User talk:Richards1052

Welcome!

Hello, Richards1052, 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:Where to ask a question, 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!

You're off to a great start here; I looked at the articles you've been flagging and wholly agree. Unfortunately it's a bit out of my expertise. If we flag them, hopefully someone will come by soon and fix them up, but if this is an area you know something about, why not take a crack at it? =) That is, after all, the wiki way.

Cheers! --Dvyost 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communist stuff

Hi Richard. I read your post on the new user log. Is this the user you are referring to? - Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you aware of the Judaism WikiProject? Thought you might be interested. - Akamad ^{Happy new year!} 11:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article history

Hi Richards,

Just got your e-mail. Sorry I missed the first one--for whatever reason, Yahoo has been redirecting them to my bulk folder. Anyway, the easiest way to see who's worked on a particular article is to click the "History" tab up above by the edit tab. That will show you what editors have contributed and when.

Hope that helps--don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions, though it seems my talk page might be a better venue until I get my e-mail sorted out. =)

Cheers,

--Dvyost 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing another user's contributions

Hi, I saw your note at WP:NUL. See Special:Contributions/Richards1052? It's a list of your contribs. To see anyone else's, just put their name in the URL instead of yours. HTH. pfctdayelise 04:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

www.richardsilverstein.com

I've removed a number of links to your own blog. Please see WP:V and WP:COI Duplicity (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V again, specifically the section: Self-published sources (online and paper) WP:SPS. The policy states "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I believe you when you say you are an expert in the field and have many articles published in the L.A. Times, The Guardian, American Conservative Magazine, and that you are quoted in the NY Times. However, it is important that you link to those articles and not to your own blog. With that in mind, I will begin removing links to your blog again. Duplicity (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you asked on Wikipedia:Help desk how you can see which articles you edited that I then reverted. The easiest way is to look on my user contributions page Special:Contributions/Duplicity, scroll down until you see the relevant articles, and click the diff links to see the changes I made. Looks like I did all the reverts on November 20. Incidentally, this is also how I found and reviewed every article you have edited. I've held off on removing your links for now because I don't want to start an edit war, but please note that several other people have begun reverting your changes, also for going against wikipedia style guidelines. Duplicity (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not CLAIMING to be an expert in my field. I AM an expert. My blog is not a vanity enterprise nor is it designed to enrich me personally. It is a resource based on original research in a field in which I was trained academically and have earned advanced degrees. There is no difference between work I publish in my blog and in publications like the L.A. Times, Haaretz, etc. In fact, I often publish works in my blog which I've published in publications. ANyone who reverts my changes is treating me in a prejudicial manner and I object to this treatment. Richard (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Idan Raichel. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. It's great that you attempted to contribute what you considered a helpful link to the Idan Raichel article. Ultimately I don't think it needs to be there, though. Did you read the documentation on external links? Your blog is mostly an appraisal of the music, rather than encyclopedic information, and it is among many reviews that I'm certain people can find with a web search. About claiming that it allows music to be heard that otherwise is unavaialable to most readers, (a) it is firstly unclear the legal status of the file linked from your blog, and the regulations specify that "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."; (b) Idan Raichel and his publishers make available the music they choose to on their web site and elsewhere; (c) much of his music is able to be heard from the Sheger Videos page in external links, although its Copyright status is also unclear. I hope this is not too hurtful a response! Every Wikipedian has moments where others disagree (often justly) with their taste in material. jnothman ^talk 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, the above comment sums it up very well. Jauerback (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jnothman: It is not true that my blog post is "mostly an appraisal of the music." The post places Raichel's music in a social and political context that is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. My post deepens knowledge about who Idan Raichel is and what his agenda is both as a musician and social commentator on Israeli society. I have certainly read the section on External Links & find nothing there that says I have done anything wrong. If you feel I have I would appreciate your quoting a passage rather than merely providing a link and implying that I have.Richard (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sarajevo Haggadah, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. I've removed the link you posted today to your own blog. Duplicity (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of talking in riddles, why don't you point out what precisely my conflict of interest IS regarding the Sarajevo Haggadah article. I have no connection whatsoever to the Sarajevo Haggadah other than thinking it's a wonderful story. Again you raise shibboleths like "conflict of interest" w/o providing a scintilla's worth of evidence that there IS any. If there is have at it & point it out.

Furthermore, the External Links rule page says the following:

one should avoid...Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

I am an authority on the topics I write about. As I've noted I've published articles in Haaretz, The Jewish Forward, American Conservative Magazine, Los Angeles Times, Beliefnet, & other sites & publications about Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace and other subjects in my blog posts. I have also produced radio programs about Israeli & Jewish music for public radio. I do original research both for the articles, radio programs, and blog posts. If I wasn't an authority I wouldn't write about them.

Richard (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard

Hi Richard, Saw your post over at phil weiss's. I comment at your blog about once a year or so.

Your impressions about the rules, and those of the people you have been arguing with aren't 100% precise.(I helped larn the rules to one of your interlocutors, btw, at a time when he was seriously in danger of being booted out.) Blogs from recognized authorities are OK. Of course, you have no COI - that rule was not made for cases like yours, your links fit under EL etc. Wildly inappropriate disputation over the "reliability" of sources is an increasing problem - I've seen muuuch more absurd cases than yours seriously considered by sane people. The culture has gotten much more anal retentive and bound by rules which are often insane, self-contradictory or impossible to apply (especially if read literally or in non-Wikipedian English.) And so it's become fashionable for usually newer contributors to "wikilawyer" and call people on things before they really understand the rules themselves - frequently because they had this silly treatment themselves. I'd say that with your increasing recognition you and your blog are becoming much more of a recognized source, e.g. since the New Yorker quote. I was just recently thinking about which blogs in the mideast area would usually fit our arcane RS guideline, and yours came to mind as one that should, and that I would go to bat for. (Right now the insane "consensus" bright idea is to put the part about blogs in WP:V. )

I hope you noticed that other people (e.g. Roland Rance) put some of your perfectly appropriate external links back in. Anyways, if you need help, you could call on me, although I am only intermittently available. Would write more but no time.John Z (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Raphael Shore

Hi Richard,

You might want to read and comment on Talk:Raphael Shore#References. -- davidz (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard,

You have a conflict of interest. Please see Talk:Clarion Fund#Research source on Clarion Fund. -- davidz (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move

Hey dude, You may be interested to comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move. P.S. Scanned through your blog. Was most interesting, and you certainly appear to be an authoritative source on I/P issues. I would caution against citing yourself on WP though. It raises all sorts of Conflict-of-interest, original-research, and Point-of-view concerns. Best, NickCT (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear mr. Richard Silverstein,

your blog and your name is in this artical. you are anything but objective on this issue - so bug off. you are anti-israeli persona- and everything you write concerning israel has an POV.. YOU wrote that artical and YOU insert your blog insid. stop advertising your ego and your blog ! 79.176.51.253 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't originate the article

Did you bother to read the article history to see that I didn't originate it? Since I was the individual who was the first journalist outside Israel to write about the story it is perfectly appropriate for my post to be linked in the article. Richard Silverstein (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tikun Olam (blog)

Hello Richard. Please read WP:COI, Wikipedia's guideline concerning conflicts of interest. You probably should not be contributing to an article about your own blog. Please follow the suggestions on that page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz is a meatpuppet of this blog http://wikibias.com/2010/10/madmen-writing-about-turks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlington8 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not originally written by me. I've updated it regarding major stories I've published which have earned considerable press exposure inside Israel. Please examine the actual material & if you have any objections to it as inaccurate then please make edits as you see fit. Otherwise, I'll use care & caution in editing the page ensuring what I write there is balanced & factual. In fact, I've added material about readers and others who object to views expressed in my blog. I don't see what objections there should be to that.

Hey

awhile back I made a few edits at your blog article. Now as part of my topic ban I'm not allowed to edit articles within the "area of conflict" but I figured it would be fair to let you know this edit right here is probably original research.

Since the article doesn't get a huge amount of traffic I doubt any editor will catch this.

I can't make any suggestions specifically so consider this just a friendly heads up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consider revising your edit posted above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tikun Olam (blog), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assignment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppety investigation

Accusations have been made that you are a sockpuppet of רדיומן (talk · contribs), as outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richards1052. I find the evidence quite convincing. I would like to hear what you have to say about these accusations. If you are indeed using both accounts, you will be required to abandon one of them, and stick to a single account in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely false accusation. If you look at the IP adddresses I use to post are they the same as Radioman? No. So how can I be the same person? How can a person post to Wikipedia from two different countries? I have one Wikipedia ID and have never had any other than this one, richards1052. At any rate, I responded in greater detail to this false claim here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richards1052 If you wish to get me in trouble or delete this article you will have to do better than that. Richard Silverstein (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Talkback

Hello, Richards1052. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Richards1052. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 05:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN

The following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Canvassing at AfD concerns a situation you may be involved with.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Shrike (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.--Shrike (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Richards1052. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]