. It also contains wholly unreferenced claims about Christian motives which are not supported by any historical evidence. All the disputed claims in thre version I reverted to are referred to as disputed. Paul B 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Dear Leifern, I've responded in detail to your comments on this article here. As you have not been involved I'm concerned that you might have some misconceptions about the issues under debate. Obviously, "deleting sections that disagree with your point of view" would be completely unacceptable, but the issues here are reliability of sources and relevance. I'm quite confident that you don't suppport, for example, bulk deletion of footnotes and references to books about the War and, for another example, the addition, in a single sentence, of 14 weblinks that have nothing to do with that War, both of which have taken place here. --Ian Pitchford 10:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks in List of mayors of Philadelphia

While some redlinks in an article are OK, in this list only 17 out of 117 names currently have articles. If we red-linked every one of them it would look pretty ridiculous. There is also the question of whether all of them will ever have their own articles. It may be very difficult to find enough verifiable information about some of them to justify even a stub. As it happens, I started the article for the earliest mayor on the list that currently has an article, Jonathan Dickinson, but he would have had an article even without being mayor of Philadelphia (I didn't know he had been mayor until I was researching the article). I think that it is best to avoid red-links in a list. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)