User talk:Nysin

Welcome!

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.

Hello, Nysin, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Stifle 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Please be mindful of the three-revert rule when editing this page. You have not violated it, but I'm just dropping you a line in case you weren't aware of the rule. Stifle 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Nysin 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia - March 19

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- pm_shef 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your previous comment

Thanks for your acknowlegement of the acceptance of that. I've never actually done that and realized that it was a sort of WikiPedia "transgression" but at the same time I would have been very surprised if you'd have objected. Still, I doubt I'll ever do such a thing again... although I did make of point of specifying my actions in the editorial comment.

I'm a bit concerned about that article now that I've truly begun to educate myself on the topic... I have the sneaking suspicion that a few of our fellow editors would like to help define "Islamophobia" and that is extremely wrong and goes counter to everything about WikiPedia. I am hopeful that I can stress upon fellow NPOV centered editors to strive to maintain a lack of original research in it. Netscott 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That my statements have been labeled as (without being refuted) "hypocritical and therefore most likely full of hate. Nobody, who is not anti-semitic himself, would ever say that "burning a synagoge alone doesn't imply the motivation was anti-semitic" hindered my efforts to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith on the part of some editors, and I share those suspicions. Indeed, I encountered a reluctance to actually use either definition/charaterization listed in the article when I pointed out how it doesn't apply to some allegedly Islamophobic incident, which suggests such to me. Nysin 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nysin, please take a look at the Talk:Islamophobia page if you haven't already, as I have added a new message there. Thanks. - Tangot a ngo 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Nysin 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia

You might be interested in contributing to the new article of islamophilia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nysin 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll on Charities

Hello Nysin, in light of the neutrality issues relative to Islamophobia I wanted to invite you to express your opinion on a straw poll for an article title change now setup over at Talk:Charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism. Thanks! Netscott 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Nysin 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are unclear

Please use the Zinn talk page or make the wording change in the article. You are not saying what you want and others who are not mind readers can not determine your intent. Cryptic note in editing summary does not explain your intent. Thanks. skywriter 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

constructive

Please try to be constructive on the Islamophobia article. If you find any "References in connection to Islamophobia" too weak, please don't remove it altogether, instead try to find references, which strengthens the connection. Alternatively if you believe the motive not to be religious racism, find a reference, which leads to different motive, before removing the point. Thank you. Raphael1 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh ... religious racism? Excactly what race[s?] did you have in mind? :-D

MX44 14:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am being constructive. I provide fairly detailed (at least, as much as the edit summary allows) descriptions of why I remove things, such that others can address the concerns I have. Indeed, being constructive allows for not only adding items but removing weak ones.

We've gone over the logical fallacy involved with requiring someone to "find a reference, which leads to different motive, before removing the point". Would you please stop using it? Nysin 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required, but it would help editors to understand, why you remove a reference rather than searching for new sources. Raphael1 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to remove things either because they don't support they claim ostensibly made or because they themselves aren't supported. If other editors disagree, I'm perfectly willing to discuss this (I've tried, utterly without success, into getting Irishpunktom to communicate more than "+incidents" or even a totally blank edit summary in a revert). However, the burden of proof is on the item staying in the article - if it's not verifiable or isn't supported by such references, I feel no particular need to look for evidence for something on the chance that maybe, in fact, it's a legitimate point. I'll let someone who, for example, introduced it into the article to begin with do so. Nysin 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us look for evidence, instead of removing references. Alternatively you can use the Template:or template Netscott provided. Raphael1 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Template: {{or}}

Hello Nysin, knowing that you've shared concerns about original research relative to Islamophobia, I thought I'd inform you of a template I've created: Template:Or {{or}} (^{[original research]}). Please use it accordingly. Netscott 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; I will. Nysin 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nysin, one thing that I want to call your attention to when using {{or}} is that you are obligated to add corresponding talk to a given article's talk page specifying your contentions of original research specifically corresponding to the passages tagged. This is indeed explained in the Template:Or specifications. Netscott 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editorial view

Greetings Nysin, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on the Islamophobia article? Thanks. Netscott 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Islamophobia

Nysin, please review this request for mediation. I wasn't sure if I should add you but I imagine if you'd like to participate you could be added. Let me know. Thanks. Netscott 18:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked on the mediation page. I definitely have an opinion on this and care how it turns out, even though I've stayed at its periphery so far. Partly, though mediation is, of course, non-binding, it would be acting in good faith to abide by the resulting decision regardless of my participation, so it might make sense to become more involved now. Nysin 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia category?

Nysin, as a long time editor on the islamophobia article you should be particularly qualified to express your view over on this "islamophobia" CfD. Netscott 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hypnosadists answers

Hello Nysin, would you be kind enough to remove your answers to me from inside my points as it makes them difficult to read.Hypnosadist 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More original research -- Israeli Apartheid Division

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me out regarding some original research concerns I have. It's about the Israeli Apartheid article, and specifically, the section about accusations that Israel practices apartheid.

I believe the entire text from "As part of its land development efforts" to "the bill was narrowly defeated when it came to a vote" is original research. It cites its sources, but it cites them for the facts of the argument, not for the argument itself. Right now, it is just a well sourced argument being made by Wikipedia editors themselves it seems to me. The origins of the chain of reasoning remain unsourced in the article, which leads to my original research questions.

If you could take a look and comment, I'd be much obliged. Thank you. Bibigon 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the chain of reasoning is Chris McGreal's article which is the first source cited. Homey 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to note civilians on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, you replied to a discussion on this entry about how to handle the problem of people removing the heading of "civilian" to the infobox. I was wondering how you imagine this would work. I found sources that say most are civilians and give a number. But other people would rather use sources that do not say how many are civilians, even if they say "most are", even if it means displaying a larger number.--Paraphelion 18:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the dilemma here. If "most people" (or, at least, those most determined to effect their change on the infobox) want to use a source which doesn't delineate explicitly between civilians and noncivilians (for example, as you point out, a couple of the Reuters articles cited have), then "most people" have to live with Wikipedia's NOR policy precluding them from reading into such sources, or estimating from them, the amount of civilian versus noncivilian casualties. Nysin 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Article

Thank you for not reverting. We all do appriciate the work you are doing which results in an article of a high standard

I wish the first paragraps to be there as it shows Haifa to bee a tolerant city within the context of apartheid (In its literal sense, and not in the sense of the S african Type) which is the government policy. I have explained this seperate and equal development of both communities, from the context of the majority community.

This is important as Haifa has been considered as a Arab city pre 1947 and critics of Israel use this as an injustice to the Arabs. However the enlightened policy of our municialpality must be mentioned.

We are a tolerant city and have learned to live together within the status quo

You pass yourself off as a representative of some "we" on Wikipedia capable of appreciation, you refer to appreciating work I do whilst consistently and repeatedly undermining it, keep reinserting unsourced, redundant claims in the first paragraph whilst simultaneously removing a quite informative existing first paragraph and an article-wide annotation for lack of sources and citations, suggest in your edit summaries that others need to be discouraged from putting their "own views" into the article and respond by removing portions of the article which evince little to no evidence of such afflictions, and as such have removed the non-antagonistic conditions under which I stopped reverting you. Nysin 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Heh. Gotta be careful with those popups! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add this to the Haifa Page

Several thousand arabs from Haifa were displaced to Jenin in the West Bank. From here they could see their fields and orange trees being cultivated by settlers from the USA and Germany for many years they lived in putrid and rancid poverty amongst filth ( I visited Jenin and could see Haifa from there and the Orange trees)

This cruelty lasted till it was replaced by another cruelty their crushing by the IDF forces who flattened the area and bulldozed their homes in 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm

Separate and equal development was the discription used by the Southern Sates to justify segragation of the whites from the Blacks

The Nazis refered to German Jews in all their documents. I Note that Israel refers to its arab citizens as Israeli Arabs

Could you please call the arabic speaking citizens of Israel. Or citizens who are Arab

By the way what has become of the state of Israel you people seem to have degraded yourself just as the Germans did with their policies. I note that you are killing quite a few people in Lebanon.

Maybe Arab blood is inferior to Jewish blood and quite worthless. Just as at one time Jewish blood in germany wwas not worth a thing a jewish life was a worthless life. The funny thing is that the arabs did not harm the Jews as the europeans did in world History.

Brutal regimes always end brutally eventually.

Can you provide a reliable source for:

Several thousand arabs from Haifa were displaced to Jenin in the West Bank. From here they could see their fields and orange trees being cultivated by settlers from the USA and Germany for many years they lived in putrid and rancid poverty amongst filth ( I visited Jenin and could see Haifa from there and the Orange trees)

? If so, it can stay in the article.

The BBC article describes something happening in Jenin, not Haifa, and as such doesn't belong in the latter's article.

Yes, separate but equal has an unfortunate history in the United States. However, to insert into the article that something's happening in Israel warranting a comparison, one must defend that - best done in Allegations of Israeli apartheid.

Not only is this article not about Nazis, but I haven't on Wikipedia referred to Arabic-speaking citizens of Israel with any particular term, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.

What does "you people" mean? Nysin 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people who say that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust, (Historians like David Irving). So could the Jews please provide reliable evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust? Many say there was no Holocaust. And indeed nowhere is there in all the German documents evidence that Hitler even knew about the Holocaust.

If you have reliable evidence of the above please supply it. , But I am not a Holocaust denier. On the balance the Holocaust did happen even if there is no direct documentary evidence. Because of Circumstantial evidence, and oral testimony of many Jews.

So be it with Jenin, there is plenty of oral History that they came from Haifa, and photographs etc. Also they must have come from somewhere, they were not there before this time. Did they perhaps come from Jordon? Or Saudi Arabia?

If you wish to know amore about the Arabs of Jenin and Haifa and The Settkers in Haif then you should listen to this talk by George Galloway British MP who with myself visited the place.

George Galloway's Talk MP3 - 57:13 minutes - 19.7 mb - 48 kbps mono High bandwidth version for radio http://www.traprockpeace.org/audio/galloway_chi_091905_96k.mp3

The website of the talk is

http://traprockpeace.org/galloway_chi_091905.html

George Galloway's blog does indeed state:

This camp is a particular poignant example of the Palestinian tragedy because, for those refugees who still had a roof, if they climbed up onto it, they could literally see the shining city of Haifa on the sea, and every one of those refugees came from that city of Haifa. So, for fifty years, they’ve lived in a rat-infested refugee camp within sight of their own houses, their own gardens, their own orange trees being picked by people from London, from Paris, from Brooklyn.

Usually, blogs are not considered reliable sources. However, this was a speech as well, and so more properly falls under the self-published clause, which states something similar. In particular,

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

I don't know enough about George Galloway to know whether he's a well-known professional researcher, but I doubt it, given that he was, when speaking that, a British MP. Further, even if so, "if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking". Thus, it appears your link is not a reliable source from Wikipedia's perspective, and thus does not satisfy the requirement that statements in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Note that

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Thus, if you can't find a verifiable (and thus reliable) source, the potential truth of your statement doesn't matter with regard to inclusion in Wikipedia. Nysin 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, every statement must cite its sources and thank you for a very impressive reply. But having said this,

So what is a verifiable source? Murdoch newspapers and TV stations can you call these verifiable sources. Robert Fisk the award winning Journalist so much marginalized by sections of the Jewish owned press would you considers him reliable?

Who is to judge what is reliable or what is not. Is the Bible a reliable source? Some would swear by it. How about the Old Testament or Torah ...eh all gospel truth are they?

The answer may perhaps be found in this phrase

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production” Karl Marx

I am far from a Marxist but I agree. The dominant force today is the United States of America and Western Europe. They control the meterial production and the “mental production” and set the agenda of how we should view the world around us.

That is why very little is written about the history of the miserable Arabs of Haifa, very few reliable sources can be found.

I read Wikipedia to be the mental workshop of the ordinary people GLOBALLY

Therefor reliable sources can include the Arab Press, arab Historians, these sources many in the West would say are unreliable. Why should Non arabs like us judge the reliability of Arab sources, Arab Historians and Arab History?? May I cite from these sources or will the apartheid loving Jew Boys object to this. Will a Jewish Prof from Harvard be a better source?

To come to the point Nysin, Before I can write about the Wretched creatures in Jenin and how they came to be there from Haifa, I take it you wish me to first establish my credentials by a certificate I must obtain from the mental workshop of the West which Includes the Jewish Mental workshops. This certificate you call a “reliable Source”

Since the Wiki policy on reliable sources are broadly defined can I put forward my own reliable sources. But Can Quotes from famous Arab Journalists whom Europeans have not read be OK as reliable sources because many thousands of Arabs think so. Now How about a 'reliable source' comes from Fox news is that accepted? Or the Telegraph Newspaper London previously owned by that scoundrel and swindler Conrad Black and his rabidly pro Jewish wife Barbra Amiell is this British Organ a reliable source?

Naysin I will be grateful if you once again put your thinking cap on,and offer a solution to wikipedians like ourselves about the above issues.

You raise various questions about specific possible sources and whether they'd count as reliable. I'm not going to respond to most of them, except to point out that at least Al Jazeera often is used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Others probably are too, but I haven't paid that much attention to which specifically. Granted, due to systemic bias non-Western media sources will likely still be underrepresented at the English Wikipedia, but they still exist (this addresses your Marxist analogy too to some degree).

I haven't suggested anything about establishing your credentials. Indeed, unless you've written outside Wikipedia, you cannot be either a primary or secondary source for it. Otherwise, you must rely on existing reliable (preferably secondary) sources, as must any other editor. As previously mentioned, such Jewish, Arab, European, and other sources already exist.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to. Finding reliable Arab sources, especially ones in English, might be more challenging, and perhaps there's less documentation of certain issues relating to such a group than ideal, but rather than lower Wikipedia's standards for content inclusion, the solution I would suggest is to find such reliable, verifiable sources, even if they be sparser. If such can't be found, Wikipedia cannot adequately describe such topics. Finding a 'solution' to that would by necessity undermine Wikipedia's standards, and as such would be no solution at all. Nysin 09:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Connect (file sharing)

Due to repeated abuse by linkspammers (primarily porn), certains domains which exist primarily for redirection have been added to the banned URL list. This article, which I notice you have a number of edits on, contains links to myftp (mcdcplusplus.myftp.org) and no-ip (fmdc.no-ip.org), which are now on the banned list. The article as it stands cannot be edited and re-saved. I wonder if you might look at the relevant links and see if they're necessary (in which case they can be changed to plain text, instead of weblinks), or if they're superfluous. Relevant discussion on the ban list is at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirect URL's. Fan-1967 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FMDC URL is superfluous if and only if FMDC survives (I've contacted the author of that software, who's also on Wikipedia, so he may be able to resolve the host-name issue), as that can instead be listed with just an intrawiki link. The McDC++ URL probably isn't worth keeping at the cost of turning it into a plain link - it and all the others are also present in the DC++ wiki, which is already linked here. Nysin 01:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that these addresses are redirect-only, that is they do no hosting themselves. If so, presumably the content should actually exist somewhere else, if needed. I understand that sometimes they're just used to get a simpler URL. Hopefully we can address these links one way or another. I don't like leaving a backdoor for linkspammers. Fan-1967 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FMDC situation (modulo stated concern on page about notability, which wouldn't apply to simply listing it in Direct Connect (file sharing)) should now have been resolved. Indeed, it seems it was a redirect. I agree, this is worthwhile, to undermine linkspammers. Nysin 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Islamophobia edits were reverted by User:Deuterium

This editor doesn't seem too inclined to work with others on this article. (→Netscott) 06:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not yet sure how to handle him, but per my comment on the article talk page, I refuse to get into an edit war on spelling, and I (and whoever else has corrected it only to get reverted - I noticed possible candidates referring to repeatedly correcting these before via edit summaries on the article history, but didn't look closely) have/has the moral high ground here due to such actions. Still, even Irishpunktom, he who initially behaved somewhat similarly, stopped doing this sort of thing eventually - I have hope. Nysin 06:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might want to mention this example of blanket reverting over here. (→Netscott) 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It seems a little separate, but not much in spirit, from that discussed already in the linked incident discussion. Might help though. Nysin 07:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to demonstrate patterns of behavior so your addition makes sense. Cheers. (→Netscott) 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Calling people liars and idiots is always regarded as a personal attack, no matter the context, no matter the possible accuracy. As the Arbitration Committee once said, "When someone is called stupid, we don't ask them to take an IQ test to find out whether it's true." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing when it comes to that term. To say that someone is lying is to call them a liar. Wikilawyering doesn't work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking whether there's a difference between "this user made a false statement" and "this user made a lying statement"? Of course there is. I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this. As I said, wikilawyering never helps editors in these situations (never helps in any situation, in fact). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Nysin, I would be grateful if you could refrain from reverting and edit warring on Islamophobia, at least for a few days. The page has been protected for 10 days, and is undergoing a rewrite. There will be periods over the next few days when it's not in an ideal condition, because it's a work in progress (even more so than usual). Your patience would therefore be much appreciated. Once a working draft is finished, then perhaps all the editors on the page could look at the remaining differences between us. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to leave it for a few days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment

Hi here is are some jews who expect compensation from the Germans http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4318891.stm Do you think its just? Should the Arabs who fled Haifa get something too, your opinion would be much appreciated

I don't know enough, particularly about the Haifa case, to render a competent opinion. Nysin 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nysin

Could not resist sending you this, its about a tolerance center the Jews are determined to built, have a good laugh.

Arbitration fails between Jewish, Muslim groups on J'lem museum By The Associated Press

Arbitration between Jewish and Arab groups over the building of a museum promoting religious tolerance on the site of an old Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem has failed, officials said Monday.

The Los-Angeles based Simon Wiesenthal Center will petition Israel's Supreme Court to begin construction of the Museum of Tolerance on the site in Jerusalem's center after the seven-month arbitration failed, said the dean of the center, Rabbi Marvin Hier.

The matter has pitted the center, which is funded largely by American Jews, against two Arab groups over whether or not the $200 million museum should be built on the site of the cemetery in downtown Jerusalem

The burial is a site for Arabs but has been disused for several years when Israel restricted access.

There's undeniable (and amusing) irony in "a museum promoting religious tolerance" instigating such controversy, at least. Nysin 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

OK, I've unprotected. Fingers crossed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Engine

Hey there, I recall that one of our "friends" had moved the article to Unreal Engine technology. I'm wondering if we should revert that move, since it's commonly referred to as the Unreal Engine. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a move, yes, especially when the article discusses which games use the technology as well as the engines themselves. Best not be overly specific in that situation. Nysin 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to start monitoring some articles closely.

I've got a feeling that either User:3d engineer or User:Unico master 15 is anon editing to reinsert that non-existant UE 1.5 reference into a number of game articles.

Unreal Tournament, Deus Ex, Rune (computer game), and Clive Barker's Undying were all hit with the 1.5 edit. There are other games that used the same builds of the Unreal Engine as UT, but they haven't been touched... yet. You may want to add these to your watchlist. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I will. Thanks for letting me know.

Also - I'm not sure what to make of the latest edits by 60.* (IIRC) to UE itself. They don't quite fit 3d engineer/Unico master's editing profile (reverting all/mostly back to the unrealwiki version) but still add dozens of unsourced games from some other list. Nysin 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Possibly someone compiling a list of all rumoured releases. If they can be sourced, no harm done imo. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in the BiA case there was just one game to check. However, I (1) refuse to allow the article to exist for an extended period of time, whilst I'm watching it, with that much unsourced data, and (2) I refuse to be pushed into researching dozens of games someone comes up with speculatively to add to that list to refuse it. If the user adding it can't/won't source most of them, I'm tempted to just revert all of those games. The burden of proof is on them, not me. If you want to go through the games one by one, that's your perogative, of course, but barring someone willing to do that... Nysin 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do some of it, but it would take me some time. I won't have access to various sites while I'm at work, and when I'm at home, I don't often get much time for WP. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, what about maintaining a queue in the talk page of games to be checked? Whenever a (-n unsourced) batch is added to the article, immediately move them to the talk page or some other holding area in that namespace, and move them back as someone's willing to research them? Nysin 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I can get to them as available that way. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Kicking indent back) Did some fast searches, and posted results on the Talk:Unreal Engine page. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'll go through and copy the ones which identify which engine they're using into the article, sourced, tonight. A couple I'm going to leave in queue (Unrealty, for example) if it's not explicitly stated (though Unrealty almost certainly, from the date of release and discussions of machine specifications, uses UE1, that's exactly the type of OR I'm not going to engage in.) Nysin 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can find after work tonight or tomorrow, when I won't be restricted by the proxy server here. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP vandal

It's either him or 3d engineer. It's a toss-up. Something for AIV, perhaps? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely appropriate for WP:AIV, or perhaps even WP:RFI since this was an ongoing problem with these two. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate doing a mass revert, but it was necessary on Unreal Engine. This IP keeps on trying to push his OR on the article. Also dropped the insertion of some heavy POV. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably need to raise the issue again if he pulls his mass-revert again. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did it again this morning. And it looks like he's starting to get it on with personal attacks. NPA2'd his talk page. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in List_of_major_opera_composers

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[1]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the cutoff is, say, four, and six of the chosen sources (with which you seem to have no particular issue except the gender bias) are male-only, adding even several female-only lists won't help according to the criteria set. Therefore, I don't see that you can agree with that set of criteria and simultaneously support your stated goals of including female opera composers in that list. As a result, it looks like the bulk of the debate about twiddling the number and sources between you, Adam Cuerden, Mak, Folantin, and Dybrid verges on irrelevant.

Another issue lies in the source of the evident gender bias in the lists. The argument is made in the talk page that it's an artifact of what I've seen termed the patriarchy of Western society. Supposing that this patriarchy exists, then that it's reflected in this specific list of opera composers shouldn't be a surprise, nor is it something Wikipedia either can or should necessarily attempt to compensate for in this context. Further, even if female "major opera composers" exist and are excluded from the article, then they should be included only if they're verifiable - that is, that a reliable secondary source, for example, characterises them as such. Verifiability trumps truth.

However, if this is the case, as you seem to alledge, then one response is to find a source discussing the controversy, or the exclusion, and which does name female opera singers. A letter from one is linked to on the talk page, but if there are others, that helps. With such evidence, one can then create a well-sourced discussion in an article somewhere about this issue, if one doesn't already exist.

In summary: you don't seem to fundmantally evince disagreement with the at-least-n-of-m list setup, which would seem to sink your attempts if followed rigorously, and you haven't shown convincingly at least to me on that talk page that there are female opera singers of similar notability as male ones already listed excluded not due to a perhaps gender-biased wider historical judgement, which would be unfortunate but not Wikipedia's responsibility or domain to respond to, but instead poor choices of secondary sources, which would instead be well within Wikipedia's realm.

To counteract these issues, my own response (given your stated goals) would be to create a 'criticisms' section sourced from female musicians' groups and the like which point out this ostensible (weaselly because I haven't looked at it enough to say confidently myself, but it seems plausible given women's general subjugation in European history) historical bias.

Sort of possibly interesting ideas would be to create two gender-segregated lists, but that feels too artificial to me, too much a suboptimal and theoretically avoidable artifact of a political process. Still, it would seem (and, for example, one could start by just creating the female list, which shouldn't encounter too much objection, though maybe I mispredict here - it might attract WP:POINT allegations, whether warranted or not).

Another approach would lie in rejecting the m-of-n standard. This seems dangerously sensitive to finding near-cloned-sources and becoming a game of who can use Google the most effectively rather than reflecting accurately what sources are saying. I only scanned the extensive talk page, but I didn't see that suggested.

I'll start with these, and will watch with curiousity how this develops. Nysin 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Unreal3engine-berserker.jpg

Hello Nysin, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Unreal3engine-berserker.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nysin/UE Draft. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Unreal screenshot.jpg

Hello Nysin, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Unreal screenshot.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Nysin/UE Draft. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm fine with replacing these images with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Nysin 01:14, 20 May 2007 (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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]