Jump to content

User talk:Pashute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This is Archive #1 of user:Pashute's talk page

What happened to my user page?! Nov 18 2007

What happened to my user page ?!! I had their a few lines about myself written there. All gone with no trace, and history saying that the discussion was on my user page, and moved to the user_talk?! It seems some of the discussion content on this page has been lost too!! What's going on?!

Symbiotic Algorithm - deleted entry of Pashute

(One rule is that Wikipedia is not a place to publish new research, which the article Symbiotic Algorithms appears to be. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)

Re: Symbiotic Algorithm - deleted entry of Pashute

a. I have published several corrections, new definitions and translations, besides Symbiotic Algorithms.
b. I did not have chance but was going to link to some well known Symbiotic Algorithm pages which are established research. I was writing new definitions for this field, which, perhaps, you are correct and will have to wait.
c. Even if you do not agree to publish the page, can I have some of the source back. I did not backup my work, and it will help me very much...

Thank you, Pashute


Thank You for contribution to the Patent article (19 June 2006)

Pashute, Thank you for your contributions to the patent article. I took the liberty of rearranging some of your additions without (I hope) compromising the content. Feel free to take a look and let me know how I did. --Nowa 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nowa!

Coming back a year or more later, the patent entry looks great. Thank you Nowa --Pashute 13:01, 20 April 2007 (GMT-3)

All Terrain skating

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article All Terrain skating, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: All terrain skating

Your probably correct that it was written too "product" oriented, but now the article is totally gone, and there IS such a thing as All Terrain Skates.

As far as I remember I had googled for the history of these, and found several different flavors of these skates. So what to do? Can somebody send me the old article via email? I can remove any mention of specific product, and get down to the definition. Or I can just leave it at that, and just enjoy my own skating.... :-(

Commercial use of Image:HG Arrested.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:HG Arrested.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:HG Arrested.jpg ... bla bla bla ... you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) etc. etc. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:HG Arrested.jpg itself... Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was replaced with a better one that I made. Thanks for the speedy cleanup.. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aharon Moishe Leifer

An editor has nominated Aharon Moishe Leifer, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aharon Moishe Leifer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Aharon Moishe Leifer

Aharon Moishe Leifer was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aharon Moishe Leifer by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I deleted a broken redirect to the page per WP:CSD#R1. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Najam

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Najam. Deleted twice under consensus of non-notability. Your repost was nothing different ... with the same NN bio content. --Ragib (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have any problems, please take it to Deletion review. --Ragib (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was not non notability. It was because of self advocation! I'm sure that my short article was nothing like what was there before. Anyway I now looked it up further and see that he is controversial, since he talks about "Sufi" Islam which according to him includes democracy in the faith. I'm not interested in getting into this, but will bring it up. It looks like a culture war, and not mentioning someone is not the way to go. Pashute (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Please do not move comments added by other people. I'll assume good faith and guess that you were trying to format your last comment, and not move comments of other people around. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The thread was started by me, by mistake under someone else instead of Ed Johnston. I meant to put it under his name, and moved it there -I clearly stated that in the edit. Your remarks are intact, along with my questions. Do you still mind, could you please allow it in its correct place? Pashute (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Israel Kleiner

Dear Pashute

I am doing research on Israel Kleiner and would like to learn how you obtained information on him. Any advice you can provide about how I might proceed would be greatly appreciated. Friedj54 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered there. (it was quite a discovery adventure) Pashute (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Bryan Mark Rigg

This page has been restored. It was deleted as an expired proposed deletion request. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, it was as usual with all wikipedia articles, a fantastic experience following up on this person. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jan Ridder

A tag has been placed on Jan Ridder yadda yadda speedily deleted from Wikipedia.... yadda yadda WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the yadda yadda, because the article appears yadda yadda ... important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion yadda... please see the guidelines yadda yadda.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing etc...) etc. etc. If the page is deleted, you can contact... etc. etc. Airplaneman ✈ 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has been restored.
Thanks user:Stephen! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Humor

I noticed that your contribution to this page was reverted. Most probably because it was almost without references. Please keep in mind wikipedia policy WP:CITE, especially in areas which are not exactly strict science, such as humor. Please keep in mind that wikipedia already has a series of articles on cultural variations of humor, see Category:Comedy and humor by nationality, in particluar, articles, such as Jewish humor, Russian humor, Romanian humor, etc. In your contribution, of particular interest for me was the section Japanese humor. Please create this page. I am sure it will survive, since you provided references in this case. Please keep in mind that humor comparisons, such as German vs. French humor are highly subjective, and in modern times of globalization may prove false. I also disagree the difference British/American humor. In fact the watershed is between "aristocratic"/"high society" and "plebeian"/"lowlife" humors. In wikipedia, such things must be described as and attributed to opinions of people of serious reputation. Kaligelos (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The English vs. American humor, was well documented. IMHO, So was all the rest. I found writing my part a very enriching experience since I discovered much scientific research and a deeper look at cultural differences, that were never apparent to me before. I believe now that I found a key to understanding many differences in my religion and life philosophy, together with the fundumental understanding of hatred and murderous behavior and its Evolutionary logic. As opposed to you, I believe the reason my writing was reverted was not because of lack of sources, but rather because of the style in which it was written which included subtle (again IMHO) humor, and I'm sure brought a smile to some of the readers. You, or any other wikipeds are welcome to take what I wrote including the sources given, and use it. In any case, it will forever be saved in the archives of Humor. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Correction: I meant "Evolutionary logic" in a different meaning than it is given by Wikipedia... (my next research project). I had studied ecology and evolution in the 80's in Hebrew, where I learned that for an apple to be red and sweet there is a "logical explanation" which is due to evolution. The redder and sweeter apple is the result of natural selection, where it is seen by animals who eat it, and then spread the seeds to far and distant places. I am now doing research into these two ideas. This Hebrew (lunar) month is traditionaly the Jewish month of humor... "Adar" פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

License ...svg

etc etc. ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

left a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Judaism

I was invited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism (members page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Members on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta.

I'm not joining (yet) because my activity on the English Wikipedia is more related to science and general history. Although I definitely have a deep interest in the influence of ideas and people from Jewish origin. Shabbat Shalom! (a few minutes before sundown...) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid and Zionist edits

Lately I was active on YouTube and Wikipedia when I read some clear out blood libels against Israel or Jews, including some funny antisemitic responses Like "I hope to find a Jew or Israeli and kill one" as a response to claims that a movie is showing Israeli soldiers sending a dog to attack an old Palestinian woman, while the video is showing the Israeli soldiers SAVING the young Arab woman from the dog, while they where arresting a terrorist from her village. There where many responses like this, some where removed, and some left on the channel. I say that the "I hope to kill a Jew" response is funny, because even if I was totally wrong, and the dog had attacked the woman's hand on command, and if the woman was more than 25 years old, wouldn't the (presumably Fundamentalist Muslim) responding person's behavior be worse than those soldiers? I decided I cannot be impartial, and looked at the entry on the flotilla, which was linked to a response to me.
I discovered two things: One the article was not updated according to the flood of data released following the return of the MV Marmara to Turkey. And the second: That an article in Haaretz about The Hebrew Wikipedia translated and read as if its about the English one, writes about "Zionist Editing" of the Wikipedia which supposedly skews the wikipedia out of NPOV.
The article is linked into the flotilla as if it is not clear that people on both sides have a POV. The point of course is to get to the facts. (In this case BOTH sides are hiding some of the truth, and attempting to hide other parts of the truth, as can be easily shown), so that that the wikipedia articles stay NPOV. Haaretz of course is Zionist too, except that their interpretation of Zionism is a liberal one which they feel is not being followed by the current government and army. The call for "Zionist" editing on the other hand in the Hebrew Wikipedia is expected and can be understood in the context of the Hebrew language and Hebrew speaking community. You wouldn't expect the Wikipedia in English to start the term New York City with Native American claims although you should expect those claims to be clearly written somewhere in the opening section. The same goes for the Hebrew entries of cities and towns, where surprisingly some of the places where written with the Arab narrative and no mention of the Jewish one.
Originally the Haaretz article and the depicted meeting were talking about political disputes in Israel, as they would be seen on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and NOT about the Arab Israeli conflict. This could be seen on discussions about entries on Judea and Samaria Area aka the The West Bank and many others.
After reading that link and realizing how this will lead me nowhere, I was sorry I edited the flotilla entry, thinking I should probably leave it to the more political oriented sides or real historians to change it, and let them figure out how to NPOV their POV. In any case it seems there are some parts that we'll never get a full picture of, and others that will never be agreed upon, until most of the people in this region learn to truly live TOGETHER, not something that seems to be happening in the near future, with all the "peace talks". As an Arab friend once told me: Ya Mussa, everybody hates the Jews, and everybody including the Arabs hate the Palestinians, and we here fight each other to death.
So, to sum it up: (In the Hebrew Wikipedia anything I write is "Zionist" because its in Hebrew. I'm talking about the English Wikipedia) I'm not going to continue on the Zionist topic. I'm off, and back to:
B. 'Rarely writing about things Jewish like biblical explanations which I happen to know about, or Jewish heritage like people who are from Jewish backgrounds or are claimed to come from those backgrounds but are supposedly not Jewish anymore, who have some influence on their discoveries or fields of knowledge, perhaps by growing up with Jewish beliefs, assisted by Jewish or semi Jewish ethnic communities, or had discoveries tied to the Jewish way of thought. (Two famous cases: Einstein, who claimed his lifetime quest for unity, followed the Jewish belief in the one power behind everything, Kissinger is claimed to have bombed Cambodia and the Tamils with ruthlessness following his holocaust "loss of God" together with the blind admiration he received as a "genius Jew" in 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger on the BBC, and an opposite case is the depiction of Churchill as Jewish by antisemitic websites such as Jew Watch, based on David Irwing, who himself based the "information" on a satirical remark about antisemites, written in an Israeli newspaper (same Haaretz) saying that "soon they'll claim that Churchill himself was Jewish!".
and A. I'm back to mostly science and technology and humor and other things that interest me, and that I hope enrich the wikipedia community. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I retract. I just watched the video Course: Zionist editing on wikipedia and they clearly claim the Gaza flotilla raid in English is one of the examples for important fields. So I confirm the anti-Zionists' puting the Haaretz link on the flotilla raid. After I finished expanding countercurrent exchange, I gave a short answer to a question on the flotilla raid talk page. Although I am obviously an Israeli, a Jew and a Zionist, I am also a friend of Arabs, a believer in peace with Islam (but not death-chanting Islam). I hope and believe I got the picture correctly. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There I go again. Was enjoying the wikipedia about helicopters turbines, and researching air effects looking for the "burp gun", and found an image of "Palestinian boy in Nazareth playing with toy gun". C'mon, Palestinian? Our famous supreme court Arab judge is from Nazareth. They're Israeli! Then I read what the Palestinians say about themselves. Couldn't help myself from entering the discussion, I hope I brought a balanced view. Still hope the photographer changes the name, and that its used where it should. Why use images that are disputable when in all the entries there are clearly agreed upon images? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You should come hang out with us on the internetz!

Hi! I wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap if that subject interests you. We hope this channel can serve as a safe haven to hang out, talk about Wiki, brainstorming, increasing women's participation in Wikimedia, article alerts and foster friendships. I hope you join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My name is Moshe. I'm a man. I think you have a mistake... Anyway, how many feminist gals does it take to change a lightbulb? One, it's not a gal, it's a woman, and it's not funny. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wolfhart Willimczik

The article Wolfhart Willimczik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to find reliable references about him and none are given in the article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P., I'm sorry to hear of your unhappy encounter with this fellow. However Wikipedia isn't the place to indict someone. If you think this case merits exposure or official sanction, then I recommend talking to a prosecutor/magistrate or a journalist instead. Once they've acted then we could write about it.   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about. I never had anything to do with this person, besides expanding the pump entry here on wikipedia, and using an image of his which read 'Wolfhart Pump'. I then started looking up who he is and what he has done. I then discovered that a pump that I have been seeing a lot about and that was extensively discussed throughout professional discussions was suspected to be a hoax along with other claimed inventions of his. Hard research work and time spent looking up the true status of someone is not a personal vendetta. Invention scams are something that have hit tens of thousands of people! Is this some kind of joke? I proved both notability and substantiation of everything in that article, including writing on the board and on the talk page. But it was speedily deleted without further notice. Could you explain your action? And please return the entry.
If you are referring to what I wrote on the board, that is about an encounter with a similar type of invention scam on a totally different topic. It just made me more aware of this type of thing. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my mistake, I thought it was the same encounter.
Even so, it's necessary to have sources which directly refer to scams or hoaxes or notoriety before we can write about that in an Wikipedia biography. See WP:BLP. It's very strict. So are other core policies, like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Believe me, I have little sympathy for this person, but rules are rules. Overall, it may be best to ignore him.   Will Beback  talk  12:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was busy uploading a schematic that I worked hard on, about a pump used in Lake Nyos.
Again, its easy for you to just go and delete hours of my work. I ask that you do the opposite and just as easily return it, so we can discuss it without pulling the rug out first, and then talking.
>It may be best to ignore him.
That's your opinion. Not a reason to delete, perhaps to debate it. The article is well sourced and written, if you wish to look at it again. It is written with NPOV(!) No accusations, and not one word unsubstantiated. I had a source for everything, and brought down the seeming problems as controversy. Every claim was brought down as "claim". I proved that he is well discussed and known. Please return the article and if you think it is worthy of deletion put it up to a vote.
Just to reiterate my view on this type of wp entry - I find that under today's media we cannot "ignore away" bad science misleading people and even hatred. About until 1991 that was the state of the world. But it changed totally. As an example, both Creationism and Atheism have entries side by side. Neither of them will blow away in the near future. All we can do is give the best facts about them as possible. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

These are most of the sources you used, excluding Wikipedia sources which shouldn't be used at all. But the reset of them do little or nothing to establish the subject's notability. Simply having his pump on the cover of "World Pumps" magazine doesn't make him notable. Getting patents doesn't make him notable. Making videos and uploading them to Youtube doesn't make him notable. There would need to be some independent, secondary published sources, like a profile in a magazine, to establish notability. For the rule see WP:BIO.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For notability you don't erase immediately. You put it up to a deletion discussion and give time. Please return it and we could discuss. You did not mention two TV shows that he was on, showing his inventions in the 70's. Also you discard the Free energy suppression websites, which as I said make him notorious (or notable in those people's eyes). His theory on pumps is discussed on an academic website (the Aironautics Learning Laboratory for Science, Technology and Research). PLEASE put it back, with proper notifications, and I will give it a week's work. At least put it under my user pages. I cannot argue without the original article and all my hard work gone. (Including the talk page). Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If it was a neutral article then it could go through regular deletion procedures. But since it was not neutral Wikipedia deletion policy calls for immediate deletion. I will email you the text of the article from just before the deletion. However if you post it again with out significant changes then that'll be a problem. It would need much better sources than you added before, and a less accusatory tone.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, received and agreed. Just one two part question: In your opinion (a) Could sites like FreeEnergyNews or Panacea-Bocaf that deal with "Suppressed free energy" be used to show he is a "hero" of conspiracy theorists? (b) Once it is established that he is known as a "suppressed inventor" could that be a accepted as a "source of notability"? Perhaps it is more like an "underground" artist's or actor's notability, which can be gathered by fan sites, rather than an engineer's notability which needs academic, engineering or accepted news comments to prove the point. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The answer to both questions is probably "no". I'll refer you back to the notability standards: WP:BIO. If you're unsure what kinds of sources are acceptable, see WP:IRS and WP:V. While you're reading, you should also review WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. These are core policies which your draft violated.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
First, thank you. I would like to point out that you can see that I am here for quite a while, and have quite a lot of experience with both notability and substantiation.
I was able to reverse and re-establish some entries that I had found in the past, while working on scientific or technical issues, and discovered where deleted. I even in one case fought for the return and substantiation of someone who I found I disagreed with totally.
This is the first time I'm discussing someone who I would rather have more conclusive data about, before submitting, but whom even as it is find it important to bring both sides of the picture and let people decide. I disagree with you about the POV. I think the overall tone was quite careful. But you are an admin, and I am not (here).
I'll give it a last try. The subject of scams always interested me, but it seems that I am not finding support for this way of acting with it, i.e. bringing it up front and notifying the controversy. So I would rather simply enrich the wp with well earned and positive information. Its just that I cannot sidestep a seemingly crime when I see one. With Inventionland it was clearly stated in court, with new piling up evidence from inventors, and for some reason is being overlooked by wikipedian admins. (The court cases were about lies to the inventors about prototypes which were never sent, and contacts never made. The claims of current inventors continuing with the same problems. All TV outlets in the US discussed the former Davison court case as a scam. Scam warning websites all mention Davison's fraud: Complaintsboard.com, ConsumerAffairs.com, RipoffReport.com. But wait: The USPTO itself calls Davison actions "bogus". The current Davison website and service is promising the same evasive and unwritten promises. What more is needed to call it a scam.) In the Wolfhart case, it is only the case of piling up indications. And he does deserve the benefit of doubt, perhaps suffering in the East German prison as a political dissident, even if he is a believer in conspiracy theories and the hero of a conspiracy believing network. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
A second look at the Davison case: The judge warned that: Based on this past pattern of conduct, there is a very real danger that defendants will alter their business again, yet continue to engage in wrongdoing!! The judge then prohibited Davison from claiming (e) that they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements; Which they are clearly doing still, as can be clearly read on their website. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to Wolfhart's case again at the end of this talk page פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Davison Associates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davison Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Originally it was Inventionland. Which IMHO had all the reason for notability. It won prizes. Was shown on prominent TV, and discussed everywhere. The entry on Wikipedia was then changed to 'Davison Associates' instead of 'Inventionland', and subsequently requested for deletion? It was up since June 2009 with that name!! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you clearly have an "interest" (shall we say) in Davison, you might be interested in George McConnell Davison. To be clear, I have reverted several of your edits because I strongly believe that you crossed the line from neutral to disparaging, but this article looks like it crosses the line from neutral to puffery. I started in on the lead, but you might want to browse the rest. GDallimore (Talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an interest in Davison. I do have an interest in helping inventors (like me, I have several patents) understand what they will be getting.
I don't have anything against peacock puffery, and am not interested in it.
The thing is that on the Davison invention promotion firm website and printed material they are forced to put restraints to their claims, and they do so.
But on wikipedia they are not responsible for what is printed, and therefore they (or whoever is writing for them) use old promotional material, prior to the trial - again misleading, and this time without any of the warnings.
I was, luckily, able to catch the small print in their publications, which implicate one thing and then warns in "small print" that they are not implicating that. But they do it in a very subtle way.
---They don't have a star and smaller print in black. They put the warnings in large colorful font, at the end of long sentences, that look like continued promotional material. If you didn't know that there were people who complained, you would never realize this. It would be like an ad for cigarettes where the words were: "Its so healthy to smoke" showing a healthy looking doctor smoking, and then instead of a warning box, it would say in big blue letters (albeit smaller than the main print) These are the words of Famous Dr. Schwarzenberg inventor of the now famous life saving treatment for AIDS, which does not implicate that smoking is healthful.
Since I helped many of my friends out of scams, I found that almost falling into one was extremely disturbing. I did not lose money (luckily).
In the past they were involved in a large scale scam. (You argued with me that the word scam was not relevant until I found it clearly stated). That's not something to brush away. They settled the money, but their promise to change their conduct was never cancelled, and supposedly, to this day, they follow the court rulings, issued in order to promise that they change their conduct.
Inventors, when contacting invention promotion firms, understand that their inventions will be developed, and in some cases marketed. I worked with several legitimate workshops like this. I worked with government grants for this. Any inventor who looks at inventionland gets excited about these guys (Davison) who seem serious about advancing the inventions. Davison probably could do a great job at that (!!) but instead Davison is actually doing something else altogether. Davison is selling an "inventors education" package, where they teach the to-be inventor what it will take to turn their invention into a product. The inventors are not aware of this, and think they are getting genuine invention promotion. Here, look at this guy, his product is in so and so stores.
The wikipedia article as it was written before my edits, was clearly misleading, and avoiding or burying the former scam and the companies promised change of conduct (which, obviously, has never really occurred.
I feel it is my obligation as a citizen and wikipedian to have this warning up front. I wish Davison and his inventionland to realize that he could easily change his actions, with almost no investment, and then have great, and this time legitimate success. I filed a complaint with the FTC. I also filed a complaint with one of the organizations for consumer protection they are affiliated with, but they simply passed it on to Davison. I leave it to the FTC to decide. Until then I hope you can make clear in the Davison entry, what they really offer (at least at the first stage), and on the other hand what they have been prohibited from claiming according to the court, even if the wikipedia source is from what a newspaper or TV show understood differently (Davison is currently misleading, did we mention that?)
In any case, till the FTC has something to say, I'm off the subject. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaza_flotilla_raid

The user that you responded to him is a blocked user.If it not worth to respond to him there and wast time that could be spent on improving many Israeli articles that have POV problems--Shrike (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark. But IMHO it is time well spent. It will be read by anyone who is willing to look at the truth. Actually I will be happy to be challenged further on that, and perhaps discover other POV with same facts (hard to believe that will happen) or more clarification of what actually happened, and why both the Arabs (sorry, Turks) and the Jews (sorry, Israelis) are still hiding something. Besides, I prefer dealing with science and far history.
The flotilla, on the other hand is just something that I feel I was able to piece together in a unique way. I have a similar analysis of the recent Libyan revolution and Al Quaeda lead massacre in the hospital, with a strong suspicion that similar things are happening now in Syria. But, it seems my country's (Israel) interest is to tone this down. Our newspapers are full of "Massacres" done in Syrian hospitals by Assad, while the pictures (and the news teams) seem to show exactly the same old thugs and murderers from Lybia. Most people side with the Amshinover who famously said during Iran Iraq: Zol Zein Hatzlocho zu der Zweiter (May both sides have succeess). I think its a mistake, and we should promote the truth in our world.
So these two POVey issues are ones I have an urge to find the NPOV path in. But again, I prefer working on my main interests which are Chemistry Neuro-sciences, and HVAC technology (and far history especially Jewish history). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pashute/amirite

Hi, I guess that you intended to move the page to your user space. However, you accidentally created it in the main space. Is it now corrected? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks! That's the reason for the speedy deletion request :-( פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Afd: Robert Fry (Serial killer)

Because of recent contributions, you may have specialized knowledge or interest to comment on whether WP:NOT applies to a convicted serial killer. aar095 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do not פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot notices

...It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk)

Fixed. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

BracketBot

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected... Sequoia National Park by modifying 1 "[]"s... Thank you... -- 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you brackbot! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Miss Lucy had a baby -- 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Falk Article: Please remove defamatory statements

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

RE: Richard Falk talk page. Note that under WP:ARBPIA you could be blocked for your statements against the subject of the bio. Please remove them and stick to the topic without unnecessary WP:Soapbox. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope its OK now?
I was talking about what the antisemitic sites write about him (and me) and many others. I hope it is clearer now.
I think its necessary and important to note that there is an issue of POV, and there is a reason people who are out to vandalize Richard Falk's entry, would want to have him listed in a group that seemed at first as a fad. Note that there are best selling(!) books(!!) on the danger of world government and Richard Falk is one of the names pointed to as "the enemy". At the same time, Zionists and Pro Israel groups are attacking him for his pro globalism pro Palestinian views. I was pointing out that, with this particular edit, I had intended to side with the NPOV, and keep AWAY from the POV. Oh well. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking back the story was problematic because of comments the man was a convert to Christianity. So he was a traitor to the Jewish people." I was confused to whether it was a story or a personal comment, but that was first problematic and unnecessary thing. Then reading the second one didn't help. Especially since what colored everything that followed was "And Falk's way of thinking seems to fall (if you don't look deeply) directly in the category of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But if you read too quickly the meaning of what's in parenthesis isn't clear. It's best to stick to the narrow issues at hand or people can go off on all sorts of tangents that waste people's time. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion wastes people's time. In my opinion, an important (and life critical) issue. I'll correct the first quote. The second one is clearly understood with the corrections I made to the next sentence. I'll see if I can clarify it as well. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify start long conversations like this that waste people's time. And you are just inviting someone to come along with many paragraphs on how right Falk is and how much the Israelis are screwing the Palestinians. That's why we avoid WP:Soapbox. Also note Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion and somewhere something like WP:Wikipedia can't right all wrongs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The long discussion is about my edit deleting the mention of that organization, due to its dubious importance, place in Richard Falk's bio, and, at first, questioned existence.
A due mention of the reason for its original addition as probably vandalism, and the strong POV's that surround Richard Falk (who's talk page is under template:ARBPIA) are IMHO not wp:soapbox. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
And please stop condescending with "educative" remarks.
"How to avoid abuse of talk pages" in WP:Code of Conduct reads: Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they are for forging agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why... Thank you פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sailing Dead Downwind Faster Than The Wind and Blackbird_(land_yacht)

I noticed that you attempted to tag these as Fringe. I firmly support aggressive action against Fringe content, I appreciate your attempt to patrol against Fringe, and I understand why you suspected it was Fringe, however if you check you'll find it is documented out the wazoo with impeccable Reliable Sources. Your fringe tags were quickly (and correctly) removed by someone else already. Dead Downwind Faster Than The Wind sounds wrong, but it is a 100% legit wind powered vehicle operating on perfectly ordinary physical principals. If you're skeptical or have questions I recommend dropping by http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134917-Downwind-faster-than-the-wind/page5 where I or others will be happy to discuss it. Alsee (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the "fringe" tag is. This is NOT fringe science, and I never thought so. Unless I'm senile, I believe I did NOT attempt to tag them as fringe. [Edit] Looked at the discussion and saw what you mean. I meant that the way it's written it looks like a fringe science article, although in fact it is not. My attempt was to correct that, and I believe we can work on that together. See discussion there.
In the Blackbird, I did in fact ask for a clarification about Bauer's experiment (and only that), which was not clear to the layman. Someone added a clarification (nice one, in my opinion) and removed the tag. All's well that ends well.
In the Sailing Dead etc. I shortened the text, which had much double talk and an unclear explanation, instead giving it a two-liner that posed the problem and its solution. It was replaced back with the faulty text, and I will discuss it on the talk page.
Thank you פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh. Downwind-faster-than-the-wind is notorious for triggering perpetual-motion/over-unity reactions from most people the first time they hear about it (which is much of what makes it so fun and fascinating). I figured that was why you used the word fringe. Okey, all's well. Alsee (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly why it needs to be written clearly. Thanks, and sorry I didn't get to it today. The topic is apparently sailing faster than the wind פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Using questionable sources, sometimes acceptable

Hi, I opened a discussion on using questionable sources, as sources for notability, and for proving the existence of fringe claims.

Here's the beginning:

The problem: There is a need for discussing and reporting on fringe claims, and people and organizations around them. But the primary sources for showing these claims, are exactly those designated as questionable or biased sources.

The current status: wp:V states: The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

This means that sometimes they can be used. When?

Please read on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#A new policy needed: Using questionable sources, and discussing fringe claims and issues פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Baghdad Battery

I need to look more carefully at what you've done here (it's on my list of articles to improve). But I note you've included a copyvio YouTube link, which if you don't remove shortly I will. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the video (linked to twice), has been released by... I double checked, and see you are correct. I was looking at a different channel that released to youtube. Will correct as a listing into the minute and second, and a transcritpion, without the link. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Continuing there. Thank you פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pashute/Archive_1&oldid=1143217595"