User talk:Vulturell

Previous discussions:

Tom Baker

I'm not saying that you're wrong — I also have read Who on Earth Is Tom Baker? and didn't remember any mention of his father being Jewish. I was just pointing out that www.thomas-stewart-baker.com, the website you cited in removing the "Jewish father", in fact says that John Baker was Jewish. And even though the official Tom Baker website isn't written by him, I think it's a legitimate enough source for the claim. Perhaps the best solution is to add a footnote pointing to the biography on the official website — after all, the standard is verifiability. We can verify that his official website says his father was Jewish, even if we can't verify that he was (or wasn't). The mention of his mother's anti-Semitism doesn't preclude his father being Jewish — she may have developed anti-Semitic tendencies out of resentment of the absent Jewish sailor. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. You might want to email the editor of [1] as well, since that site does have the "official" imprimatur on it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Let me know if and when you hear back from either source. I must admit my curiosity is quite piqued. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would find it strange that the bio on his own official website would be incorrect. I have to say that Baker does look quite Jewish and so does his father. The best explanation I can come up with is that John S. Baker was adopted and had his name changed by his adoptive parents. Arniep 10:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I wouldn't say Tom Baker looks English at all, to me he looks part Jewish and part Irish. Prince Charles of course isn't very English either, most of his ancestry is German/Danish with a bit of Scottish. Arniep 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't really base anything on looks — it's far too subjective. As for the point about the passing on of names, if this is primarily a religious custom, is it possible that the Bakers were ethnically Jewish, but not especially religious or observant? I can envisage a Jewish family living in Scotland, outside established Jewish communities in 19th century Britain, becoming rather assimilated. I'm not saying that the evidence you point to doesn't raise questions, but so far it all seems circumstantial. On the one hand we have an officially sanctioned website saying that John Stewart Baker (despite his name) was Jewish. On the other hand we have genaeological evidence which makes this seem unlikely. Let's open this to wider discussion at Talk:Tom Baker, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine with discussing it on Baker's page. BTW Vulturell Prince Charles' mother is Elizabeth II. Her mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is part Scottish. Prince Philip and George VI are both descended from the Stuarts as well but I doubt that constitutes a high percentage of their ancestry. Arniep 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that their family trees may be more accurate! Arniep 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi unless his official website is changed I think we should include the information. There may be something the family are not mentioning, like adoption or illegitimacy which might explain it. Arniep 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we can't rely on the genealogical research as it is original research and hasn't been published anywhere or reviewed so we can't rely on it's accuracy. I have an ancestor who was registered with a certain father, but it was an accepted fact within the family that the father was someone else. Therefore just because someone has traced a family using "official" documents it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Arniep 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands that tree doesn't seem to allow any likelyhood that any of the people in it were of Jewish ancestry. However it seems that many many people seem to think Baker is somehow Jewish. We should not rely on that family tree info as is not been verified by Tom Baker or anyone connected to him as far as we know and we should wait until the anomaly is explained. Arniep 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a perfectly good defense as the information is not currently verified and so should not be included. Arniep 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information was verified by her own father and did not include any genealogical information, merely information on her religious upbringing. Regards Arniep 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include any information of that in the article. Arniep 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Verbinksi

Background? Robert Taylor 05:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends... Different Personalities

Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. As the notice says, the correct way of objecting to a prod is by removing the notice. User:Abc324 filed their objection: the deletion is now controversial. If you disagree with a restored prod, the correct thing to do is to take it to AfD. I'm doing this for you.

See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for. NickelShoe 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 23% for major edits and 10% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 59 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 09:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Please don't speak to me the way you are doing on List of British Jews. It is unacceptable to be rude to people you do not agree to. Grace Note 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand which of your comments were not civil, I will gladly point them out to you. Just let me know. I want you to be absolutely clear on what is not acceptable. Grace Note 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start caring; I don't like it. The reason people tend to start with lists of Jews is because that is a clear point at which people are transgressing against the policies of Wikipedia, and it is clearly an area in which views on who is in can be extremely contentious. I am concerned about you because you are a self-appointed "ethnicity expert" and you do not seem to understand that Wikipedia does not make judgements on ethnicity, or anything else, but merely restates what other sources state. I intend to make sure that the lists of foos comply with that. Grace Note 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will not use your personal criteria to add further people to the list of Jews. Encyclopaedia editors restate what other sources say. They do not invent anything. Grace Note 05:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will call them "half-Swedish" if you can find a source that says they are. Are you just not getting the point? You're very quick to throw out words like "stupid", but you don't seem quite able to grasp it. Anyone who is "half-Swedish" will have been called "half-Swedish" by a source. If they haven't, don't call them it. Call them what the source calls them. Is this really so difficult to get your head round?

This is particularly applicable to contentious descriptions, which in themselves express a POV. To call someone "half-Jewish" expresses a POV that there is such a thing as being "half-Jewish". Are you aware that some do not agree that it's possible to be "half-Jewish", that some believe that you either are or you are not? If you are aware of that, you must be aware that to use the term is to express a POV.

I am going to assume that you are both aware of that and aware that it is a POV that someone who has a Jewish father is Jewish. You are attempting to set that POV as a criterion for entry to a list of Jews. You've had this explained to you before. You dismissed it as rubbish and insulted the people who carefully explained why you were wrong in what you were doing.

But Wikipedia does not adopt POVs. I fully accept that principle. If a reputable source says that Tom Baker is Jewish, regardless that in my personal view he is not, you may include him on the list of British Jews. Grace Note 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. I will remove anyone you (or ArnieP or anyone else) adds to the list that is not sourced to a reputable source that says they are Jewish. Not has a Jewish father. Not is of Jewish origin. Is Jewish. Grace Note 06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get behind what I'm saying and take it to that list yourself? Stand up for the policies. Do it and I'll help you when I have the time. It must surely be easier with "Irish Americans". They have either been called Irish American or they haven't. Are you facing problems from identitarians? Grace Note 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. If someone has "Swedish-American parents" they will somewhere, some time be described themselves as "Swedish-American". There is no need for us to make the decision. I will remove Miliband on every occasion you put him back, so long as you do not provide a reputable source that states that he is Jewish. If you want to make a list of British people with Jewish fathers, you may add Miliband to that. Grace Note 07:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About "Swedish-Americans"

Sigh. It is your opinion that "Swedish-American" = "has Swedish-American parents". It is a thesis about what the phrase "Swedish-American" means. I might have another thesis that it means "has Swedish-American parents and has not renounced Swedish part" because lots of people do not like ethnic descriptions like that (or find them rather odd -- I'm astonished to find a category called "Jewish-British people" because British people, to my knowledge, don't do that linking thing -- I would never describe myself as "Irish-British" although my grandpa was born in Ireland, nor would I describe myself as "English-British", although I am English). So that "Swedish-American" even means anything is a thesis, not a fact. If you have a person Jon Xsson, who says my parents were Swedish-American but I think of myself as just American, your thesis demands that he be described as "Swedish-American" anyway and included on your list. Mine demands that he is not.

How to decide? This, in a nutshell, is why the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Because truths can differ but that someone expressed a thing can be verified. So we do not invent our own theses about who is a foo; we simply restate what others have said about foos. We are not saying "here is a list of Swedish-Americans and this is what we think a Swedish-American is". We should never say that because we do not present our own theses about what things are. We say "here is a list of what our sources say are Swedish-Americans". No more, no less. Grace Note 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian-Americans

I have told you, I will apply the same reasoning to other pages. Why stand in the way of that? It's absolutely in line with Wikipedia's policies, as I've patiently explained to you. You are reverting sound edits. You could help establish a baseline, absolutely in line with the policies, that you could use elsewhere. Grace Note 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OWN. Let me edit this article. Take a step back from it and allow me to edit it. If you don't like the result, then we can discuss it. I am not wilfully trying to destroy your page. You cannot trade this page for others, although I have already told you that I will support you if you edit those pages in line with the policies of Wikipedia. You do not own this page, although I respect the work you put into it, which is why I have not simply removed the names I object to without mentioning it to you first. Grace Note 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GN

I do not correspond with editors who have contempt for Wikipedia's policies. If you ever feel you have cause to post to my talkpage again, do not make personal attacks on SlimVirgin or any other editor. Grace Note 06:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for 3rr on List of British Jews

I've blocked you [2] for WP:3RR on List of British Jews. Please discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 13:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley, why did you up the block to 24 hours after making it 8? I certainly didn't do anything since the original 8 hour block. Vulturell 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing new. I reconsidered. I'm prepared to re-reconsider, if you're prepared to promise to be Good (in the largest sense) William M. Connolley 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw someone "helped" you reconsider. Anyway, I'm not sure what that someone meant when they said I would keep reverting - as right now the cited information that I had restored is in the article, and the article's title is in synch with it. Also not sure what she meant when she said I would stop the discussion, considering I had replied to every post last night, but was not replied to. This is what I consider a "ganging up" for two people against one, promoting an extreme version of Wikipedia policy that no one else has agreed to or endorsed, and that is not used in any similar pages. Similar pages which, unlike this one, are unsourced. Anyway, I have no interest in editing or reverting that page at the time, although of course I am going to participate in the discussion. So, if you could indeed please reconsider... Vulturell 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'd like to see a rather more emphatic declaration of goodness, please. How about agreeing to abide by the letter and spirit of WP:3RR, and to abandon this talk of ganging up? William M. Connolley 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Well, like I said, I am not going to edit that page in the near future or break WP:3RR. Since I'd already talked about the ganging up, I have no reason to talk about it again. And I did say "please".... Vulturell 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked. Please don't abuse this William M. Connolley 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vulturell 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Jews

If the people are on the list on account of the source saying they have a Jewish father, mother, background, history or anything of that sort, you would be doing me a favour by removing them and saving me the bother. Please do put anyone you remove on talk though, so that interested editors can find sources for them if they wish. I don't know why we would say someone had a Jewish father, grandfather or whatever in this context. Grace Note 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're beginning to be vexatious. Jews do not hide their Jewishness unless it's for good reason. If someone's Jewish, there will be a decent source saying so. So you need not rely on one that says "x is half-Jewish". I suppose you are referring though to Sharon Osbourne. In my view she is not saying she's Jewish but perhaps you could put the source on talk and ask for opinions. I might have removed her but I would not contest a consensus view that she should be on the list.

Because I know that you will apply this reasoning to "Swedish Americans", I think you and I should at least agree: if someone says x is "half-Swedish", this should be considered at best iffy and we should definitely be looking for a source that says "x is a Swedish American"; if the person themselves says they are "half-Swedish", this should be considered borderline and you could consider the context. What do you think? Grace Note 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you answered your own question. No one is asking you to remove people you think fit the criteria. If I don't agree, I can remove them myself. You should not though include Gavin Rossdale. Here he says is not Jewish. HTH. Grace Note 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulturell, I've made my position more explicit here: Talk:List_of_British_Jews#Going_over_the_rules_again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kindler

Jewish? Robert Taylor 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In use template

Please respect the in use template. Attempting to revert another editor while they are doing a major edit is extremely discourteous. Try to be patient. I'm finding your editing aggressive. Please don't editwar over names because it makes it hard for me to keep track of who has been sourced, particularly since some of the names you are readding you are sourcing to sources that are no good. Grace Note 09:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is discourteous is that I am working from an old version. If you reinsert names, you create a newer version that supersedes the one I'm working on. But I can't include your edits in my major edit because that would involve working out exactly what you did and then incorporating it. Better is for you to wait for five minutes and then make the changes you want to make. I am finding your entire approach to the page aggressive. Rapidly reinserting names; aggressively contesting removals; personalising editing and bickering with other editors about "the rules" are all elements of aggressive editing. I'd like to think that we are all collaborating in achieving the goals of Wikipedia. To be able to think that requires that I forget the offensive posting you've been doing to a trollboard both about me and about the page in question, but I'm willing to do so. However, when that is coupled with aggressive editing, it's more difficult. Grace Note 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to be so "efficient" that you disrespect an in use template. That's all I'm asking. I am also asking you to abide by the policies of Wikipedia while you are working here, regardless that you feel free to abuse Wikipedia editors on trollboards. I do ask you though to consider that whatever your personal view of SlimVirgin, and whatever hers of you, you are working together on the page. Be as kind as you can, and please do AGF. Grace Note 09:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mr for list of british jews

hi vulturell -- would it be possible for u, as someone who works regularly on it, to get these safe into the list and make sure they stay there?

i also think Barry Townsley is jewish. thanks if u can help. Jamaissur

thanx a lot. i've got srcs for Garrard and Levy, but nothing absolutely definite for BT (but pls see ICSEP).

david garrard -- meeting of Conservative Friends of Israel (plus he's in ORT and sponsors the UK Jewish Film Festival)

lord levy -- The Jewish Leadership Council

WP:3RR

Hi. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. I'll keep an eye on this page in case you wish to discuss the block. Thanks. El_C 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Suuuper Curious

Who on the Seinfeld show main cast is Jewish? Robert Taylor 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Rix

You created an article of the lawyer Bernard Rix. Just one thing that I think is wrong about it is the claim that he read "Literature and Humanities" at Oxford. Since there is no School of Literature and Humanities I am fairly confident in saying that he must have read Literae Humaniores, i.e. Classics. I wondered if you have a source that contradicts this assertion. Also, on a very technical point, he cannot have got a BA in both 1966 and 1968. He will have been placed in a Class List for his second Final Honour School but he won't have graduated twice for the same degree. Thanks for creating this article!--Oxonian2006 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Harrelson

I noticed That you are the one who first added his mother maiden name as Oswald. May I inquire on where this is referenced?--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Vulturell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 170 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Bernard Rix - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trevor Blumas

The article Trevor Blumas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No RS found - all I could find were minor mentions (generally in the form "starring a, b, c, Trevor Blumas, ..."). Unsourced for almost 3 years.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]