User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Trolls

Trolls are a Wikia-wide topic, so that is likely the reason someone else (not certain who exactly) redirected several pages there. I helped clean up the remaining redirects. I don't remember whether there was a formal explanation or not, honestly. It's been quite a while ago. I would not be opposed to a revert on the entire redirect project, but I'm sure the person who started it would be. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you explain why you reverted my sourced edits in White People? My intention is for truth in the form of facts to be seen by all. I have not done any harm to the article except for add sourced edits. Argentina's population is not entirly White and many have Amerindian ancestors. Nothing wrong with this fact. Unless you have a very good explanation, I will conclude that you are the vandal. Cali567 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know Slr edited hip-hop articles. :0 OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Sl, we have an opportunity to get on a better footing here, if you are willing. If not THE heart of the difference between us, certainly this is close to the heart -- NPOV.

We both want NPOV. We both want wording to be faithful to the sources cited.

The only difference comes when we are aware that readers will understand that wording differently. All I'm really trying to do (in this controversy and in the glossary) is to make sure that editors are aware that a section of readers is going to understand something in an entirely different way than that editor intends.

The readers don't have to AGREE with the editor. But they should be able to UNDERSTAND the editor, if possible. Sometimes it's not possible. Sometimes the original sources are limited and there's no way to make someting intelligible to a generic audience. If there's no way to make it universally intelligible, then at least be aware of it and call it a day. But if there is a way to be faithful to the wording of the sources (on the one hand) and the comprehension of the audience (on the other) -- that's even better.

I want you to SUFFER this!

Say what?

Ah, I was using the Elzabethan meaning of "suffer": I want you to "allow" this.

Now wasn't that caveat helpful?

Best,

Tim (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- I think I have the definition that works up there now. Seems to be consistent both with Lisa's citations and the normative meanings of terms in other articles for a generic audience. Man, that was one tough blurb!Tim (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

God comment on Jesus talk page

Just because an editor has a good history, does not mean that they do not have trollist tendencies. We could have a user who edits articles he or she likes with good constructive efforts, and then vandalize/troll/bad faith edits for articles they do not like.

Asking whether God is a job, is a question a 5-year old, a troll or an atheist satirizing God would ask (in which case the latter is still trolling, for wikipedia talk pages are not to be disrupted by people's personal, irrelevant ideas)Tourskin (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tourskin&curid=7750818&diff=225070110&oldid=225050415 Take a look at the link and tell me hes not trolling. Tourskin (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WEll in any case, as you may have seen from my talk page, things have gone beyond apologizing. but next time ill check their history, thats a good point. Tourskin (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bible

It seems the wording of the introduction is being protected, so let's discuss...I already created a section in the discuss page of the Bible. Please feel free to make suggestions there. THe wording I'm trying to fix is POV or unsupported. So please help me come up with wording you feel is acceptable. --Fcsuper (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "I am all for compromise, but changing Jewish to Judaism doesn't solve the problem you seem to be concerned with - at best it is semantics, at worst it actually is worse because something can be Jewish (books by IB Singer, for example) without being associated with a religion called "Judaism." which is why I reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)"

Well, I agree with that, but you reverted a previous edit as well, not just that one word (which I did do separately in case of an issue). Do you have other concerns? --Fcsuper (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fcsuper"

Additional comment: let's continue conversation on Bible discussion page. --Fcsuper (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to mess with it for awhile. I'm tetering too close to 3RR right now. I would like to discuss possible improvements on-going in the discussion page. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with user who just reverts & does not use talk

I seem to be engaged in a dispute with another editor at Religion_in_the_United_States. Looking at Talk:Religion_in_the_United_States#Islam_numbers - you can see it is hard to call it a dispute when the other editor's only response is reverts with misleading edit summaries. User:IbrahimMC "does not have time" to use talk pages. What are my courses of action here, apart from an edit war or letting him have his way (until other editors wake up again)? Shouldn't his actions be considered vandalism now? He is deleting sourced refs - originally he claimed to be adding refs that weren't there (which WERE there). The only evidence he has even read what he is deletng is that he APPARENTLY (who knows for sure?) does not want there to be any mention of the lack of documentation for the higher numbers --JimWae (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for 3RR on the same article on July 1. He is so far making only this 1 edit per day (anywhere on WP). The version he is reverting to is basically the same text as he put in on July 1 - except now he is also moving Islam up in the sequence of sections--JimWae (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about a possible Wikipedia article

Hey Slrubenstein hope life is treating you well. I have a question about a possilbe Wikipedia article that I'm not sure really would qualify as an article. I am a musician also mostly drums but a couple of others. I have been visiting Drummerworld which is an excellent resource for drummers and a fun forum. The site has numerous past and present drummers with a brief history and often videos of the drummers, and various videos of how to and technique. It makes an excellent resource for drummers and it would also be for Wikipedia as I note there are articles on various drummers without the advantage of visual videos and mention of techniques without visuals. I also note there is even an article on the magazine ModernDrummer. A really nice Swiss gentleman initiated the site. I was wondering could I develop a legitimate article that emphasizes its resource potential, then we could link various related articles with actual visuals of drummers and their methods. What do you think? Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the advertisement issue was my concern, but I've been in touch with the creator of the website (and after some coaxing he seems interested). I just want to expose the site as an incredible resource for drummers-videos of methods,techniques, etc, and videos of about every great drummer who has or is living. Awesome site for drummers. I may just see what I can do with it and if it get kaboshed so be it. But the site doesn't push any particular product just a forum and then everything you would want to know about drumming and a note of about every drummer alive and deceased. An article about Buddy Rich or JoJo Mayer or Art Blakey or Steve Gadd, etc is great but when you see them play you just stand in unbelief. I am doing great by the by. Thanks for your input I respect and appreciate you opinions. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I note an article about Encyclopaedia Brittanica that is not an advertisment but it also has a long historical record. I'll see what develops. Thanks again GetAgrippa (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Sorry, but I do not follow your comment on the ethnicity talk page, perhaps you can explain in greater detail? I'm not sure which version of the paragraph you are referring to, for example. thanks Peter morrell 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I ssuspected as much! OK well my perception of this issue FWIW is this...ethnicity and race are connected but blurred, overlap and so also does the biological aspect which Maunus has categorically denied in one msg. Well, the Turkey example is such a good one for several reasons. One is the location and long established ethnic mix it contains. Another is that they all seem blended harmoniously in a very tolerant society with few ethnic tensions (this may be more imagined than real, of course). Another thing is that in most societies, visible/verbal/dress ethnic differences form a major cause of racism or social ostracism. Therefore the 'red hair blonde hair blue eyes' stuff is certainly relevant to any rational discussion of ethnicity as in the article. I don't understand where Maunus is coming from and cannot see what he is driving at. I can't see why he deleted that paragraph, except for the last line as you pointed out. It would be kinda gracious of him to supply some refs but as you say it is not a rule-bound move. PS. I like your choice of films! :) cheers Peter morrell 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So what then do you suggest? I cannot find refs so its on hold for now. thanks Peter morrell 19:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, apart from all that stuff I would like to discuss with you some aspects of Jewish ethnicity if poss. You can email me if preferred. many thanks Peter morrell 17:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply but that's not what I meant at all. Presently I have nothing much to say about that article. I will post here my ideas about sociology of ethnic tensions re jewish identity and we can then discuss this. I was indeed talking about your views and my views not about those from 'referenced sources' at this point. thanks Peter morrell 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK to start the ball rolling I would say that the distinctiveness or otherness of any racial/ethnic group that is living in a minority within a bigger or 'host' society is something that must somehow be diluted or masked if integration of the minority group is to be achieved successfully. Would you agree with this observation? That is one reason why that Turkey thread was intersting and highly relevant. If different ethnic groups can get along side by side then this is very interesting sociologically and probably reveals deeper truths about how such relative social harmony might be achieved elsewhere, where there might exist stronger tensions, such as in the Balkans in modern times. However, in sore economic times, dormant underlying tensions can again erupt to the surface in negative ways. This is the broad scenario as I would describe it as applying to an empirical study of all ethnic frictions and interactions. In the case more specifically of Jews in Europe I would say the same things tend to be true. Maybe you would like to comment on the above short piece first before I say more. thanks Peter morrell 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do not reply soon, then I shall happily assume this to be a deceased thread. thanks Peter morrell 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have no objection to finding sources to illustrate the points, please feel free to do that. Am not sure which article you think this sort of 'rambling out loud' might be suitable for?? please also give examples for the points you make. Of course economic status does play a huge part in the acceptance or non-acceptance of any ethnic minority in any time period. Hope to move this towards the 'Jews in Europe in the 1930s' problem eventually as that is also (arguably) grounded in the economic status of the 1930s. But feel free to ramble further. thank you Peter morrell 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I am not convinced that your anthropological study of south american tribes in any way equips you to talk meaningfully about urban sociology, I shall terminate this exchange, thanks anwyway for your civility. Peter morrell 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Bible

Thank you for archiving old discussions on the Bible article. I don't know why you reverted my edit: what I did was just a way to automate what you have already done, so the we won't have to worry about it in the future. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Zero g

You seem to be mentioned by Zero g as part of "a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias" on WP:AN/I. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Just a note to tell you that you can't merge/delete since that would remove the edit history of the merged text, which is required under the GFDL. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, then your comment wasn't clear, it looked like you were advising both. The new version is fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

edit conflicts

That's a reasonable comment, and thanks. I do tend to 'post first' and think afterwards!

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Sigmund Freud article

Slrubenstein, I am currently engaged in an edit war with Commodore Sloat on the Sigmund Freud article. He is attempting to place all blame on me, although clearly we are equally responsible. If you were to comment on the situation, it might help prevent matters from degenerating further. Skoojal (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Crake

Hmmm... Unless you'd rather I start calling you "Rubbin' Stein"? (just kidding, really - but the crake was too funny to pass up!).--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, peace, I had a good laugh there!!! :) --Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please e-mail

Grateful if you could e-mail me concerning an administrative matter - unfortunately you don't seem you have an address enabled. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Perusnarpk

Hello. I wonder whether you could look at this newly arrived SPA's recent edits? He is on a forum shopping spree, following unsuccessful attempts to add libellous unsourced material to the BLP of Michael Atiyah. Please could you give him a formal warning? He and two possible different editors are the subject of various noticeboards and, as agreed at wikiproject mathematics, we would rather resolve this problem without bringing it to WP:AN/I. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I don't think that at present they dare add the material. Bharatveer (talk · contribs) added the material and the SPAs Perusnarpk (talk · contribs) and Abhimars (talk · contribs) appeared out of the blue to back him up. For the moment we can just wait and see. The contributions of the SPAs give a clear record of their current activities which only involve this BLP. Could you copy what you wrote to P to the talk pages of A and B please? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Atiyah

Thanks very much for your message, Slrubenstein. I understand that BLP's on Wikipedia must follow very strict standards; a conservative policy makes a lot of sense for the reasons that you mention. That is why I wanted to discuss, on the talk page, whether the evidence in this case was strong enough to support inclusion. I also started a thread on this at the RS noticeboard to discuss whether the sources involved should be considered reliable. If the consensus is that they are not reliable I will not attempt any additions to the page.

However, I was shocked to find that it was quite difficult to have an honest discussion because of he User:Fowler&fowler decided to respond with ad-hominem attacks on me and the other parties involved. As you mention, the BLP policy is quite strict. I understand that this should be relaxed for talk pages, but here is what User:Fowler&fowler had to say about Prof. Raju the other party involved in this dispute: (emphasis mine)

"Wiki-mischief by supporters of an unremarkable scientist with grandiosity inversely proportional to achievement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_Petition_signed_by_Eminent_Academics_a_RS.3F

"Pure Wiki-mischief by supporters of a scientist, C. K. Raju, of unremarkable achievement, who is looking, by hook or by crook, to get some publicity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_Petition_signed_by_Eminent_Academics_a_RS.3F

"C. K. Raju incidentally is the same nutjob who has been claiming that calculus was invented in India and, through Jesuit contacts, made its way to Europe..."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah/Archive_2

"That CK Raju is no Ramanujan is amply evidenced in the pathetic correspondence to be found in this package prepared by Raju." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah

"Raju is not even remotely in the league above (be it red-linked or blue). A JSTOR search reveals only one paper, not in pure or applied mathematics, but in the philosophy of mathematical education. I won't say that it is a piece of unmitigated fluff, but I would strongly encourage you to read it." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Atiyah

This is in addition to several personal attacks on me and other editors. Given Wikipedia's conservative policy implemented to protect the reputation of living people, why are poorly sourced and baseless statements of the kind allowed to stand. I would like to file a formal complaint about this, particularly since F&f was warned both on the talk page and by User:CBM on his talk page to desist from personal attacks.

Furthermore, User:Mathsci, at one point, decided to call me and some other editors Indian extremists. I have never revealed my nationality to him or to any other editor so I do not know how he arrived a the conclusion that I was Indian. Nor is it clear to me how my presumed ethnicity has any bearing upon the discussion. In my opinion this is tantamount to a racial slur. Second (and less seriously), User:Mathsci has made persistent allegations that I am a sockpuppet for User:Bharatveer which is verifiably untrue. In fact, this has prevented discussion of the topic at the RS noticeboard.

Please advise me what I should do about this. Perusnarpk (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with your comment on my talk page. There was no political discussion regarding India and certainly no occassio for User:Mathsci to conclude that I was an "Indian nationalist". I note that this is not the defense he has given himself, because if it were, I would be even more annoyed since my political positions are quite the opposite of those held by Indian nationalists and I certainly said nothing in the scientific discussion to suggest otherwise. Your invention of this defense seems to suggest bias.

I think that his comments are a clear "ethnic epithet" directed against another contributor and violate your policy of No Personal Attacks. Second, your comment "No matter how much evidence, it is not for Wikipedia to defame someone else and to do so could create massive trouble for Wikipedia" suggests that under no circumstances will Wikipedia include controversial information about somebody? Surely, you are not serious. I note an entire page devoted to criticism of Noam Chomsky. The question here is, as you stated in your original post that the onus of proof is upon me. That if I wish to include this material in the biography, I must produce reliable sources to back up the claim that a controversy exists. It seems to me that in this case there are reliable sources and if there are not, I would like to understand exactly what is required by Wikipedia. User:Mathsci and User:Fowler&fowler have so far prevented the possibility of an honest discussion on this issue and I would like to follow that through to the end. I dont think I violate any wikipedia policies in the initiation of this discussion. There are several other articles I can help you improve; but please allow me to choose in what order I do so.

I consider this discussion closed unless you wish to respond to my request for information on how I should take remedial measures against the evidently egregious actions of User:Fowler&fowler and User:Mathsci. thanks. - Perusnarpk (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

I must say I enjoyed reading your retort to Kgeza7 on the Evolution talk page. Most excellent my friend. Very NPOV fair and balanced. GetAgrippa (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Elonka seems to be writing a WP policy page on tag teams User:Elonka/DR_draft. Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaism article

Thanks for letting me know. He seems like a new editor who just needs to review the policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Elonka

Hello, Slr. I mentioned you here. I hope this was OK. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/Elonka

Hiya. In this diff, you neglected to sign your name to your endorsal of the MathSci section. I added an {{unsigned}}, but feel free to overwrite it with your "signature". --Badger Drink (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Input

Hi SLR, hope you're having a good August. I'd appreciate your input at ANI on an issue regarding LisaLiel and Teclontz at Gender of god. See ANI thread here--Cailil ^talk 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look at the Gender of God article again? I took a lot of your advice, but I'd like your opinion of the Reimers quote in the article. I've rearranged the Judaism section by splitting into two subsections. One for the traditional view and one for the modern feminist views. Contrary to what you wrote, I had not tried to exclude the modern feminist views, I simply wanted them to be presented as such, and not as the Jewish position. I'm amazed that Alastair's moving Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan to the bottom of the section and labeling it as an "opinion piece" was not worthy of censure on your part. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're keeping well and sorry if I'm bugging you SLR but I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the sanctions I'm considering implementing at Gender of God - see the Ani thread--Cailil ^talk 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, THIS TIME you have me stumped

You are trying to paint me for bias for patriarchalism in a TALK PAGE in which I put an extended NEUTRAL GENDER quote from Rabbi Blech in the article? The entire point of NPOV is to discuss what you know to be obvious but to have the discipline to put NPOV from other perspectives in citations in the article. Instead of showing my misunderstanding of NPOV, I think this time you show yours, or (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you show your lack of research in my actual edits. No human being has a NPOV. It is the discipline of a Wikipedia editor to know his own POV and to make sure he represents OTHER POVs instead in the article. And it is the discipline of an administrator to do the same on talk pages about other editors. I expect you to have the discipline to say, "My simple mistake" and I will grant you a withdrawal on that. But I want it right away. You've hammered me on a twisted understanding of NPOV for a long time and this is absolutely the last straw. If you rescind it immediately, I will actually believe it is a simple mistake on your part (read the edit history on the article to see my only edits in the article if you have any doubts, in particular the extended Blech quote that says the precise opposite of what you think I am pushing).Tim (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rat!

re . my block apropos my post on the Admin board...

you are a ...

DocMartin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.62.144.16 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, regarding this, you may want to see this for what happened. I assure you I wasn't trying to escalate anything on that talk page. I made a mistake. Acalamari 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointy double post on Elonka's talk

Your initial point was made the first time at 15:29; your repeat of the same at 21:16 is extremely pointy as there is still active discussion going on in reply to your first post. Please engage in the discussion rather than in dramatics. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft

Hi there, I moved your addition from the lead to the draft we're working on (intermittently) at Talk:Evolution/draft_article#Species_versus_populations. Hope this is OK, but there seemed to be a bit much detail for the introduction, especially since this wasn't summarizing anything that was discussed in the body of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

You are as aware as any editor that all Wikipedia articles must be sourced. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has plenty. Either leave the tag for somebody who is willing to do the work, or do the work. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

I just have to remark on this--don't take it personally. You have been here since 2002 but only created 2 pages! Postcolonialism and Society for Latin American Studies. I see now why you reacted so strangely to my tags. Seriously, there are people why use tw and huggle to mass tag new articles if they don't have sources.

Anyway, the point of requiring sources is to see what third parties think of the topic. So I'll ask; what is the reputation of Society for Latin American Studies? Who founded it? Any famous academics? What was its precursor organization? Did they produce any notable studies that have influenced Latin American policy makers? Where exactly are they based? What is the size of their budget and/or endowment? Where do they get their operating funds? Who is the head of the organization? Can you fill out the fields in {{Infobox Organization}}? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, 13 articles in 7(?) years. I created 9 since I got here in March 2008. I think my points above are still valid. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are addressing an administrator? Have you looked at the committee members of SLAS? Please could you stop making these personal attacks? I am sure that with your many talents you can improve the article yourself using the link provided there. It satisifies both WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not intending to attack anybody, and I hope that it is not construed that way. As for "addressing an administrator", the discussion we were having is on an editing level. I was trying to understand the removal of what I consider a valid tag, and think that it is perhaps due to the relative inexperience of Slrubenstein in creating articles. What I would like is more sourced content on the stub--for example, its committee members. If I thought the SLAS was not notable, I would have nominated it for deletion. And no, at present it absolutely does not satisfy WP:RS. I would improve it myself if I could find some sources. Heck, I tried. Perhaps others will have more luck. If the tag was on the stub, that would increase the chances of more content. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be construed as impolite, at the minimum. Considering that your own effort on Wiki appears to be mainly the removal of content, rather than the addition of content, I'd recommend that you kept any remarks about people's experience in writing articles to yourself. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's too late for me to take that back. And that stub needs more. What can I say? All I know is that every article and every editor should be held to the same standard. If you stumbled across that stub, and it was created by a newbie, what would you do? Was my tag uncalled for? WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." When I put something on Wikipedia, I yearn for peer review, but my creations are generally ignored (perhaps because I source the heck out of them). All of us here are obviously academics, right? We should be more interested in sourcing than anybody. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late. It's possible to score through remarks like this or even just remove them, called "refactoring" on WP. Editing experience on WP is normally measured by the number of mainspace edits, not by the number of mainspace articles created from scratch. Have you in fact clicked on the committee list as I suggested? There you'll find a list of academics which you might profitably study for a minute or two before making further comments here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't strike through people's memories. I also still feel that the stub, like all articles, requires secondary sources. Even if it didn't, does the stub look finished to you? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No stub ever looks finished to me. The source is impeccable. You are free to expand the article yourself using what you find in this source. Your statement about secondary sources does not apply in this context. Look at the Mathematical Association of America for example. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the support of some of my fellow editors. Just to clarify, I do not feel that my bweing an admin has any bearing on an edito conflict. But the fact remains that I created a stub, and admit it is a stub, which by definition needs work. I see no need to defend the notability of SLAS but I provided an expklanation on the article talk page. All information came from its website which is perfectly appropriate and the information currently in the stub needs no further citations, indeed, one almost never finds secondary sources on this kind of stuff. I am saddened that Phlegm Rooster would rather start a silly little spat over nothing, when instead she could be doing research and contributing to the article. That is what one should do if one thinks an article needs more meat. If Phlegm Rooster does not want to do any research on this topic, she should just move onto another topic and do research and contribute something meaningful to the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying the SLAS is or isn't notable, but if it doesn't have secondary sources then it isn't notable. This is an important principle. Sorry for making a silly little spat, but it isn't over nothing. I'm not a girl--roosters are male chickens. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein I wonder if you could look at the mess that Phlegm is trying to make with Mathematical Association of America to prove a WP:POINT. He/she is attempting to add controversy in the first paragraphs by giving an unbalanced personal point of view. The page could be locked if she/he continues to edit in this way. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"if it doesn't have secondary sources then it isn't notable" - what a silly statement Slrubenstein | Talk 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a sufficient, but not necessary, requirement for notability. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Phlegm being deliberately obtuse? The Academie des Sciences has no references! Phlegm doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm going to have to look at Academie des Sciences now. Lack of references is a problem for any article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Phlegm, you are heading for an indefinite block. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An indef block for adding legit sources to articles, it is to laugh. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but an indefinite block for disruption is sometimes employed. I have not checked your editing yet, so I have no opinion yet. You can check my logs Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to see how many indefinite blocks I hand out. If anybody knows about the indefinite block option, it is me, though I am generally very lenient and often give users many chances before taking that extreme measure. Mathsci is a good editor. Perhaps Mathsci would agree to coach you a bit on Wikipedia's content policies. I always prefer that people work together to make Wikipedia better, instead of quarreling. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I am adding sources to make a statement about articles needing sources, my actual implementation is quite ordinary. Please take a look. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is was a high level of hand waving here in asserting that this or that organization is notable and doesn't need any sources other than its own website. This is inconsistent with WP:N and WP:ORG. I am sorry to see insults and threats of blocking for disruption for editors who seek to apply these guidelines to articles. A notable organization is likely to have verifiable information from reliable sources in addition to its own publications, and these should be added to the article before the removal of a tag noting that such sources are lacking. Edison (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edison, I think this issue was resolved a long time ago. You say there is a high level of handwaving here - more accurately, there was a high level of hand waving here, it was over a month ago. In any case, I think most people were responding to Phlegm Roosters massive failure to WP:AGF. I identified the stub as a stub - implicit in that is that it needs to be expanded on and more sources are needed. Do you question the notability of the organization? Our policies list certain ways that notability can be established but I do not consider these suggestions to be exhaustive. There are many kinds of organizations and a one-size-fits-all policy is likely not to work. In fact, I do not think our policies account well for certain kinds of professional organizations, especially in the academy. In any case, I think it is obvious that a stub is a stub, and that templates for sources and primary sources are meant to identify problems with articles. Problems with stubs? By definition a stub fails to meet almost all standards for an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• • (adjusted "is" to "was") There are lots of professional associations and learned associations in the world, all with their own websites. Some meet our notability standards and some do not. An important society which has been around for a while should have the reliable and independent sources to verify that it meets the requirements of WP:ORG. A tag noting the absence of such sources can be a spur to those who have the article watchlisted to take the time to find and add those sources. Add the ref and remove the tag. If I create a stub, and label it as a stub, that is not a license for me to remove tags noting lack of references or other correctable problems. A tag can also attract the attention of Wikignomes who have the online (or library) access needed to find references. I have "saved" countless articles about subjects I find in AFDs up for deletion due to lack of references by finding references. I would agree that tagging could be a bad-faith act, like adding "fact" tags after every sentence, or adding several slightly different tags to the article rather than the one most appropriate. Noting the absence of independent and reliable sources is not the same as denigrating the subject of the article, although there are other tags which can be placed questioning the notability. I would not expect an AFD to find this organization not notable, although it might result in someone doing the research to find and add the needed references. Article improvement is not the purpose of AFD, though, like it should be the purpose of tagging unreferenced articles. Edison (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC Error on Talk:Negroid

Hello SLR, I keep getting this RfC Error on Talk:Negroid. Can you take a look and see what I'm doing wrong with the template? Thx.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Link

Evolution/draft_article#Species_versus_populations. Sorry, I was sure I'd given you a link to that. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just go right ahead and edit it. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I understand your point on the New antisemitism talk page about Tariq Ali, but what I was trying to explain is something different.

The topic itself is the creation of a number of academics, and there is opposition from academics also. The views of both sides are represented in the article, all from writers with good academic credentials, and with history of publishing in academic journals. Wikipedia guidelines encourages the use of such sources when they are available [1]

Since the topic itself easily generates over heated reactions, and since there are very good academic sources, the use of Tariq Ali (a non-academic source) seems unnecessary, and incendiary. Although he is obviously notable, intelligent, and highly articulate; the paragraph sourcing him seems, to me, less a rebuttal of New Antisemitism theory, and more what proponents of the theory would regard as an example of it. If you read what is sourced to him you will see that very little of it is really a rebuttal of New Antisemitism.

Just an explanation of my thinking. Of course, if there is no support for my view, then it will get no traction. But I really think the article would be better without the Tariq Ali paragraph, and still fully represent both sides. I am not trying to remove criticism of New Antisemitism from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that the New Left Review qualifies as an academic journal, but it is, instead, a political publication highly oriented toward the New Left.

But, as I said above, if my view on this gets no support, there will be no traction. And, since a highly respected administrator has weighed in on the subject, the chances of getting support is at about zero. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying seems contrary to WP:Reliable sources [2]. It is true that Tariq Ali is notable as an English political activist, but he has no knowledge of antisemitism, or anything else that would qualify him to speak on this issue in a Wikipedia article. I could, at most, see a small mention of him someplace in the article, but not with his photograph and a paragraph placed just below Norman Finkelstein [3], as though he was a scholar who knows something about the subject.

This article is not a study of social attitudes toward Jews, or the negative stereotyping of Judaism. It is just an article about a rather controversial claim of a New Antisemitism, and sourcing in the article should be limited to authors who understand the issue. Tariq Ali certainly has an attitude, but not knowledge of the subject to justify his use as a source. Also, since there are already critical sources in the article, I do not see how NPOV is an issue.

The article by Tariq Ali [4] that is the source for the disputed paragraph was not published in the New Left Review, but in CounterPunch and il manifesto. If you read that article, you will see it contains many claims, but no documention and not a single source is cited. I do not see how you can justify using that as the source for a paragraph in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Boyarin- Judaism?

Hi there. Great discussion we are having about Boyarin. As an aside, I remember once seeing a comment by you concerning the lack of a word for "Judaism" in early texts. This comment stuck with me, and I have been on the lookout ever since for such. I just came across Rashi's use of the word "Yahadut" to refer to Judaism. It can be found in Mesechta Brachot in the first chapter. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification

Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation

Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banjeboi 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi, Slrubenstein I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus derivation

What I meant was, it is possible for people to use two different orthographies, even two different dialects or languages - it doesn't change the fact that they can transcribe from one to the other. But this is a tangent and I defer, totally, to your knowledge of classical and medieval Latin, and also agree in principle with your point about using jargon carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about deferring to my knowledge. I am not a Latin scholar but have read enough to know some of these details.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

Slrubenstein, it occurred to me that you would be a good person to ask a question that has been bothering me:

If the New Antisemitism article were a biography; the sources in it, like Jack Fischel, Brian Klug, Norman Finkelstein, and Yehuda Bauer, would be the secondary sources who were experts who had published on the primary source (the subject of the article).

If the article was on a subject with a long history -- such as is the case, for example, with the Kabbalah article, on which I have done some editing -- there would be a number of primary sources written over many years, and there would be secondary sources who had committed on the primary sources.

But, because New Antisemitism is a subject with a very short, and because there is nothing in it that has developed from a single (primary) source; for all practical purposes, the writers such as Jack Fischel, Brian Klug, Norman Finkelstein, and Yehuda Bauer, etc. seem to function as primary sources, not secondary sources. If I am reading that right, it would mean the article is entirely dependent on primary sources and secondary sources are virtually nonexistent.

Am I making a mistake in the way I am thinking this out? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I suppose you noticed, but, in case you did not, I replied on my talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus BC/AD BCE/CE

Just for the record, whether a user has made 1 billion good edits to an article or 1 edit to an article does not change the fact that both their opinions are equal and should be treated as such. Take a look [this section] of WP:OWN. Also, I resent the idea that I am pushing my view onto anyone, I did incorrectly read the MOS guideline at one stage, but reverted myself- I do feel however that you may be trying to label me as a Barbarian in your Rome. Maybe not...Gavin (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats wonderful, as I said look through my edits etc. I am not pushing anything I am simply stating that there must be a better solution. You do not have the right however to question ability to be objective without evidence. It goes again WP:AGF. Gavin (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning IP Users

You have warned at least two users about placing warnings on IP user talk pages, and it looks like you deleted some as well. Can you explain what's going on here? We warn IP vandals all the time around here. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you blocked a perfectly productive user for creating a nonsense page because s/he was warning a vandal about...vandalism. Can you explain what's going on there? I'm not understanding, but maybe I've missed something. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know what's going on as well, as it seems to go totally against common sense not to warn IP vandals about vandalism. Also, there's a thread on WP:AN about your actions. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How are we supposed to get an IP vandal blocked if we don't go through the warning tree? Do we just let them continue to vandalize? If they haven't been warned, complaints at WP:AIV get removed without action. Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Our policy requires that we first determine whether the account is shared or not 9and I would not delete a talk page that has the proper template on it identifying the address). If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning, because that is how long it will take for the bored kid to get bored of being bored and leave the terminal. If it is a shared address but the vandalism is especially agregious and persistent, a warning may be appropriate but in serious cases a representative of Wikipedia can contact the domain host, which in the past is the action really needed to accomplish anything. If it is clearly established that the account is not a shared account then a warning would be meaningful and therefore appropriate (and in those cases i would not fault any editor for leaving a warning). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation to Frank is nonsense, and I suggest you resign your adminship. Corvus cornix_talk 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

this one does not merit a reply. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the official Wikipedia blocking policy clearly states that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable." As such, your blocks of vandal fighters appear to be in direct violation of this policy. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pile-on, but seriously, please stop telling people not to warn IP vandals. And definitely stop blocking them for doing so. - auburnpilot talk 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop, please. This appears to be a misunderstanding. A bit of discussion should clear it up. Jehochman ^Talk 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bizarre_block. Corvus cornix_talk 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. A vandal must be given warnings. It is a requirement. If we don't warn them, they can't be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that someone with seven years experience needs to be told this is, at least, ironic... HalfShadow 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This goes against years of vandal fighting. Nonsense pages ? I don't know what to say, except that this block was terrible. Please, hear. Cenarium ^Talk 01:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The warning is to be directed at a user. An IP address is not a user, it is a location. Who uses that location is an open question. That is why the first step is to identify whether the address is shared or not. And I did not, and would never, delete a talk page that has the appropriate template identifying the user address and whether it is shared or not. Since a shared address has no single user, it is not clear at all that there is a need for a warning. These warnings are to me patent nonsense. The bored teenager who made a couple of silly or obscene edits has already let the room, or would just move to another terminal. The fact is, we will always have to deal with a certain kind of dumb vandalism and my hat goes off to anyone, including THEN WHO WAS PHONE, for reverting vandalism. We have always had to do that and will always have to do that. Creating a new user page to leave a warning is never going to slow that down, let alone stop it. If an IP address is the source of repeated and serious vandalism, it is not at all hard to determine that and decide what the appropriate action might be (contacting AOL or the school? We have done that before). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In current practice, maybe due to the mass of IP editing nowadays, we warn the same IP until the last warning then we block. We generally don't have sufficient resources and time to deal with an IP specifically. Huggle and other tools allow mass reversions/warning, then report to AIV and block. You should be careful to the changes in policy and practices before taking action. Cenarium ^Talk 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In reference to Slrubenstein`s comment "the warning is to be directed at a user. An IP address is not a user," WP:USER makes no distinction between unregistered and anonymous users. To that end, a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎ several months ago prompted WP:USER to be updated to make it explicitly clear that IPs have the same rights as registered users in regards to blanking their own talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And Halfshadow, as far as any irony in my being a user for seven years, I have been around long enough to know this: Note that warning is not an absolute prerequisite for blocking; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning. (yes, Corvus, this is from our vandalsim policy) Slrubenstein | Talk 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know what? I'm not even wasting any more of my time on you: Every second I waste is something I could have done something with. HalfShadow 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, if I list an IP on WP:AIV that hasn't gotten the full compliment of warnings, the listing gets removed without action. Corvus cornix_talk 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that admins did not feel a block was appropriate. If you explain how many acts of vandalism originated with that account in a given period of time, that should be sufficient even with no warnings. I am not always active and do not regularly check AN/I myself and I can understand why you may feel frustrated but I can tell you this: if the account is responsible for four or five juvenile edits over a short period of time and you tell me, if i am on-line I will block the account for six hours. If the account is responsible for several silly or obscene edits over weeks or months, I still believe that before issuing a warning, and certainly before creating a new talk page for a phantom, the thing to do is to check the identity of the address. Any admin should be willing to do that. And as I have said I did not and would not delete a talk page that has the correct template identifying the address on it, that is valuable information. But if the address turns out to be the New York Public Library, adding a warning is just going to make a teenager laugh and tell his friends to check it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are not interested in discussing this on the Admin page, you should be aware that emergency desysopping is being discussed. Corvus cornix_talk 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, folks - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was initially questioned. We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is not going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now.  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But he has no intention of stopping the behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what I actually wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it is up to the developers to regulate new page creation. It it not something you need to concern yourself with, no matter how good your intentions may be. --mboverload@ 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I intended to send you a private message, but you are currently showing a lack of an email address - please associate one with this account. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy pages on Wikipedia are intended to be descriptions of common practice, not prescriptions. Regardless of your interpretation of what policy pages say or what you think policy ought to be, the fact remains that common practice is to warn anonymous vandals on their talk pages. If you think that's wrong, you should start a discussion in an appropriate venue, you should not take unilateral action. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely opposite normal admin practice...

I AGF on this, however the policy that you stated and were following here is completely opposite the actual IP vandal warning / blocking process that is administrator standard operating policy.

Your arguments as to why you did this are not grossly illogical or anything. However, in the collective judgement of adminhood, and our interpretation of and evolution of the written policy, we treat all anonymous IPs consistently, whether they're fixed or randomly assigned or whatnot. Even with IPs which are reset each time someone logs in, or ones belonging to libraries etc, if we warn when someone's actively vandalizing we can get the message through to the person on the other side. In many cases, the IP ends up coming back to the same end user even if it's "dynamic", and in that case the connection to the real person on the other end is maintained.

Please - don't do this again. If you think that the warnings on dynamic IPs are not useful then try to convince admins not to (AN, or village pump, or whatnot). But what you did today amounted to assaulting several good faith normal procedure compliant vandal fighters for doing what everyone else routinely does and agrees is the right thing to do. That's completely the wrong way to try and change the policy and people's standard operating behavior. First change consensus and policy, then enforce, not visa versa. Consensus is that what they all were doing was correct, and punishing them for behaving correctly is wrong.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made this clear elsewhere, so I will do so here too: once it was clear to me that more than one editor disagrees with me, I stopped. Moreover, while it goes against my better judgement, I will continue to yield to the community unless and until this consensus changes. I do believe there is need for a reconsideration of this mode of operation but will only pursue further discussion and in the meantime accept the judgement of others. Two final points, though: I do not see how what I did was against policy, but I consider this a gray area and am not claiming that the specific things I did today were specific policy either. Second point: at least one editor critical of my claims about policy rebuked me with the comment that policies are descriptive but not prescriptive. I am only observing that one editor thinks I am wrong because policy is descriptive, and another because policy is prescriptive. I am not using this contradiction to justify any action on my part or to fault anyone else, but i do think it reveals just how much more open discussion we need on these issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note - I saw that you said you weren't going to do it again, and it seems clear that you're positively engaged and reflecting on the situation. I wanted to add an emphasis but not come across as implying that you were going rouge on us (yay. the red letter days return!).

This should all work its way out, hopefully constructively and without excess drama. I hope you have a good weekend. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks! I take my admin responsibilities very seriously. I think one underlying issue here is that I still do not see a real power hierarchy at Wikipedia (because I am opposed to one); my 15 minute block of a user - predicated on the knowledge that we all know blocks are never punitive, but means to resolving conflicts - was simply a means to get that person's attention, and that with reaards to how we handle IP vandals I was being WP:BOLD and using the judgement I have accrued over the years as an editor ... nothing more. I wrote a comment on an editors talk page and the comment was being ignored; I thought the issue was serious enough to call for the editor to pause and respond and discuss, and took the only action available to me to ensure that my comment would at least be read. This was a very specific objective with a very limited scope and I didn't think anyone would see it as an abuse, althoughin retrospect I see how people could see it that way. As long as everyone still agrees that blocks ae not punitive but part of a process of working out disputes, and as long as people still agree that Wikipedia works through and (at times fragile) balance between community, policy, and individual BOLDness, I think we can put all this behind us. I would never use my admin privileges to force my own POV on others, or to harm someone I didn't like.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Karl Marx

OK, see where your policy of refusing to discuss with anon IPs gets you? You are now in an edit war at Karl Marx, and have not discussed the edits with the anonymous editor. Corvus cornix_talk 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I do not call it an edit war until my revert gets reverted. In some cases the anonymous editor made some good edits, and I think his/her intentions are good. So far I think it is at the WP:BRD stage. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy change

While I applaud your boldness with change, the block button is dangerous. It has the capability to turn off a good contributor.

That being said, why not start a policy discussion on the talk page, see what can be done? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I take very seriously the statement that blocks are not punitive but part of a process for resolving problems. I have been blocked in the past and took it in stride and hope the user I blocked understood that the 15 minute block was solely to ensure s/he would read my comment on his/her user page. I have since left what i intended to be a conciliatory comment on that user's page. I certainly regret it if that editor feels wounded, I just do not think that is how one should respond to a block but if s/he feels that way i hope s/he understands that was not my intention and I regret it. I know this user has made lots of good edits and am confident that nothing I did will change that.

I appreciate your encouragement to start a policy discussion - i am going to cool down a day or two but follow your advice. I see a consensus that has emerged within a huge grey area in policy. I defer to the consensus, but i feel strongly it is misguided and would like to see open and civil discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein. I've seen your contributions around in the past, and conversed with you on a couple or three different pages I believe, and I've always been impressed by your analysis and the insight of your comments. You made an error in this case, but I think the calls for an emergency desysopping are misguided. There is an atmosphere these days that no mistakes can be made, and any incorrect block or other action must lead to -sysop. I'm not sure why.

I do think that in this instance, though, the issue is that your perception of consensus is a bit behind. The emerging consensus you see is actually closer to settled law - escalating warnings on IP pages (including shared IPs) has been the norm for a long time, and blocking someone who was correctly using warnings struck folks as hard to credit. The only thing I'd suggest to you for the future is that you read up on current practices after periods of inactivity in the various admin roles so that this sort of thing doesn't happen to you again. Regards, Avruch ^T 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avruch - thanks for your comment on my talk page (I really do value criticism when it is constructive). I think you are right that I fell behind, way behind, on community practice. And I have changed my behavior accordingly, which I hope resolves the immediate dispute. That said, If I understand the current system we have what is in effect one mechanism or process for dealing with vandals. I do not think our policies require this, and I actually think it is counter-productive. At some point - when it is clear that my comments are not directed at anyone personally (and I honestly value the efforts of the many editors, like PHONE, who endlessly fight vandalism) and hopefully when no one will respond to me personally - I would like to open up a discussion on this. I think there is a difference between a homophobic, sexist, or racist vandal who is trying to hijack Wikipedia to spread hate, and the narrow POV pushing vandal who selects one or a small number of articles, and the random vandal who makes randomly inane, silly, or obscene comments regardless of context. I think these different kinds of vandals should be handled differently. Also I think it matters whether the IP address is a publis space, a private shared space, or a private and personal space - different kinds of addresses should be handled differently. in short I think we need a more nuanced and sophisticated strategy for dealing with vandlas. in some cases this may call for exactly what we do now; in other cases more, in other cases less. I hope at some point we can all have a civil discussion about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

greg park avenue's incessant abusive trolling and anti-semitism

Can I get some assistance with this rather nasty anti-semitic troll. I dont use the term lightly. Check his edit history; zero content contributions and 100% rants, on a number of occassions anti-semitic and almost always offensive. As of late he has been on a rather twisted attack mode against me, accusing me (for no apparent reason) of sock puppetry as well as some rather twisted fantasy about how I am pretending to be a Jew.

Some recent gems are here, here, here (a post that he was instructed to refactor specifically becuase it was identified as anti-semitic), here (his ridiculous excuse of a refactoring), here--threatening violence again Jayjg, here, a BLP violation/anti semitic rant (which Piotrus threatens to block me for removing), Gamaliel removes Greg's anti-semitic post per BLP, etc (just a small sampling). Again, besides the overall offensiveness, this editor contributes zero content to Wikipedia while engaging in 100% offensive trolling. It was funny for about a second. Now its creepy. Please advise. Thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think your talk page comment was quite appropriate (and watch for responses--they often prove interesting and enlightening). Some quick background in a rush, more later. First, the deletion of another set of remarks on a talk page was on the page of EliasAlucard, an open Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi. I believe it was admins who ultimately blanked his page after he filled it with hateful rants against his Wikipedia Jew persecutors, or something to that effect. Although that case caused me some hassles, (one admin defended Alucard and called me a "whiny Jew" on ANI!) ultimately the case I made against this rather vicious, now banned anti-semite was appreciated.

The problems with Greg Park Avenue are part of a larger ongoing "battle" taking place for a few months now on a range of articles that concern Polish Jewry. It began when I attempted some edits on 2 articles--Ghetto benches which had a long "Aftermath" section which claiming that Jews went on a murderous rampage against professors who had discriminated against them in the 1930s upon the arrival of the Soviet invasion in 1939, and Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, an article about a highly praised book which at the time was comprised mostly of negative opinion from obscure Polish sources. After attempting to add some balance, A nasty battle ensued, led mostly by Greg, Piotrus, Poeticbent and Tymek. in a nutshell, it concerned my attempts to balance (with well sourced material) a serious bias in a range of articles I began editing, such as History of the Jews in Poland, which featured a number of antisemitic canards and in general tended to a) severely minimize Polish anti-Semitism, and b) propagate the Zydokomuna canard which blamed Jews for their persecution because of their supposed "crimes" against the Polish people, their "embrace" of communism, the Soviets etc. (This view even dominated the Zydokomuna article itself at the time). The editors names above, and some others, worked as a team to edit war, using a system wherein they would team edit war and Piotrus (the experienced admin) would file a 3RR (often stretching the limits of 3RR). As well I supplied you the diff where Piotrus threatened to block me for a valid BLP refactoring (upheld by an admin). He has stopped doing this after being taken to task for using 3RR as a strategy, but the nastiness continues. I took this to Medcab:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland

but it bogged down after filibustering by the Polish nationalist "team" and a crappy job by the Arb, who was strongly criticized for his performance.

The frivolous 3RR etc attacks continue to this day. See: [here]

So this is a big problem, but the immediate concern is putting an end to the severe violations of Gre park avenue, who seems to do little more than abuse editors, edit war, and provide nasty commentary all over WP. I can't find any actual content that he has added to WP.

Thanks again, more later, or shoot me any questions. See also Piotrus current Arb case fior some background, and good luck with your own sitch. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I've done occasional efforts at what you've described; a medcab, one or two notices on history boards, etc. I will pursue it more systematically, as you suggest. There actually has been a sizable improvement in many of these articles; despite their claims that they are battling a lone Jewish denigrator of Poles who "sees all Poles as antisemites") (thgeir general description of me), there has in fact been improvement because the community has steppd in to assist in the cleanup of these articles (although I remain the scapegoat who they blame for somehow superhumanly doing this all myself). I'll keep you posted. Thanks again. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, as I noted, you were almost guaranteed to elicit an interesting reply. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Your comments and feedback would be much appreciated - User talk:Jossi/What should I do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

European ethnic groups

Did you notice the recent modifications by an anonymous IP? Amongst other things, he/she added the following unsourced line:

• • Jews (including both religious and non-religious groups [Israelis, Hebrews, "Jews," etc.] by ethnic Jewish descent): approx. 2 million, found throughout Europe

There seems to be some kind of problem here, as this seems unencyclopedic and unsourced. He/she has also removed many of the remarks about the Moorish occupation of Spain, etc. At no stages were any of the changes sourced. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lwów pogrom (1918)

This article can use some immediate attention; reliably sourced material is being arbitrarily and repeatedly deleted. I suspect a tactic of provoking a revert war is in play. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Freud article again: Esterson controversy

Slrubenstein: there is a serious disagreement between me and another editor (Esterson) over the Freud article. It is discussed on the talk page. I think this urgently requires your attention. Skoojal (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ontogeny/Embryology

First, I am moved to ask in what sense you might hope to obtain "a positive vote" but, on the topic of ontogeny, and its relation to embryology, they are one and the same, and yet, they are not. To my understanding, ontogeny is the generalised term, while embryology tends to be a bit specific. For instance, embryologists will speak of the ontogeny of living creatures but, they study a specific embryo, or those of just a few species. Perhaps a better way to describe the difference in terms is top-down (ontogeny) versus bottom-up (embryology).

Second, I was more immediately motivated to add to the ontogeny talk page the following mention regarding other uses of the term, though your request seems to suggest a sympathetic ear. Thus, you might also consider that ontogeny is applicable to machines, as well as to organisms. Indeed, in a paper pending publication within Biological Theory (see volume 3, issue 1), a mathematical model of machine ontogeny is discussed. That is to say, the ontogeny article is a bit biocentric, and should include acknowledgment of this additional meaning and usage. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You left the comment on the Ontogeny talk page. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A good example

You can see in the Lwow article a good example of the ongoing, heavy handed efforts to minimize basic factual accounts of Polish pogroms, antisemitism, etc, and the gross overrepresetntation of fringe sources (look at the lead, where half is now given over to the fring claim that the pogrom was not a pogrom). This is simply ridiculous, not to mention unencyclopedic, offensive and ultimately an effort that makes WP articles on these subjects a joke. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome participation from all neutral editors; I hope you will take time to judge the issue neutrally, as the above account is very one sided. For the record, Boody and I are part of an ArbCom case (and not surprisingly, are on the opposite sides - my POV, his POV). I'd thus caution against possible anti-editor bias on the part of some editors involved in the discussion at that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As always (and as the initiator of a medcab request on this issue) I welcome outside opinion. For the record, I am not particlarly "part of" an Arbcom; I have only commented in that case, brought by an editor I dont even know concerning an area I dont edit on, because my name keeps getting dragged into it.

I would also like to ask that this stop; this sort of thing makes attempts at collaborative editing and AGF'ing extremely difficult. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll be able to look and comment on the talk page of that article soon, I've posted regarding several issues where I believe the sources are not represented properly (for example, I disagree that the sources don't support this, nor that this statement doesn't belong were it was). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, there were two parts to my removal of the following:

Others, however, note that it was the rioting was started by (mainly Ukrainian) criminals, and the most of the Polish army tried to stop the riot, not participated in it (majority of the sources do agree, however, that a small percentage of the Polish forces - primarily recently enlisted criminals - did join in the rioting)

The first part I removed because it was duplicated again in the text. What was removed because it was not supported by sources was Piotrus' parenthetical claim that "(majority of the sources do agree, however, that a small percentage of the Polish forces - primarily recently enlisted criminals - did join in the rioting)." That claim is simply not supported by reliable sources, which generally describe the pogrom as a Polish military operation (which included participation of criminals) and which do not discuss "percentage of the Polishh forces" at all. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I honestly do care. But I just do not have the time to mediate a dispute, even informally (and I am not enough of an expert in this incident or the sources to act as an independent editor contributing to the article). I don't mind if your leaving messages on my talk page facilitates communication between the two of you - I would urge both of you to try to improve communication, always to assume good faith and be civil even when you think the other has not been. And I would urge both of you to try as best possible to deal with all conflicts in terms of strict compliance of NPOV, NOR, and V. My best advice is: add the material you are adding as if you were convinced it were false i.e. as if the ONLY reason you are adding it is because NPOV and V force you to. Try it.

But if you find yourselves still at loggerheads in thirty-six hours, I urge you to post formal Requests for Comments (WP:RFC). Each of you should write a concise - no more than 100 word - summary of your view of the conflict, and then try to get as many outsiders to comment as possible using the RFC mechanism - take a week off from editing the article to give people time to comment. And then, when you come back in a week (seriously - if you do an RFC do not even look at the page for a week), focus on how best to follow the advice others have left for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

This was pretty unhelpful. Please give serious consideration to not doing it again. DMY is the preferred date format for European subjects, which Marx clearly is. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

is not a European subject, he is a global subject. That said, the guideline is just a guideline, not a policy, and the guideline suggest that the style used be the original style of the article. The section you linked to in no way requires that we change. If it is not broke, do not fix it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Marx was definitely born and lived in Europe as a brief reading of the article will make clear. I don't find your arguments convincing; let's see what others think. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor's opinion is that Marx is a European subject, regardless of worldwide notability, and therefore should use European date formats. Also, since the article previously had European date formats, there was no reason to change it. Also per {{uw-date}}, which refers to WP:DATE, which reads in part: ...it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be discussed by people who have been active editors on the talk page of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They are the ones working on the article. I don't own it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed not. None of us owns it. If the MOS says American dates for American subjects, and you change Marx's dates to American dates even though he was European, I am not really sure what to think. Is it your belief that, even though you say you don't own the article, your preference for American dates should over-ride the MOS? Or is it just that it annoyed you seeing someone who was not a regular editor making a format change to the article so much that you reverted, even though you don't own the article? I think I will take this to article talk. --John (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

You should never, ever, use rollback to revert good faith or controversial edits, as you did to mine here. Repeated misuse will lead to its removal. Do you have any reason besides, "Reverted edits by Erik the Red 2 to last version by Storm Rider" to revert my edits, especially the first set of edits? If so, I'd like to hear it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were doing WP:BRD and responded accordingly; or perhaps you were not acting in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you reverted it with a summary that said, reply on my talk page, or you reasoning, or anything else, I would have been fine. It was the fact that you rolled it back in violation of the rollback policy that got me. Any reasons why to keep the current system? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Break reply

Dear Slrubenstein,

I try not to take anything personal if the intention is not personal, and I saw then and now it is not. Thank you for your apology, but you don't need to apologize. Take care, and see you around.

BTW - I was already on break from that discussion for a few days! Respectfully,

Gabr-el 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid Throwing report on WP:POVN

Just following up on your notice on the POV Noticeboard regarding the Acid throwing article. Looking over the talk page, it seems that the discussions have been positive and that a consensus has either been reached, or is close regarding the POV issue you brought up. Would you agree with this assessment? (I'm clearing the backlog from the POV/N, but don't want to tag this as closed if further review or attention is needed from there). Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, not a problem. There's absolutely no rush. Thanks! Arakunem^Talk 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on what's going on here?

You will be familiar with this I think - [5] and [6] Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this

This one here is a hoot. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note I don't endorse all of Greg views. I have never interacted with you (to my knowledge) and I have no comments to make about you. There is much bad blood, however, between Boody and Greg and their sparring match is drawing quite a few bystanders in. In any case, I don't expect that with the current evidence your person will be subject to any ruling by the ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This was probably intended for your talk page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing of Masson article by Esterson

Slrubenstein, I'm engaged in a discussion with Esterson and Will Beback over the former's editing of the article on Jeffrey Masson which, in my judgment, amounts to BLP violation. As an administrator interested in psychoanalysis, I request your comments on this. Discussion is at user talk: Esterson. Skoojal (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Slrubenstein, I'm lurking in on this (or was, I suppose), and just thought I'd check to see if you meant to write "I do not understand your charges against Esterson" when you wrote "I do not understand your charges against Skoojal" at User_talk:Skoojal#Masson_BLP, (and same for "You quote text Skoojal added criticizing Masson's scholarly claims about Frued"). Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! You are right!! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubinstein: I have posted amended paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page. My reasons are given on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson#Esterson.27s_reply Esterson (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Hi Slrubenstein. User:PiCo and I are having a bit of a dispute in The Exodus. Much of it has been discussed on the talk page under "Dead Reckoning". As a first step in dispute resolution (second, really, after trying to hash it out ourselves), I was hoping you could drop by and give your opinion. PiCo actually mentioned you as an editor he respects, so your help would be appreciated. Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi SLR - thanks for coming to our aid with this, and I'm happy to accept your opinion, even though it goes against me. PiCo (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion requested on Mileva Maric page

Slrubinstein: Could you give your opinion on a difference of views on a posting at the Mileva Maric discussion page? [7] Esterson (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned again

By Greg here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there already; the answer is no. Although greg is much less of a problem than a certain user throwing antisemite accusations all around... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I try to moderate greg (I also send him at least one stronger email around those lines). If only somebody could moderate the other problematic editor here... perhaps we wouldn't have to go through this entire mess. Such a moderation from the 'other' side would be also a perfect counteragument to everyone, greg included, that there is no cabal/tag team/etc. supporting Boody. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you summarize to me what was the anti-semitic comment he made? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've pointed out elsewhere to Piotrus how disturbing his position is, to wit, the position that Greg is "provoked" by me (when in fact my interactions with Greg were in response to his earlier manifestations of anti-semitism, dating back to June.) Piotrus' view echoes the view which I have gotten in "trouble" with him and his like minded editors over in the course of editing--the view (which was rampant in many articles) that somehow Jews "provoked" the anti-semitism against them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think that saying "you are playing a Jew" is antisemitic (it is however a bad faithed, offensive remark). Greg, as far as I understand from conversations I've had with him and saw what he wrote to others, has nothing against Jews, but he thinks some editors/people may be masquerading as Jewish extremists to damage their image. He dislikes Jewish extremists, who are no worse nor any better than any other type of extremists. Personally, I think he is wrong - those editors are not masquerading as extremists, they are extremists (or to put it more midly, have a very strong Jewish POV). There is however nothing wrong with having a strong POV (Jewish, Polish or otherwise) - this is expected per our NPOV policy. Greg's fault was that he is not very diplomatic (well, he can be uncivil at times), assumed too much bad faith and wrote things that shouldn't have been written: they are, however, not anti-semitic, not any more than suspecting a collusion between Polish editors or accusing one of having strong Polish POV is anti-Polish. In other words: I agree greg was incivil and should moderate himself (and if that proves impossible, he should be moderated by the community); I don't however see anything antisemitic in his remarks. And yes, I believe Boody confrontational attitude is responsible for the problem: greg had no problem with editors with Jewish POV until he begun sparring with highly uncivil Boody, and they kept provoking one another (I do believe that it was greg who got baited, not the other way, but that's not that important). They both flew off the handle. At the very least, Boody is as guilty as Greg - they should both be put on civility parole, and get a wiki equivalent of restraining order.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, the problem is suggesting that there is a "Jewish POV." Now, in some cases, this may well be the point (for example it comes up in the Jesus article). But there are many articles - even about Jews -in which there is no "Jewish" POV. Just to be clear what I mean, when it comes to the historical facts, and the arguments historians and others have made about the causes, of the Holocaust (i.e. when we are not talking about the theological dimension) there is no "Jewish" POV, just as there is no "German" POV. Was there something particularly "Jewish" about Boodles' edits? Not that I could tell. Why portray his edits as "Jewish" edits and not the edits of a good-faith editor refering to verifiable sources for notable points of view (i.e. notable historians)? As for Greg - as you said, his comment was offensive. Offensive remarks predicated on someone's race are called racist remarks. Offensive remarks predicated on someone's being Jewish are called anti-Semitic remarks. If he just said "You are a stupid moron with a small penis" he would be offensive, but not anti-semitic. See the dif? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish POV is perfectly normal and widespread - would you argue that hundreds of books who discuss "Jewish historiography" (which is academic way of talking about Jewish POV] are anti-semitic? Ditto for "Jewish point of view" - the expression is used by many works, too. There are items of special interests to Jews, and there are certain arguments that Jews will make, because of their experiences/interests/education/culture. This is exactly as true for Polish, German, American and so on POVs/historiographies. There is nothing wrong with any of them, they all need to be duly represented on this project. Just as I have a Polish POV, Boody has a Jewish POV, the problem is that he refuses to admit to it - see my essay on why this is very dangerous (here). Oh, and do note I don't mean "Jewish POV is very dangerous", I mean "any user who refuses to admit he has a POV can be difficult to deal with". The next problem stems from the fact that unfortunately, in some context, extremists have indeed used the word "Jew" as an insult, and some people tend to assume that if somebody uses this word, he means it as an insult. No, saying that User A has a "Jewish POV" is perfectly normal and inoffensive (in most cases; I am sure there can be extremist exceptions, when this is used as an insult). But in most cases it is not an insult. Assuming that it is is assuming bad faith, and leads on a straight path to even worse accusations of anti-semitism. Saying that Boody has a Jewish POV is as inoffensive as saying that I have a Polish POV; it is however more likely to be seen as an insult due to the misuse of the word Jew by some. This, I believe, is the point greg tried (not very politely) to make. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said there was no Jewish POV, only that not all POVs are Jewish POVs. It is offensive to suggest that anything a Jew believes expresses a "Jewish POV." That is like calling the theory of relativity, or psychoanalysis, "Jewish science." There are lots of Jewish POVs, but Einstein's POV was that of a theoretical physisict, not a Jew. My views on AGF or CIVL or NPOV do not represent some "Jewish POV." A Jew can even have a view on the number of victims of the Holocaust without it being a "Jewish" POV, it can be the view of a historian, or sociologist. Do you think that my initial comment to Greg, in which I said that his remark about playing Jew was offensive but that I would not jump to the conclusion that he was an anti-Semite, and in which I urged him to argue over edits based on policy and sources and not based on ad hominem remarks, was the expression of a "Jewish" POV? Do you think I would have made a different comment were I an Episcopalian from Nigeria? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And are you really saying that you are only a Pole? If you prefer oranges over apples, is it because you are Polish? Do you really not believe you are also a human being, or an individual, and have views that are not "Polish" as such? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know you enough to know what POVs you represent. From what I have seen I'd not jump to a conclusion that you have a Jewish POV. I can't say if Greg was right or wrong about you having this POV; I have however seen enough about Boody to be pretty sure that he has that POV (please remember, I am familiar with Greg and Boody, but not you, and I can discuss them, but not you). Regarding your last statement: we all have many POVs. Polish POV is just one of several I have. I am sure Boody has others POVs, too, they have not however become apparent to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to read this. Based on all that I have read by Greg, it seems to me that he thinks differently from you in this regard. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We certainly differ. I still however think that he is not an antisemite, and accusations of that, which Boody has made dozens of, are highly uncivil (and self-defeating: I am sure that whatever were greg feelings towards Jews before Boody started his accusations, they have not improved due to Boody's attitude).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Anyone who has negative feelings about "Jews" in general based on a bad experience with one or even several individuals is already an anti-Semite. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This (and pardon my intervening in this conversation once again) is the "POV" that I initially found objectionable in articles I edited--the "POV" that anti-semites become so and anti-semitism happens because they are provoked by Jews. I corrected this error in any number of articles, and I happily challenge Piotrus or anyone else to find any edits of mine that have not improved these articles by making them more encyclopedic (by virtue, among other things, by replacing such archaic and bigoted viewpoints with well sourced encyclopedic content). Much to my dismay, I soon found myself under a virtual assault by those who took offense at my edits (and who have yet to challenge those edits on policy grounds--hence the vociferousness and incivility of the campaign against me). These assaults ranged from Greg repeated crude bigotries, to Piotrus' more refined approach (e.g., threatening to block me for removing Greg's anti-semitic and BLP violating commentary. I do appreciate that this dialog is taking place here, and it has been enlightening. And I do have a POV--it is one that an encyclopedia should not propagate archaic bigoted approaches to its subject matter. I have been taken to task by any number of editors of different persuasions (I recall that I have even been called anti-semitic myself somewhere). But I do find Piotrus' continued insistence on seeing mine as a "Jewish POV" as enlightening (and related to) Greg's more crude insistence/complaint that I am "playing the Jew." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment. I agree, and I have been making an effort to get more eyes on the articles in question. There has been a good deal of improvement in the quality of those articles because additional editors have supported the removal of the more egregious cases of bias. The article quality has been my main concern; I'm actually less concerned about the incivilities of Greg etc, as these are clearly simply by-products of those biases being addressed (when you can't win through policy, scream and yell a lot--even yell "Jew!") I mainly wanted to alert you to your inclusion once again in greg's list of my evil permutations. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

One more example

OK, just one more example of this stuff, only because it's a classic example of the kind of tactics I've had to deal with for months. No involvement requested, just thought you would appreciate this sort of mendacity at work. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

H2O RfA

No, no, absolutely not. You were not to blame at all. As far as I'm concerned that situation was resolved amicably, and I apologise for any misunderstanding there. I am however somewhat fed up with the many accusations and counter-accusations made at the RfA between supporters and opposers but most of all the behaviour of the nominator, which makes me feel very uneasy. Regards, EJF (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)