User talk:Ori Redler

Nothing here yet.

Welcome!

Hello, Ori Redler, 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! --Bachrach44 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abaye

I took a look at the article and the OU article, and frankly although there is a lot if information that is similar, it seems that the current article borrows more from the encyclopedia article which is actually public domain. To be frank, I see very little which appears copied directly from the OU article. Unless you have a serious objection (or anything I missed), I'm going to lift the the copyvio message as the Jewish Encyclopedia is public domain. --Bachrach44 02:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a serious objection. About 200 words are copied (you might have missed the last paragraph, which is simply copy and pasted from the source). There are also other problems (one paragraph contains exactly the same content, copied from two sources, which makes this article look even worse. Ori Redler 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into the matter, and examining the history of this article, I've decided to revert this and seek the opinion of others in this matter. The decision here should not be made by you in this matter, I believe. Ori Redler 10:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabah Zobeir

On 4-June, you started the nomination process for deleting this redirect, but you did not correctly follow all the steps. The RFD2 tag is supposed to be added to WP:RFD and not the article. I have completed the nomination and you may wish to participate in the discussion at WP:RFD. Please also see that page for instructions all how to complete a nomination. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Lopez

Please read the process for listing an article for copyvio, before you do it again. Rich Farmbrough 16:27 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Jasper, Alberta copyvio tag

You adeed a copyvio tag to Jasper, Alberta. Can you please provide a reason/link for tagging this article as copyvio? And please don't sign you name on the main space, instead specify that you added a copyvio tag in the edit summary. Qyd 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've tried to fix that. Ori Redler 03:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

Please see Talk:Ralph K. Winter, Jr.. I have removed the copyvio notice. In general, government works are not subject to copyright in the US, although there are of course exceptions. Thanks for your diligence, however. ... aa:talk 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're right here. Still, if the article is copied, this should be clearly indicated and not disguised as "reference". Ori Redler 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio issues

You are incorrectly adding items to the copyright violations page. Furthermore, you are not leaving any edit comments when you do so. It is a real pain to have to go through to those pages, find out where the copyright is, and try to clear that up. I've been trawling through your edit history, and I am unable to see which changes are the addition of the {{copyvio}} template and which are not. It would be very helpful if you would leave edit comments, and also if you would follow the instructions in the copyvio template (linked above).

Again, I want to thank you for your effort to clean up copyright problems (it's a pain in the ass), but I worry you might be a little too aggressive about this presently. ... aa:talk 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi aa,

If I understand this correctly, there are three things to doing this correctly: A. Add a clear note in the Edit summary. B. Add the right line to [1]. C. Add the url properly to the copyvio template.

Sorry for being overly aggressive, the volume of copyvio's is rather staggering (and pissing one off too). Ori Redler 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, you need to:

If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_July_17/Articles

Scott Maccabe (history · last edit) from [2]. ~~~~

This way others will see what is going on and can discuss before deleting (or removing the copyvio template). You might also try mailing the organization from whom the material was copied (in this case, the aussie govt) and asking for permission or clarification of their policy. In the case of the previous example above (the us govt), looking through their site would have been helpful. ... aa:talk 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, note that the "Wikipedia:Copyright_problems..." link is point B above. Regarding US government materials, aside from the fact that copying stuff usually leads to a low quality article, but perhaps there should be a proper template for (like the "1911" template) for that. Ori Redler 18:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to resolve the copyvio issues on Australian Commercial Television Code of Practice, can you write some comments in the discussion page about your specific concerns so I can work to resolve rather than just leaving the page in a copyvio status. Also, whats the procedure for this? Is the page on a list somwhere waiting to be resolved? Thanks. - E! 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E!,

I've added some comments on the discussion page (I'm going to in a bit, I mean). Ori Redler 04:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

Please see WP:LEGAL. Making legal threats is grounds for immediate indefinite blocking. I have not done so, because I don't know if you have grounds for your claim, as I am not a lawyer, nor are the vast majority of people who will read your threat on the Village Pump. If you want something done by someone official with the Wikimedia Foundation, please contact User:BradPatrick, but see the email address at the top of User talk:BradPatrick for how to contact him. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ori. If my response to your post at the Pump seemed negative, it's only because I felt you should have addressed your concerns to the Foundation and Brad Patrick (which you also appear to have done), not to a general forum. However, linkspam is one of my personal pet peeves, and after reviewing the link that concerns you, I also found it unacceptable. Therefore, I've watchlisted Serial Box with the intention of vigorously defending it from further "Spam attacks". Please let me know if you're aware of this issue cropping up in other articles, or if you have any questions or comments. Good luck, and happy editing. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asanga / Copyright problems

I see that you have recently flagged the Asanga article as having copyright problems. I believe that this is not the case. See the version by user Acmuller at 07:54 11 August 2003 and the slightly earlier anonymous version (also by AcMuller before he registered). He is the writer / copyright holder for that entry in the Buddhist Digital Dictionary (to which I have also contributed and know well) and so is entitled to use his own material. Please re-instate the article. Thanks. --Stephen Hodge 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I apologise for the misunderstanding. This should be edited/re-written though. Ori Redler 16:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesária Évora

I noticed that you tagged the Cesária Évora article for copywrite violation again. What is the problem? This article has been rewritten with information drawn from mutliple sources and been deeply reviewed through the articles of deletion process. Are we missing something or is this vandalism?

--Kevin Murray 00:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your comments at discussion. I'm not sure that you are right but gave you the benefit of the doubt and did some more editing, which should remove all concern. In the future you might contact people rather than tag the article. Remember DBAD.

Thanks.

--Kevin Murray 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about me being right or wrong -- it's a simple question of whether the text is copied or not and it is still a copyvio problem. I'm not happy about being a dick, but when you see that a comment about the copyvio was posted in September and ignored, one must take more dramatic steps to get attention. And it seems that will have to be one in the near future too, here. Ori Redler 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Serial Box

My advice is to ignore the anon user posting as "Mark." We're only encouraging him by engaging him, don't you think? I won't be responding to him again. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. My mistake... Ori Redler 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inigo Jones - Copyright violation?

Hi, Ori: Having edited this article on several occasions since 2003, I have seen how the article has progressively been expanded and improved over time (if you look back to the very first edits, you will some bits that have been retained in the latest version; numerous other editors have then made various additions, etc). IMHO the text on the Soane Museum page is a copy of text from Wikipedia, not vice versa. Paul W (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, if you go back in time, to the period before you even started editing this (here) you'll see that the text at that point was simply copy and pasted from the Soane. The text, in some form or the other, is rather old. Then again, if this is indeed the case, then Dr Gordon Higgott should be denounced as a really big fraud, I believe, and not an authority at all on the subject (he wrote some books about Inigo Jones) as he claims. By past record, I think we should assume the opposite regarding WP and Copyright infringements. Ori Redler (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's not the most reliable of sources, according to [archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.soanefoundation.com/seminars.html] the page exists only since 2006 and only has content on it from some time in 2007. If you read the diff you linked to, you can see that it has a lot of the same text but differently ordered while the current version (and the one that we had in July 2007, which is around the time that the soane page was filled with any content) contains a phrasing much more similar, if not identical, to the one on soane. The process is usually the opposite, so if the text were copied from soane originally in 2003, the current version should have been further away from it, not closer to it. In fact, Paul himself wrote some of the phrasing currently used on the soane website. I don't think that the conclusion that the webmaster of that website copied text from Wikipedia should lead to the conclusion that Dr. Gordon Higgott is a fraud, as it's highly unlikely that he created the website or used any text from Wikipedia in his books (at least without verifying it against independent sources first, and even in that case it's unlikely that he used Wikipedia). Yonatan ^talk 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Teton National Park

I think that material is fine to use since it is from a U.S. Government source and in the public domain.--MONGO 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to use. Not so fine to copy. Even less, to copy without attributing to source. Ori Redler (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then next time you bother to leave a massive copyvio tag in the articlespace, if the work is from the public domain (as it is) then simply add quotes and a ref....? I removed the text and the copyvio tag now, so that should solve the issue.--MONGO 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry for being too hasty in slapping this. Ori Redler (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I am as much as you seem to be, really worried about copyvios. I also don't like PD text simply lifted and made into an article. The articles I have worked on used PD sources a lot, but in my wording as much as possible, or the wording of other editors here. That article is overdue to be made a lot more than it is, if I ever get the time. Anyway, best wishes!--MONGO 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor added the material back a few days ago, I reverted and he re-added it again. I attached the tag again as a matter of procedure. The matter is under debate at Talk:Grand Teton National Park, if you wish to weigh in. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bracha Ettinger

Whats going on - if you google her she's notable, as both an artist and writer. Not a household name, or a frontburner persona - but seemingly she exists, why the deletions? What basis? User:Cailil says the opposite...comment here: [3] Modernist (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I wondered, too, Ori, and I'm just a casual editor who stumbled onto this. Now that I've followed the link that Modernist provided, I see that a number of admins are giving this issue significant attention, so I'll drop my meager attention to this. Just thought I'd leave with a suggestion, though. WP thrives on consensus, and that is best done in the most central place for the given issue. For the issue of Ettinger's notability, that would have been the talk page for her article, but it now appears to be at Modernist's "comment here" link. All the inadequately explained deletions scattered across lots of articles have been hurting the credibility of the position that you're supporting. You might benefit by seeking the advice of Modernist or other involved admins, and check out WP:N, if you haven't done so already. Rich Janis (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough to have an article, yes, but not notable enough for the abundance of links. The question is of relative notability in her field. Most, if not all the references to her were added from December 2007 to the beginning of February 2008 by a user with just an IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.229.43.161 ), which I am informed is no other than Nimrod Kamer, who was blocked here with several of his sock puppets. I cannot tell if this is indeed the case, but my suspicion was aroused by two facts:

Many of the mentions seem fake or I was not able to corroborate them. The artist is claimed to have held a one-person exhibition in the Israel museum and one at the BOZAR, but no mention of this appears anywhere except in the artists own pages.
The articles quoted or referenced as written by her are systematically wrong -- either the year is wrong or the book is not the correct one, and so on.
Some of the facts are wrong (e.g., she's listed as a French artist, while actually being an Israeli based in Switzerland).

Ettinger is mainly notable in the field of Lacanian and post-Lacanian interpretation, which has its place, of course, but Ettinger is not a leading force there, and so should be alloted a secondary role as interpreter, when appropriate. E.g. when Judith Butler writes a book about Antigona, it's more important than an article by Ettinger. Ori Redler (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here with all these savage deletions of Ettinger? You are misinforming and you violating basic rules. if you believe that some facts about articles are wrong give the references. The references you have given are all untrue. You have been violating Wikipedia basic rules by systematically and savagely deleting all mentions of Bracha Ettinger, gestures accompanied by untrue statements which are purposely misleading other editors. You have also deleted mentions and books properly referenced. You seem to be driven by personal or political rage. You cannot delete properly referenced mentions. Concerning some of you particular untrue and misleading informations here are some examples: 1- Contrary to what you claim, Ettinger had a one-peron show at the Israel Museum in 1995. The exhibition was curated by the Israel Museum curator Meira Perry. It was accompanied by the catalogue "Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger: Halala - Autistwork". Edited by Meira Perry-Lehmann and Michèle Guedj. ( ISBN 2-910845-06-0) with texts by Christine Buci-Glucksmann, Jean-François Lyotard, and Griselda Pollock. (English/ français/ Hebrew). The exhibition was inaugurated by Jean-Francois Lyotard, followed by a conference at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. The whole event was documented and later on translated to Hebrew so that a big dossier was much later on printed in the Israeli main Art Journal "Studio" n. 99 in 1998. You pretend that the exhibition didn't take place. We have grounds to believe that you are trying to break Ettinger's reputation, because the event was important to the Israeli "left" with Prof. Adi Ofir heading the conference in Van Leer. 2- Contrary to what you claim, Bracha Ettinger had a one-person exhibition at the Brussel's Beaux-Arts in 2000, curated by Piet Coessens. This was included in a bigger operation alongside the exhibition Azetta (Accompanied by the book Azetta by Flammarion). The catalogue that accompanied the event is Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger: Artworking 1985-1999. Edited by Piet Coessens. Ghent-Amsterdam: Ludion / Brussels: Palais des Beaux-Arts, 2000. (ISBN 90-5544-283-6). You untruely pretend that the exhibition didn't take place and is not referenced. 3- Ettinger's studios are in Paris and Tel Aviv. Like most EGS faculty she doesn't live in Switzerland. You wrongly pretend that she lives in Switzerland. 4- I have checked the books that have been recently deleted by you and by anonymous ip's that seem to be you, like Laughing with Medusa, and the all indeed contain chapters on Ettinger and contrary to what you claim the information on the books are correct. I work at a University library and I am checking it now. 5- Ettinger is one of the rare women artists written on regularly by Jean-Francois Lyotard. This is an important reference for feminists in art and in gender studies. You might prefer to include in the list of the artists Lyotard talked about only the men-geniuses, but you cannot misinform and distort history. See for example SUNY's book Gender after Lyotard. You clearly seem to have an organized agenda to "purge" Wikipedia from Ettinger, for personal or most probably political reasons. Please respect Wikipedia rules. Misinformation and barbaric deletions are not acceptable. It is possible that Ettinger's page was started by somebody you do not trust, but this is not important. The page was later on taken by others and by serious contibuters like myself who work at a university library and am engaged in art, gender, psychoanalysis and feminist issues, and who is very serious and hard working. Ettinger is often visited online at our library and there is ample doctorat research on her work as is obvious from Google Books and Google Scholars. The same goes for another serious Israeli woman artist Michal Heiman. She is well known as a woman artist and as a "left" person, and some people seem to attack her for these reasons. The fact that Heiman's page was opened by the user you are attacking is irrelevant to her serious reputation.87.69.90.201 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that this is Ettinger Herself defending herself, but I doubt if her English is that poor. Anyway, I will not comment on anonymous claims -- if someone wish to smear my name (and I am registered by my real name) -- by all means, that's part of the deal, but it isn't decent to do this anonymously. I cannot thus relate to any of the arguments.

I also want to clarify that I do not have an agenda except improving articles and if this agenda is strengthened by removing links and mentions when inappropriate, that's what I'm going to do. 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Following a request from Ettinger: I urge anyone involved to judge mentions of her and her work by merit, not by Kamer or anything else. Thanks. Ori Redler (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]