This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Wikipedia policies dubiously applied to this situation [I am being unfairly targeted]; original block one week ago was incorrect and implemented far too quickly, no discussion took place; block extended for no apparent reason, merely because of the use of an IP address in the interim to edit undisputed and unrelated material; hypersensitive editors often equate any and all disagreement with them as supposed 'incivility' and are trying to have me permanently blocked/banned
Decline reason:
Sorry - block evasion is a serious offense. If you can demonstrate that you will not continue to attempt to evade and can make some statements about how you will behave in the future, you may be able to get your block reduced in another week or so. — After Midnight000116:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Many are already sourced at the "source" - at the wiki article on the person, to which they are linked. No need for double work on these (if this were a Wiki policy).--Epeefleche23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wasserman. Please desist from using the phrase "user Jayjg's policy" or similar locutions in future edit summaries; it is a violation of an important Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk)22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because that's what the rules dictate: the consensus was to delete the article, and in order to get it reposted, you have to go through the proper channels. Listing a DRV is pretty easy - the steps are right here. -- Merope20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously don't understand how to do all of that stuff when it comes to all of that code and procedure. I'm kind of old and computer illiterate when it comes to all of that. Nevermind I guess; it'll just have to re-created again at a later date. I might try to figure it all out later. --WassermannNYC20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WassermannNYC, you are misusing your talk page, that's why Merope removed the article. Your talk page is for communication with you, not hosting deleted content. If you need to create a draft, it should be a subpage of your user space. Leebo8611:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know that I was "misusing my talk page" by pasting deleted material here. If someone would have told me that I wouldn't have been upset about someone tampering with my TP. Hopefully we can clear up this misunderstanding because I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way around here, just edit and improve articles as best I can. --WassermannNYC04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid you're misusing your talk page by holding the "Jewdar" deleted article there. What you could do is host it in your user space, however, I warn you that eventually, someone will come along and list that page for deletion too. In the meantime though, that's your best bet. You could click here and cut and paste the material to the new page. Ignoring the requests of others not to misuse your talk page is a swift route to trouble and I'm sure you don't really want to start ignoring Wikipedia's rules and conventions. Yours helpfully, --Dweller12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... I'm thinking. Is it against the GFDL to post the deleted content without its history? In that case, the only way a version could be hosted in Wassermann's user space is if it was recreated by him (without using the contributions of others). That's assuming there are other contributors. Leebo8612:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leebo is correct. Furthermore, WassermanNYC's persistence in posting this here without going through the proper channels is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Consider this a warning; posting this content again here will result in your being blocked from editing. I've linked you to the instructions on how to request a deletion review. If you can't do it, you can ask for help (simply by putting {{helpme}} on your talk page along with your question). -- Merope14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to create controversy here, just trying to preserve a worthy page that was unjustly deleted. I had no clue that posting deleted material on my userpage was against the rules, so I do apologize for not knowing that. I still don't understand this "deletion review" process...all of that procedure and code is too complicated for an old guy like me, so if someone here knows how to work through the deletion review process please do so and let me know here. I don't know how to use many of the advanced features of Wikipedia yet, and I'm not sure if I ever will. --WassermannNYC04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly help you. You will need to look at the old AFD (found here and articulate what you object to. It does look like process kinda fell apart in the discussion, so that's on your side. Do you have new sources that attest to this word's use in the vernacular? If you can write out your reasonings for overturning this deletion, I will set up the review on your behalf. -- Merope04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Okay! I've listed it on deletion review here. Good luck!
It's no problem -- I understand how convoluted some processes are around here. However, maybe next time you might not be so jumpy when an editor makes an edit you don't like? I try extremely hard to be patient and understanding with all the editors I work with, because I know that, unfortunately, I make a few of them angry. But there are reasons for what I do, and I'm always happy to explain them or even to restore articles to users to help them fix them up. Just something to keep in mind. :) -- Merope05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, many of the processes on Wikipedia are indeed very convoluted, especially since I'm still learning many of them and don't know much about protocol, obscure policies, advanced features, and all of that. I do want to apologize again for being jumpy as you said; I wasn't really angry so much as mildly disturbed, because I didn't know that other people were allowed to alter the talk pages of other users unless it was a direct personal attack or something of that nature. But now that I know this policy, I won't do it again. And thanks for being very patient and understanding with such a Wiki-illiterate user like me. Take it easy! --WassermannNYC05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether their ethnicity was notable or relevant, particularly to them. For example, even though Albert Einstein was not particularly religious, nor did his work involved Jewish topics, he was a Zionist, he was forced to flee Germany because he was a Jew, the Nazis tried to remove references to his work because he was a Jew, and he was also offered the post of President of Israel, because he was a Jew. Moreover, his Jewishness is regularly cited in reliable sources. That's notable. Jayjg (talk)21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try removing that material because the owner of that article won't allow it. My interest in bios began when I noticed that "Jewish-American" was added to the lead sentence of approximately 800 Wikipedia biographes. It seems that this was done out of some sort of ethnic pride I am guessing but darker forces could have been involved as well, who really knows. The problem is that certain editors then wanted to add the Jewish-American tag to every criminal of Jewish decent. Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something. I am going to take my own advice and not edit this article for a while and step back. It seems that folks have an agenda either for inclusion or exclusion of Libby's ethnicity. Anyways, good luck! --Tom13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something" -- I resent that you believe that my intentions on the List of Jewish American businesspeople were malicious. I simply sought to expand the article because I have an interest in American and Jewish businesspeople, and I did a good job I might say. Also, it is clear that the page was unfairly targeted for deletion, even though most of the other lists of Jews (and most of the articles on Wikipedia) aren't sourced at all. I might try to restore the list in the coming days; if this is blocked by those users that for whatever reason are trying to prevent it, I might have to start blanking other lists of Jews (even though I of course don't want to) in the interest of consistency and fairness. --WassermannNYC06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wasserman, I apologize if I offended you. I believe I was referring to an anonymous editor but no matter. As long as you provide references and the people are of notability, please add them. I totally agree that there is alot of hipocrisy around here. I was actually blocked for an entire month for "creepy anti-jewish edits" by an Admin who I feel totally misread my intentions. Anyways, apologies again and good luck going forward. --Tom15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sort of a perversion of Wikipedia that people can bully their way into being "owners" of articles. Also, the category part at the least, seems to be in contradiction to WP:BLP regarding privacy and relevancy. Personally, I find the whole thing rather creepy, but I'm just trying to edit in accordance with the rules. I've worked on several highly contentious pages, but I've never encountered such bullying and personal hostility as I did with the Libby page. Seems a pity, that's all. Notmyrealname15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of being facesious(sp) about owning the article. Oh course people aren't suppose to take over articles but again, people become very personally involved and end up taking it that way. Good for you to try to stay within policies and remaining civil, that really does go along way. Sorry that you encountered any nastyness. I mainly work on bios since they are of interest of me. I have not made one edit about politics or George Bush, but that must be nightmare. Anyways, take care and best of luck going forward!--Tom16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If in one week from now you can confirm that the red links are notables and the blue links are Jewish, the list can stay. However, if there are no sources available by then providing suggestions that these people are wikipedia-notable and, in turn, Jewish, the list will be redirected to the List of Latin American Jews talk page once again. If you want help looking for sources, I'll do so. Usedup03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the category definition more carefully. "This category contains religious leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority." [emphasis added] While somewhat charismatic, Dr. King did not fit that definition. --Orange Mike19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that King was indeed a charismatic religious leader and thus belongs in the category. Dr. King is, in fact, often described as one of the most charismatic religious AND political leaders of the entire 20th Century, at least in America. That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that). Also notice that he is sourced as a charismatic leader over at the List of charismatic leaders page (Sutton, John,Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change () p.112, Pine Forge Press, ISBN0-7619-8705-3). --WassermannNYC19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand listing Erhard as one of Weber's charismatic leaders, but I have never seen anyone claim that any of his organizations was religious. Can we classify him some other way? Roccoconon20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Sonnetology, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Sonnetology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sonnetology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deor23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote: "I also feel that many here on Wikipedia are singling me and my edits out for excessive criticism and scrutiny (for whatever reason?)." -- I read your mind User:Deor! Actually, I'm going to move that article now. I messed up for sure. The article (and category) should be named "Sonnet studies" (approx. 650,000 Google hits) (with Category:Sonnet studies), not "Sonnetology" as it currently is. I got mixed up apparently, because that's the term that I use colloquially. Still though...doesn't "Sonnetology" sound a lot more interesting than "sonnet studies"? I'll move the page now before we lose all of that data. --WassermannNYC23:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sonnet studies. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Deor01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Last warning" huh? And what happens next time I question and/or expose your (often times) unethical/biased 'editing tactics'? Too terse, too brief, often rude, unworthy, unexplained, and pathetically unsubstantiated "responses" (either in the edit summary, but mostly on talk pages) does indeed seem to be a 'tactic' that you and others use in order to silence debate on a particular edit/topic/issue (trust me though: you're not the only admin. that uses this 'tactic,' though you are among the worst offenders). I'm just stating the facts, Sir -- I can't help but tell the truth, especially when it comes to the wrongdoings/shortcomings (and clear bias) of people in 'positions of authority' (is an administrator position on a 2nd-rate internet encyclopedia even considered a real 'position of authority'?). Sometimes the truth hurts a little bit (though I obviously didn't intend the "User:Jayjg tactic" comment to be a personal insult, it was more like constructive criticism). After all you've been through here on Wikipedia, surely you can handle a non-issue as minor as this? --WassermannNYC14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wassermann...I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of "Jayjg's tactics." The guy seems to enjoy pushing his POV all over the place and he just ends up being extremely disruptive. MetsFan7619:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-adding Lenin. It can only undermine the credibility of all of these lists and encourage editors to delete them.--Runcorn13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to take Lenin off of the page. His name is BY FAR the best sourced name on the entire list. Your continuation of censorious POV only undermines the entire project. --WassermannNYC13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the references again (and please don't rashly remove them), and then notice this sentence in the charismatic authority article: "As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving." Some of the references refer to the Nation of Islam dissolving w/out Farrakhan's charismatic leadership. Also, other than a sentence or two, would you please care to lay out Weber's exact 'theory' of charismatic authority as you have read it to be? (and please quote the PRIMARY source[s] either here or on the TP). As of now it all seems rather arbitrary, with you all just adding/deleting whomever you feel is most 'appropriate.' I'll also remind you all (again...) that Weber was not the first person to write about charismatic authority/charisma; he was just one of the first people that attempted to 'systematize' it. --WassermannNYC15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder why you aren't fretting so much about the new (entirely unreferenced) "In business" section that someone recently added to the page?
Hey there. I noticed you re-categorized the Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition. I separated them with the reasoning that Astrology by tradition is for, of course, traditions of astrology like Western astrology, Persian astrology, etc., whereas Astrology by type is for applications of astrology like natal astrology, horary astrology, and so on. I'd like to differentiate them fully as the categories would cease to be useful when two categories mean the same thing. I was picturing it as:
---Category:Astrology
------Category:Astrology by type
------Category:Astrology by tradition
...with Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition "children" of the main astrology category as they aren't the same thing and hold different contents. — Sam15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they deserve to be interlinked together because they are so closely related. Even though they aren't the exact same thing as you correctly say, they should still be lumped together because of their clear similarity [if only for the sake of people browsing these categories]. That makes sense to you, right? --WassermannNYC15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite following your reasoning for that. The type of astrology is not dependent on any tradition, likewise a tradition of astrology is not inherently a type. The relationship isn't clear to me. — Sam02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, heh. I removed the reference to natal chart on the horoscope article because there are lots of different types of horoscopes drawn for various reasons and natal astrology is just one of these. Perhaps it could be mentioned elsewhere (I'm thinking along the lines of see also) but one application of a horoscope does not deserve a mention right in the introduction. — Sam15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why categorize the Jesus article under "former Jews?"
Hi WassermannNYC, you were reported on AN/I for a persistent pattern of incivility, and were issued warnings about it in the past, which you ignored. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours, to give you a chance to reflect on your actions. Please take the time off to review our policies, most specifically WP:CIVIL, and consider carefully your options. If you decide to abide by our rules, respect your fellow editors and admins, and contribute constructively, I am sure you will enjoy your time here and we will benefit from your contributions. Conversely, if you decide to continue harassing admins, attacking editors and violating our civility rules, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. I hope very much you'll select the first option. Thank you, Crum37519:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see charges of Censorship or Suppressing information fairly regularly, and I have never seen them to be true. Wikipedia is not censored, and every attempt to censor this encyclopedia has met with rapid and resounding failure. These two arguments are pointless and useless, and usually a failure to assume good faith as well, if not outright personal attacks. If you find information you feel should be included is being removed, valid and useful arguments for inclusion are that the information is verifiable and notable. Use that approach, and don't accuse your fellow editors of censorship. KillerChihuahua?!?00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something to say, try to do so clearly. Linking to two lists and a deleted category with smarmy insinuations of censorship but zero civil attempts at communication of your concerns/questions/thoughts on the matter is utterly useless, unless your intent is to troll rather than accomplish anything meaningful or substantial. KillerChihuahua?!?10:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a duplicate of this message. That's not censorship, look it up in the dictionary. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word means. KillerChihuahua?!?22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my friend! Excuse me, for my english, but I think that you are very proper to see this topic about „Saturn's strange North Pole hexagon”. Unluckily, you must make an effort because the topic is in romanian :(. Thank you!--Abel21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will support the inclusion of this link. I would also support a sentence or two,except that we'd all never agree on what it should be. The link is a neutral minimum--after all, the article is on WP & this is what it talks about. It doesn't imply approval. DGG05:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I see you've put the On the Jewish Question article into the Category: Anti-Judaism. I guess the reason is that Marx's essay is considered to take a standpoint hostile to Judaism. I've removed the article from that category again.
Please note that the article gives the sourced information that most critical scholars reject the argument that Marx would be an anti-Semit (I have not checked that source myself). So there must be a good reason to put the article into the category "anti-judaism".
Schwalker08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this category is totally appropriate considering Marx offers a radical critique of Judaism throughout the essay, coming to some fairly negative conclusions about Jews and Judaism. I'm not saying that Marx was an anti-Semite, only that this particular tract is very much against Judaism -- thus it belongs in the category. Have you ever read it? --Wassermann07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the definiton of anti-Judaism in the main article:
"a total or partial opposition to Judaism—and to Jews as adherents of it—by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior".
I don't think Marx accepted a system of beliefs and practices competing with Judaism. On the contrary, he advocated legal political equality for Jews. He probably believed that religious belief would become irrelevant in an emancipated society. Marx's main target of critique in part II of the essay is the ubiquity of
huckstering in bourgeois society. He then critisizes Judaism and Christianity as the interdependent ideologies of this society.
Since some have compared the essay with Spinoza's ideas, I would not object to put On the Jewish Question into Categories: Criticism of religion or Criticism of Judaism.
--Schwalker11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wasserman. I have removed your link to Wikipedia Review here. Please don't link to attack sites. See this determination by the Arbitration Committee: "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking".[3]. Bishonen | talk12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry..I wasn't aware that that website was an 'attack site,' so I do apologize. I do think that it is quite censorious of Wikipedia though not to have an article about that site and others like Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. Being an encyclopedia means that we should include EVERYTHING, not pick and choose what is most 'appropriate.' I also realize that quite a few editors here on Wikipedia are looking for any and all excuses (however minor) to block me, and because I'm trying not to give them that satisfaction, I'll avoid linking to that site in the future now that I know it is 'illegal' to do so. --Wassermann06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is no: it isn't censorship to exclude Ariel Toaff's work from Blood libel against Jews. The guideline on exceptional claims is quite clear: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people" [italics mine]. The policy on undue weight is equally clear: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Toaff's work is an "exceptional claim" from a single source and represents a "tiny-minority view" and so doesn't belong in the article. --Rrburke(talk)03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. I don't think I'm attempting to rationalize anything, merely to point out that there are long-established policies at Wikipedia regarding the threshold for including exceptional claims and how to decide on the relative weight to accord varying points of view on a given topic (including whether to devote any space at all to tiny-minority views), and that these policies are being applied properly in this case, consistently with the manner in which they are applied in similar cases, and hence that the application of these policies in this case is unrelated to the red herring of censorship.
The policies in question are the policy on exceptional claims and the policy known as undue weight. The first requires that exceptional claims "be supported by multiple reliable sources" [italics mine], while the second advises that articles ought to apportion space to elucidating differing points of view more or less in accordance with the proportion in which they are to be found in verifiable, reliable sources. Of particular relevance to this case is the portion of the policy which states that "[v]iews held only by a tiny minority of people... perhaps should not be represented at all." If it is censorship to remove references to Ariel Toaff based on these policies, then it is likewise censorship not to give over a section of the article Earth to discussing the views of the Flat Earth Society. Of course, neither case is actually censorship at all, but simply an attempt to give readers an accurate picture of the genuine shape of an issue by not exaggerating the importance of negligible points of view. In the case of the blood libel, there is the additional requirement, also clearly expressed in the policy, to apply this policy strictly in matters involving "historical events [and] politically charged issues."
Corrected direct link: [4]
I am informing you of this request for arbitration, initially filed by User talk:Notmyrealname, since you are an "interested party" who contributed comments in Talk:Lewis Libby (see archived talk pages) about these issues pertaining to Libby's "ethnicity" and his identification as "Jewish" and the category "Jewish American lawyers" in Talk:Lewis Libby (archived talk pages); I [had] modified the heading to focus on the articles in dispute as opposed to on a contributor and explained that there [but that was reverted by an administrator]. Please go to the link and indicate that you confirm having received this message. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) --corrected link; updated. --NYScholar 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing that will stop me from adding a valid category if it is indeed a correct category (as the Libby category so obviously is), but I'm not trying to get embroiled in a useless dispute with this sickening swarm of ruthless censors. The problem with these people is that they have absolutely no problems including Jewish categories in non-controversial articles about non-criminal 'good Jews' (is adding Jewish categories to Einstein's or Brandeis' article [and thousands of others] considered "yellow badging?"), but when it comes to controversial Jews like Lewis Libby, Marc Rich, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Paul Wolfowitz, Martin Frankel, Boris Berezovsky, etc. (i.e., Jews that are convicted of ANY wrongdoing or aren't well respected by the public), the Jewish categor(ies) of these articles are very often removed by these censors even if it explicitly mentions in the article that they are Jewish. If and when someone tries to re-categorize the article with these obviously valid categories, the censors will have nothing of it and will revert these valid edits until they are blue in the face. Frankly, it's pure madness; it represents a form of disgustingly methodical and eventually disastrous censorship that is clearly undermining the value and veracity of Wikipedia. I don't have the time or energy to keep up with it and revert/examine all of their censorious edits (because I am only one person, and they are working in unison), but I do what I can to at least expose it and make others aware that this is happening.
If a category is valid, as it so obviously is the case of Mr. Libby, I'm on your side and will keep on adding this fully true category until it sticks (and even if it doesn't, I'll just keep on adding it). Also, judging from your voluminous comments, it looks like you REALLY like to explain yourself thoroughly (also known as arguing)...the thing is that you can't rationalize or try to offer just and logical solutions to simple problems with these people simply because they are not logical and/or rational individuals, and their intentions here on Wikipedia are entirely destructive (deletion) rather than constructive (addition). Also, you are mostly wasting your time because, for every well argued paragraph that you compose on a talk page, they so often offer nothing more than a pathetic excuse for a response, only one or two sentences. Therefore, I feel like you are very often wasting good/sharp mental energy that would be better spent elsewhere...I'm not sure if you are a Jew or not, but have you ever considered joining a yeshiva? It would be a good way to work out your argumentative energies -- :) --Wassermann05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting this response here. (I did read it--as you ask about that in Talk:Lewis Libby; I refer to it on my own talk page in response to someone else objecting about those other users' tactics.) Re: the arbitration request, I think that it asks for those referred to as "involved parties" to indicate that they are "aware" of the request (why I posted a ref. to it here on your talk page) and to post their "statement[s]" on the RFA page for the use of the arbitration committee. I hope that you will consider doing that. (I don't think a yeshiva is the appropriate place for me! ;) ) Also, I don't think that whether or not [a particular Wikipedia user] is Jewish is [germane] to this [particular disputed] matter concerning Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; either an item [in the content of an article] is supported by reliable verifiable sources, or it isn't. In this case, I [and you and others] think it is. What I object to from the perspective of neutrality is the POV censorship going on. That does not have to do with my own ethnicity, religious orientations (or not), gender, or any other orientation. It's just a matter of fair and neutral encyclopedic exposition. Thanks again. --NYScholar 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [clarified in brackets. updated. --NYScholar 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)]
I agree with your recent comment at the CfD for Category:Anti-Judaism. I'd like to see it made a rule that notification of a CfD be put on the talk page of the main article for a CfD, especially as if you watch a Category, you actually watch every page in a category and I don't think anyone does this. Most of the reasons given at Category:Anti-Catholicism's CfD make no sense to anyone familiar with the long history of anti-Catholicism, for example, but there was little opportunity afforded anyone with such familiarity to comment. WP:BLP was particulary weak rationale -- there's really no stigma attacted to merely being against Catholicism that I'm aware of. Anyway, I've made such a proposal here if you think this might made sense as a rule for CfD going forward. CfD's deserve input from people who know what they are talking about but that doesn't happen often enough the way things are now. -- Kendrick7talk00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18
I have reverted your latest edit here. It is probably not wise to edit the closing admin's decision. Similar behavior could lead to severe warnings or blocks. --After Midnight000105:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much kind sir! I would again urge everyone that we should discuss this as a GROUP of "anti-[religion]" categories rather than trying to tackle them individually as we have before; tackling them one-by-one again would only further contribute to the chaos and disorder currently surrounding them. --Wassermann07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above note was left when I was in rather a hurry, I'd just like to expand on the reasons for my action. First and foremost I consider that, as the debate stands, the consensus is to delete the categories in question. The combination of arguments, policy, and precedents which admins take into account in closing discussions seems to me to point towards this result. HOWEVER, given that the discussion is still actively ongoing, with 4+ contributions in the 24h before closing, I will admit that I was perhaps hasty. As a result I am happy to re-open the discussion for a few extra days, so that the debate can perhaps lead to a more perfect consensus.
Incidentally, I should probably point out that I have no personal view on the topic; I am merely the humble vessel into which CfD debaters pour the fruits of their deliberations ...
I normally respect many of your views BrownHairedGirl when it comes to categories, but in this case (and with the other "anti-X" cats.) you and the other ballot-stuffers are dead wrong. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on the CfD discussion, and I'd be delighted to see a substantive response to my more detailed explanation of the problems I perceive with the category. However, the reason I am leaving a message here is that you have made a serious allegation, viz that I am engaged in ballot-stuffing: I would be grateful if you would either substantiate that allegation or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed apologize, because reading back over that comment I do certainly seem quite harsh -- I can be kind of mouthy (typy?) sometimes...sorry about that! I was referring to how editors totally uninvolved with those particular categories basically just went down the list and wrote "Delete" three times in a row, not even thinking twice (or three times) about it, not even caring because they know nothing of the topic(s). However, I now notice that you all seem to be the people that regularly vote on most category related issues, so I suppose that you all do certainly have a certain degree of authority/expertise when it comes to categories in general. Again, it was indeed a rude comment and I am sorry about it, even though to be truthful I did sense a great deal of groupthink going on there at that time (i.e., no one offered any actual REASONS for deletion besides "per nom"). I actually sort-of shot myself in the foot right afterwards though because I then went straight down that list of nominated categories and added "Strong keep" three times in a row just like you all had added "Delete" three (or more) times that day, all to the same lists, all the same people, all in a row (this is what I meant by ballot stuffing, not 'sockpuppets' or anything like that). I don't know though -- I still don't understand all of the features and protocol of Wikipedia so I can seem pretty lost sometimes, so please excuse my general ineptness around here. I'll do my best to tone down my sometimes smoldering rhetoric in the future though before I go mouthing (typing) off again. --Wassermann08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's there to talk about? User:NYScholar is obviously in the right -- the removal of valid, factual, and sourced information (plus relevant categories) is considered vandalism, right? And whoever is removing them is vandalizing/censoring an article, right? --Wassermann09:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fourth reversion to the article Blood libel against Jews violates Wikipedia's Three-revert rule, commonly known as 3rr. However, since you are a comparatively new editor and may not be aware of the rule, as a courtesy I am informing you of the existence of this rule rather than reporting the incident to the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, where reported violations are commonly accorded temporary blocks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy.
I would also caution you against making unfounded accusations of improper collusion, as you did in the edit summary accompanying this reversion. Such accusations may violate Wikipedia's policies against incivility and personal attacks, and may result in the editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Rrburke(talk)14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A followup: I note that in this edit you have inserted your opinions about the merits of cited sources into the body of the article itself. The article's talk page is the proper place to discuss the merits of sources; changes like this may be considered vandalism.
Finally, I note that you often cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in justifying your edits. Doing so in the context of a simple content dispute fails to consider that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules has a deep meaning which, paradoxically, often conflicts with its apparent meaning; the shallower sense of Ignore all rules -- a kind of histrionic declaration of a right to do as one pleases, or a grandiose and adolescent refusal to be bound by rules -- is often invoked by inexperienced editors, for self-serving reasons, simply as a catch-all justification for changes whose merits they cannot persuade other editors of. This kind of invocation of Ignore all rules forgets that editors are indeed enjoined to Ignore all rules, but when those rules are hindering your ability to improve Wikipedia, not when they are merely hindering you from making changes other editors disagree with. --Rrburke(talk)17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wanted to caution both you and IZAK about the need for civility. If you are having a dispute and feel you aren't getting anywhere, you can ask for help: the Mediation Cabal does informal mediation; the Association of Member Advocates helps users navigate disputes; and you can also contact an administrator for help. Please maintain civility and get help before any dispute you're in gets out of hand. Best, --Shirahadasha04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call your attention to the Ashkenazi Jews page, and the discussion of the images on it, including as to licensing and copyright issues. --Metzenberg09:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I noticed you have been having some problems recently with Jayjg and IZAK so I figured you could use a little cheering up! Don't worry about those two! =) MetsFan7611:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shaking in my boots IZAK. Keep your mouth shut as you should see WP:AGF as well. Telling someone they should "worry" is a violation of WP:CIVIL so read that as well. It seems like you are never going to learn so what's the point even acknowledging you. MetsFan7611:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MetsFan: Don't shake, just be a mensch. It's weird that you place comments relating to something you have not taken part in (and this is not the first time you have done that either) just based on attacking me personally, a clear violation of WP:NPA by you against me, and then have the temerity to say "keep your mouth shut" -- a clear violation of WP:CIVILby you (don't you practice what you preach?) I do not do the same to you! Find something more productive to do than WP:STALK me all over Wikipedia, another serious violation by you against me. (Hey that's already three strikes against you!!!) The last time we ever crossed paths editorially about anything was a very, very long time ago, about things I can't even recall, that's how insignificant it was. Yet you persists on sticking your nose into discussions I am having with other editors and slandering me. Who are you kidding? I am too old to be "threatened" by anyone. Watch yourself. IZAK04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious, what would be your interest in a deletion review for Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Mormonism. I have contacted the closing admins to see if they would overturn their deletions based on the keep/no consensus outcome of all the other anti-religion categories, and they both refused. So, because you left strong, emotional comments on my talk page regarding the other CfDs, I was wondering your opinion on deletion review for the 2 that actually got deleted. Thanks.-Andrew c14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my major peeve right now (the latest annoyance was the deletion of Category:Elks of all things); I think your proposed cat. might be too broad. I suppose our bet best is making a fuss at Talk:CfD or the Pump, etc. until someone thinks of a solution. We're not the only ones annoyed by this, and I think a call for reform is going to continue gaining momentum. -- Kendrick7talk18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you recently created this category which is a duplicate of Category:Graha. You should not create a duplicate category. If you believe the category should be renamed, then please take it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Meanwhile, I've redirected your new category to the previously existing one. Another note: we do not add supercategories to articles. Thus, if something is in category Graha, we do not also add it to the Indian astrology category, as Graha is a subcategory of Indian astrology. See WP:CAT for details. IPSOS (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my recent changes to Ben Bernanke... It wasn't my intention to remove useful information. When making those changes, I regarded Bernanke's ethnicity as having been added in order to further or enhance the perspective of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. In addition, the biographical information didn't appear at that time to be relevant to Bernanke's current position. I will not remove any of the bio info, but I think it's important to monitor the article for neutrality and tone. Being a public figure and Jewish he is a target for Nazi trolls. King of Corsairs18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pay no attention to conspiracies, anti-Semites, or "Nazi trolls" as you say -- it is valid, factual, and most of all SOURCED information, so it will stay in the article. --Wassermann05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wassermann. Lately you've been renaming many astrology pages to "pagetitle (astrology)". This is a more specific title but it is not recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. Unless a topic needs to be precise due to multiple topics with the same names, it isn't necessary. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. — Sam18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to further specify extremely general terms like "Square" and "trine" and the like, along with very specific ones like "cazimi" and "combust." Change them back if you wish. --Wassermann05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Square" is fine as its name has multiple topics. Words like midheaven and trine, on the other hand, are specific to their astrological terms and should direct a user right to the page title, sans any unnecessary context. Please discuss moves before making them; they can cause quite a bit of disruption in terms of breaking links, etc. Thank you. — Sam12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to address the issues you have raised in a more succinct fashion, please feel free to add your input at [5]Jachin21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pleasure. I'm getting a load of stick for it from SlimVirgin, but the idea that that photo should replace content in the form of an infobox is one that she's complaining about but not seriously pushing. She's not one to compromise though. At all. I saw that debate after I put in the infobox. Now I've got one all of my own... Blood from a stone anyone? Marshall05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ←Humus sapiensну?07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you all would just stop removing valid, relevant, and sourced material from articles there would be no problems. --Wassermann08:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the "we" you speak of is the royal we, but can I suggest a bit of collaboration on this recategorization?? --Jbmurray09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wassermann, by collaboration I mean some discussion and thought rather than your reverting. NB Panama is not usually considered a South American country. Moreover, as I've said now various times, it doesn't seem to me to make sense to see South America as a cultural (rather than geographic) category. Nor do I understand why you want such duplication of categorization, i.e. that "Costa Rican writers" (for instance) should be placed within both Central American and Latin American writers. If we are going to do things you way, i.e. to retain the geographical distinctions, then surely it should remain within the category "Central American." Otherwise, there's no point to the category at all. Which is what I tend to think anyhow, which is why I proposed the deletion of "South American writers" in the first place.
I thought you proposed the orinal deletion of SA writers because the category was empty? Also, ALL Latin American nations should be in the main umbrella category because Latin America is a HUGE entity encompassing ALL OF THE ABOVE...Mexico, Central Am., South Am., AND the Caribbean. Just go to the Latin America page here on Wikipedia, and if you see a country there tag that country's writer page with the Category:Latin American writers -- ALL of countries of Latin Am. must be in the Category:Latin American writers category in addition to their more specific regional/continental category. I do tend to overcategorize at times, but this is best for clarity and so people can get this all in to perspective. --Wassermann10:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed the deletion both because it was empty and because it served no purpose. I thank you for creating Category:Latin American writers. As I said in the deletion discussion, I was persuaded by Brown Haired Girl that a rename was better than an outright deletion. But that makes Category:South American writers all the more redundant, especially when all the categories within that category are also included in the parent. More generally, as I've been saying, Latin America is a much better frame for thinking about culture than is South America. The latter is a geographical rather than a cultural frame. (One would have to include Guyanese, Surinamese, and French Guianese writers, for instance.) Things get complicated with the Caribbean, obviously, but increasingly Caribbean literature and culture is considered alongside and even as part of Latin America. An added complication that a more measured consideration should take into account is the place of pre-Columbian and indigenous literatures and cultures. But again, thanks for creating Category:Latin American writers. I think that the next step is to delete the geographical categories. And then to consider the relation between literature and culture, as per BHG's suggestion. --Jbmurray10:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding your comment on South American literature... Really there's no need for such an article or such a category. There's no point separating out South American from Latin American literature. Again: South America is not a cultural category. The proper (and accepted) unit of analysis is Latin America, not South America. Although arguably (just to complicate things further) there would be a point in an article and/or category on Spanish or Hispanic American Literature (which currently redirects to Latin American literature), but increasingly this is an outdated category. Anyhow, likewise you too take it easy! --Jbmurray10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about diplomats and such? And what about all of those foreign workers that currently live and work in Saudi Arabia, including many from India? --Wassermann10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia does not allow Jews in period! Henry Kissinger had to be given a special dispensation when he had to go there to reprsent the US, otherwise it's a case of "Jews need not apply" to enter. As for workers, AFAIK they mostly come from Pakistan and Islamic countries, certainly not from India, a country that is hated by the Islamic world (since the Indians are primarily Hindus.) IZAK23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for the interrumption but just thought i have something positive to add. I hope so. IZAK is correct. Jews are forbidden entry to KSA and that is well-documented and it is a fact indeed. However, i believe that IZAK isn't accurate in what follows. There are in fact 1,5 million Indian national in KSA (mainly workers but also businessmen and professionals). 400,000 of them are Catholics.[7] As for if Indians are hated in the Muslim world, that i am not sure about as nobody in this planet is. I'd just say that it isn't a fact because it is an ill-documented and simplistic statement. Maybe IZAK referred to Pakistan in particular but that would be for political stuff! There are about 800,000 Filipinos as well. Maybe i tried to make a point which is that we are here to produce a respectable encyclopaedia and not to make a point. I just give much importance to well-documented facts and i swear i use them so often on user talk pages. I just also give importance to avoiding random chat (i.e discussing hate stuff) and hope others show the same respect to this place, especially admins! Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As usual I appreciate User:FayssalF's input. I am not up-to-date with the exact numbers who-is-in and who-is-out in Saudi Arabia. The Royal family doesn't do much work (most royal families don't work!), they are too busy counting all the oil revenue, so they have to rely on help from whatever sources. But, no doubt that for every Indian Hindu in Saudi Arabia there are proportionately lots more from Islamic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. The fact that so many Hindu and Christian Indians have been allowed in is testimony to the fact that they are obviously needed and that they have skills that are important to the Saudis and probably the Saudis consider them the lesser of two evils, as they would rather have Indians from South Asia with a modest lifestyle than millions of modern European or American "flagrant infidels" in their midst. But again, this is not really germane to anything right now, and I do appreciate FayssalF's clarifications. IZAK05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks IZAK and sorry again for cluttering Wassermann's page. Well, Saudi Arabia has got a real problem when it comes to "who would do the job?". For one part, the particularity of the Saudi culture has made many Saudis think (especially during the 1970's and 80's thanks to Petrodollars and in many cases to some weird national pride) that there would be always someone there who would do it for them! I worked there 2000-2002 and in my case there were 4 if not 2 Saudis (out of 1200 employees) working w/ us in a multinational corp. This is to tell you that it isn't only because of cheap labour but also because they used to relax! Before i left, i started to see Saudis working as taxi drivers for the first time. Less petrodollars wasted on defense budgets but same level of national pride which remained unchanged. It became a matter of survival. The gov't sought some steps to engage more people in work but w/ little results. On the other hand, westerners are priviliged there in contrast w/ East-Asians. The majority of them live in compounds where access is forbidden to Monsieur tout le monde. It isn't mainly due to terrorrism because these compounds are not something new and it has been explicitly based on the idea of a spatial seclusion of social groups with different "cultural" backgrounds.[8]. Finally, for Saudi Arabia (because of their political system) they obviously prefer Muslim workers than others to do a job. Low salaries aside, it is easier for the system to adopt East-Asian Muslims because they would get adapted easily to their system eventhough most of them do not feel happy there for the varied and multiple sets of restrictions imposed compared w/ their native countries. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not not place uncivil accusations in posts to talk pages ("Lying isn't very nice") or in edit summaries ("liar"), as you did here. Wikipedia has policies against incivility and personal attacks, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Please familiarize yourself with them to avoid repeating this error. --Rrburke(talk)12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Reichmann family, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Avi21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that deletion debates are decided by strength of argument, not by headcount. Several of the commenters may be unfamiliar with families like these, but very familiar with categorization on Wikipedia overall, thus coming to the debate from a different angle. Looking over Category:Families_by_nationality it would seem that most families are covered in an article rather than a category. HTH! >Radiant<10:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not an astrologer myself, but I'm interested in symbology and such. I also edited Retrograde and direct motion section "Apparent retrograde motion" because there was no mention of the astrological meaning therein, which I was rather surprised to find lacking. Nagelfar01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't just for Jews who converted to Christianity...any and all religions are included, including those Jews that 'converted' to non-religion. However, if you want, you could help by adding this category to all of the former articles that you added Category:Jewish converts to Christianity to. In the interest of representing all faiths, Wikipedia MUST have a category for former Jews in the Category:People by former religion category or else they all need to be scrapped. --Wassermann22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue I suspect that formal action will indeed be required, but I doubt the outcome will be what you hope for. Jayjg (talk)23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg: you thrive on conflict, drifting as you do from idiotic argument to argument and getting nothing accomplished in the process; so please, start building something around here and stop tearing everything and everyone down. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia here, not constantly argue over petty ESSAYS and arcane policies that don't carry any real weight because they are constantly broken by the majority, even by yourself. That being said, please do not continue your irrationality and POV by trying to wave this essay in my face; I quote from the top of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Jews MUST be represented along with the other faith traditions at Category:People by former religion. To not include them in that category is discriminatory to say the least; the problems with those previous categories were merely the NAMES of said categories, NOT the content of them. --Wassermann23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wassermann. I blocked you a couple of months ago with the sincere hope you'd get the message and stop attacking fellow editors and remain civil. Unfortunately, you seem to have regressed to your old behavior, leaving me no choice but to block you again, this time for a week. Please read again our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. You cannot call anyone a 'vandal' unless his/her actions meet the definition set in WP:VAN, which is someone who in his own mind intends to reduce the quality of Wikipedia. In other words, a vandal is never someone who has a strong POV and modifies an entry to reflect his POV, regardless of sources. Also, you cannot rant about 'censorship' or accuse people of being censors. If you have a problem with someone, feel free to pursue it through the various dispute resolution methods, all the way to ArbCom if needed, but to use abusive messages or edit summaries violates our civility and NPA rules. I hope this time you'll take these words to heart and come back ready to collaborate and contribute in a civil and friendly manner. If you don't, your blocks will only get longer. Please choose the right course. Thanks, Crum37500:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell these certain editors to stop removing valid material and categories from articles, and maybe I'll retain some so called civility. Also, I'm not even sure how detailed edit summaries can be construed as being uncivil...is using capital letters to make a strong point now against the rules? --Wassermann13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using capital or bold letters online is the equivalent of shouting. Incivility in edit summaries is no different than incivility elsewhere. Wassermann, I am afraid that unless you can understand, accept and comply with our WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL rules, you won't be able to edit here. Crum37509:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never broke any of the rules or made personal attacks, and the allegation that I was being uncivil in edit summaries is entirely untrue...I was trying to make a strong point by capitalizing a few words because my entirely valid additions kept being wrongfully reverted over and over again by unreasonable people. Edit summaries are no reason to indefinitely block an editor, so please tell me what I need to do to get this ridiculous situation straightened out. --Wassermann12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using a sockpuppet, I was using an open IP address. Additionally, I wasn't editing articles/categories that were disputed, merely other articles and categories. The funny thing is that I did nothing wrong in the first place...how can a few edit summaries written in capital letters lead to me being permanently blocked? You people are being entirely unreasonable; I just don't understand it. Please tell me how I can appeal this because, like I said, I did nothing wrong -- the editors that were removing valid material, information, and categories from articles were/are the ones that are wrecking Wikipedia, not me. --Wassermann12:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I wasn't editing any disputed material with the anonymous IP address...I was working on other articles and categories not related to any dispute; I made no personal attacks with the IP address, nor did I leave any 'uncivil' edit summaries. The only real problem leading to my block seemed to be me recreation of Category:Former Jews under a different name (which is entirely OK per Wiki-policy) when I should have taken it to WP:DRV (I'm still learning the policies and procedures around here). Besides that, this indefinite block is entirely uncalled for and is amazingly unfair. --Wassermann12:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know this...I realize that I couldn't create another account to try and circumvent the block, but I wasn't aware that using an IP address to edit (non-related categories/articles) was against the rules. --Wassermann01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this report. I am quoting just a few typical edit summaries:
All of these edit summaries violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Calling an editor who performs an edit that in his own mind improves Wikipedia a 'vandal' or a 'censor', or his edits 'idiotic', is uncivil and and a personal attack. You were blocked for this same behavior pattern before.[9] In addition, your user page continues to make such attacks against admins, using the term 'adminisTRAITORS'. This is persistent and entrenched behavior on your part that you don't seem to understand or want to change after many warnings and two blocks. Your attempt to circumvent your block by using an 'open IP address' further demonstrates your lack of respect for our rules. Before your block can be reduced, you will need to clearly demonstrate an understanding of our rules, specifically:
Wassermann, as I said before, I am sure you have important knowhow and abilities that we can benefit from. But being abusive to your fellow editors is simply not acceptable. Once you understand that point, and indicate complete acceptance of our rules, we can consider reducing your block. Crum37513:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...you all call my behavior 'aggressive,' but I consider it WP:BOLD. You all call my editing behavior 'uncivil,' but I just call it 'being vocal' about the removal of valid material from Wikipedia. I will refrain from using 'strong language' in edit summaries in the future, including capital letters. You say that: "This is persistent and entrenched behavior on your part that you don't seem to understand or want to change after many warnings and two blocks" -- I've never had any substantial warnings, only the two expedited blocks. You say that I should "accept the rules" when other editors are totally disregarding and/or misquoting them, or trying to pass off essays and guidelines as policy when they are not. The fact is that if someone is removing good/valid/sourced material from Wikipedia, I'm going to call them out on it. Any way that you put it, strong wording in edit summaries is not a valid reason to perma-block people, as short sentences like that can easily be taken out of context.
Regarding my claims of censorship and vandalism in the above-mentioned edit summaries: I'm not sure what else to call it if not censorship and vandalism...I suppose I could always call it "the constant removal of valid categories/information from articles," but that would be whitewashing the issue. For whatever reason, entirely valid, relevant, and sourced material is consistently removed from many articles (Paul Wolfowitz, Ben Bernanke, Lewis Libby, others) by the same editors again and again, and after a while it just gets very old, ridiculous, and frustrating to have to keep inserting this valid information over and over. By the way: I consider the removal of valid material/categories from articles over and over again to be censorship and vandalism...don't you? Some kind-of phantom clause in WP:BLP is constantly cited to try to justify the removal of this information even though this information is currently found in thousands of other articles with no problem at all.
When I wrote "Revery [sic] Jayjg's idiotic edit..." in an edit summary for removing Category:Ethnic nationalism from the White nationalism article I only made that statement because the very first sentence of the article said "White nationalism (WN) is a form of ethnic nationalism..." -- thus the removal of said category seemed rather idiotic in my opinion since the first sentence of the article obviously confirmed that particular category. Jayjg then changed that first sentence (he provided no source for this edit) and removed the category. I never called Jayjg idiotic, only that particular edit.
Since everything I write on here seems to be misconstrued, taken the wrong way, and wrongfully considered 'uncivil' and/or 'aggressive' (what is and what is not 'civil' and 'aggressive' is highly POV and a matter of opinion, by the way), I plan to edit my user page and remove any and all information that could be considered 'offensive' or 'uncivil' -- I am going to bring the page down to the basics.
Truthfully, I try my best to avoid getting caught up in all of these Wiki-politics, personal vendettas, petty edit wars, childish games, etc.; I am part of no group/cabal here, I stick to myself and mind my own business, and improve and expand Wikipedia as best I can. However, when I see factual edits constantly being reverted for no apparent reason (what I term censorship and vandalism) it tends to make me a bit angry, so I have no choice except to be vocal about it and hope that other good editors see what is happening and will begin to take action and discuss these issues. That's another thing...the complete and utter lack of discussion by these people, whether in edit summaries or on talk pages. I would like to discuss these issues (and I always try to leave a good edit summary), but whenever I try to discuss these issues the response I so often get is one or two bogus sentences and the mindless repetition of a bunch of Wikipedia essays/guidelines (NOTE: NOT POLICIES) in an attempt to justify the censorious deletion/vandalism "the constant removal of valid categories/information from articles." I haven't even been able to respond to this block since I am barred from editing the admin. messageboard; I was given no warning(s), and I was blocked before I even had a chance to defend myself regarding these spurious and overblown allegations. --Wassermann15:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to make it as clear as possible. Every human who edits Wikipedia has some POV. All of us also try to follow the rules and to interact appropriately with the other editors. The most crucial rules are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, because no matter how talented and knowledgeable you may be, if you keep abusing your fellow editors you'll get blocked. So the challenge is to stay cool, calm and civil, no matter how unreasonable the other editors' actions seem to you. You should rarely if ever call an established editor a 'vandal', because vandalism on WP has a very specific meaning: a premeditated intent to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. This is extremely rare for an established editor, regardless of his POV, so calling an editor a 'vandal' or his actions 'vandalism' or 'censorship', would almost always violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you don't understand this latter vital point, we might as well stop here. Let me assume that you can read and accept WP:VAN and understand that definition. If you disagree with someone's edits, you don't attack him, or label him or his actions as 'idiotic' or equivalent. You try to reason with him based on sources and policies, try to get others to support your viewpoint, and if all else fails, you try dispute resolution, all the way to ArbCom if necessary. But losing your civility will severely hamper your ability to get your view across or your edits into articles.
Bottom line: you must decide - you can either accept our rules, with emphasis on civility, and try to work within the system and contribute in a civilized and collaborative fashion, or if you can't, save yourself a lot of grief and frustration and invest your talents and energies elsewhere. Let me know what you decide. Crum37516:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that I was being uncivil toward other editors, I was simply telling the truth about the premeditated intent to remove factual, relevant, valid, and sourced content and categories from articles; what is and what is not considered civil is POV, and information such as that cannot be interpreted (or misinterpreted in this case) from a few capitalized words in a one-line edit summary. But since I am willing to make concessions, once I am unblocked I will be 'cleaning' up my user page (removing anything that is potentially 'uncivil,' 'damning,' or 'offensive') and avoiding the use of capital letters in edit summaries in the future (or I might just refuse to leave edit summaries like so many others). The fact is that I was unfairly targeted for the first block, and now it has just compounded because I wasn't aware that improving this encyclopedia from an IP address would lead to me being blocked for even longer; this has all gone too far. Additionally, it's difficult to be reasonable with editors that clearly aren't, because the premeditated deletion of factual content/categories from articles is not reasonable and is, in fact, entirely irrational. This type of behavior only inflames those of us that value accuracy and openness of information in this free encyclopedia.
You state that I should "...try to get others to support your viewpoint, and if all else fails, you try dispute resolution, all the way to ArbCom if necessary." I just don't want to go through all of that when I am obviously correct and the other person is wrong and is being entirely unreasonable (or just picking a fight?). I want to edit an article and move on, edit and move on, etc. I don't want to get stuck in a swamp of ridiculous argumentation about essays and guidelines when the other person is the one breaking the rules by removing valid material, not me -- I choose to avoid all of that. If perchance I did cross the line one or two times in to uncivil editing behavior I do apologize (though I still don't see how people can claim that capitalized edit summaries are the same thing as personal attacks), but like I wrote above it's difficult not to get extremely annoyed when one sees factual material being stripped from articles for no apparent reason over and over again, and I have to keep restoring it over and over again. It's a huge waste of time for all editors involved; all of these useless spats prevent us all from actually working on and improving Wikipedia. --Wassermann01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unconvinced that you really understand the issues. You mention 'premeditated intent to remove' as if it is a type of vandalism, but it's not - the test for vandalism is the intent to reduce the quality of Wikipedia in the editor's own mind. So I ask you to clarify: do you seriously think that those editors with whom you disagree actually intend to reduce the quality of Wikipedia in their own mind? Don't you think it's more likely that their understanding of what should be in the articles is different than yours, and in their own mind they are improving the article? I would like to hear your clear and an unambiguous answer to this question, because it seems to me you are still not clear on the definition of vandalism. I would also like to see your own explanations for the other three 'explain' bullets in my message above. Once I see we are at least in agreement with our basic conduct rules, we can consider reducing your block. Crum37501:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else I need to say or do other than what I have already proclaimed, and I don't know to what bullet points you refer. I am in agreement about conduct rules, no problems here. Also, I have no idea what these editors are thinking "in their own mind" because I'm not a mind-reader. All I know is that by willfully and repeatedly removing fully valid/sourced information and categories from articles over and over again they are indeed "reducing the quality" of Wikipedia -- "in MY mind" this qualifies as vandalism, and I'm sure that "most minds" would agree with this assertion. I don't see how someone could think that by removing fully valid categories and information from articles that they are improving articles...that is patently absurd. Please revoke this moronic block (extended beyond a week for IMPROVING this website!) and let me get own with the business of improving Wikipedia, because I've been in 'Wiki-jail' long enough. --Wassermann04:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Wassermann, but you simply don't seem to get the meaning of WP:VAN, and since this is a crucial issue, and underlies much of your problems here, we can't just ignore it. The point is not what you think the other editors are doing, but what they think they are doing. Because that is the key to determine 'vandalism'. So you must be able to tell whether their own intent, in their own mind, is to improve the encyclopedia or to harm it. So I ask again: do you think that in their own mind they intend to improve or to harm the articles? Unless you can grasp this key issue, I cannot reduce your block, because it is clear to me you will continue your old unacceptable behavior. So read WP:VAN again, try to understand both its letter and spirit, and when you feel that you 'get' it, please respond to my four bullet items above, the first of which is "explain what is and what is not 'vandalism'". Thanks, Crum37505:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about me trying to decipher what is happening "in the minds of editors" yet as I've stated I have no clue what is happening in the minds of other editors. First off, after reading WP:VAN again, I want to clearly state that my block has been unjustly extended...bullet point #4, the rule for "explain why blocks may not be circumvented by logging in from other IP addresses" [10] does not apply to my situation because it says: "[admin] may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block" -- well, I didn't engage in "further blockable behavior while evading the block" -- as I stated many times before here, I wasn't engaging in "blockable offenses" while editing from that IP address (no personal attacks, vandalism, mischief, and so forth), so the block shouldn't have been extended. What is happening here is that I am trying to be permanently blocked from Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Additionally, I seriously question your personal neutrality on this issue seeing as yourself, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and others seem to have a kind of 'special relationship' that would prevent you from being entirely neutral in this matter. Would be OK for me to select a random administrator from the administrator noticeboard to come in here and take a look at this case? --Wassermann08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who write stuff like thisare not blocked (and are actually up for an administratorship) and I'm blocked for capitalizing words in an edit summary? What's happening here? --Wassermann08:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply add that an {{unblock}} request with the rationale that you are being persecuted is unlikely to be granted and more likely to be looked on as histrionic and grandiose. A more practical approach would be simply to say that you didn't know that editing from an anon-ip during a block constituted sockpuppetry, but now that you do, you agree not to do it again and would ask that term of the original block be restored.
A brief comment on the claim that other editors are "censoring" valid material by removing it: I've tried to make the case about censorship previously, and don't feel the need to rehearse it here. Beyond that, though, you seem not to want to acknowledge that not every fact or true statement about something that -- or someone who -- is the subject of an encyclopedia article belongs in the article: it must be both true (or, at any rate, verifiable) and demonstrably relevant. Jacques Derrida, for instance, is said to have maintained an extensive collection of 18th century snuffboxes. This fact is not contained in the Wikipedia article on him; neither is his shoe size, nor indeed his hair colour. None of these facts about him is included, not because editors wish to conceal that Derrida had a penchant for snuffboxes, but because no demonstrated relevance of this fact has been established.
Likewise, in the course of a discussion on the talk page for the 1994 AMIA Bombing article, I and several editors opposed the inclusion of the prosecutor Alberto Nisman's religion/ethnicity (it had been claimed he is Jewish). I opposed it not because I wished to conceal that Alberto Nisman is Jewish (if indeed he even is -- I don't know and don't care), but because no one had demonstrated the relevance of this fact(?) to the article. To my mind, the onus fell on those wishing to include this information to demonstrate its relevance. They did not; it stayed out. There was the usual misinformed and misplaced hue and cry about "censorship," the definition of which in such cases appears to be fairly elastic and situational, but seems invariably to mean "someone is keeping out something I want in," and is easy to imagine being accompanied by foot-stamping and threats of breath-holding.
Indeed, I leave you to decide what the actual motives of those pushing for the inclusion of this material were. I presume the addition was meant to be accompanied by a nudge and a wink. In the end, of course, their motives don't really matter, and whether it's true or not is also rather beside the point: in order to merit inclusion, the "fact" would would have to both verifiable and demonstrably relevant. In the absence of demonstrated relevance, the truth or verifiability of the "fact" is simply moot. --Rrburke(talk)18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You write: "A more practical approach would be simply to say that you didn't know that editing from an anon-ip during a block constituted sockpuppetry, but now that you do, you agree not to do it again and would ask that term of the original block be restored." -- Yes, absolutely, I had no clue that categorizing a few non-controversial and non-related articles from an IP address would lead to me being blocked for another week. And I still maintain that I am being treated unfairly; I am not being 'persecuted' as you say, just being treated far too harshly (blocked with no warnings [expedited block(s)]; blocked because of edit summaries [first time in Wikipedia history?]; many of those that 'voted' to block did so because of my perceived "aggressiveness" [POV, again], which is in actuality WP:BOLD; even more added block-time because of article improvements [I was not vandalizing or making personal attacks...I was blocked 'indefintely' for IMPROVING Wikipedia!]). I was not being abusive from this IP address, nor was I vandalizing articles or anything of the sort. I was simply getting along with the work of building an encyclopedia and trying not to get caught up in all of the politics and edit wars because it's a waste of time and energy.
The Toaff case is completely separate from what I am talking about (as is content regarding Derrida's snuffbox collecting habit). Myself and other editors merely wanted to mention Toaff's name somewhere on the page (even at the very bottom in the "See also" section), not give him an entire section in which to detail his minority view(s) (by the way: the page already contains other minority views such as British fascist Arnold Leese and professor Israel Jacob Yuval [and the Yuval is source is from an article about Toaff!]). But of course all references to Toaff in the article (including an external link) were stripped away (censored); removing his name was of course censorship since he is an academic that has extensively researched the blood libel myth and would thus seem more qualified to comment on the subject that the other people (minority views) on the page.
I hadn't noticed the case of the Argentine prosecutor in the AMIA bombing article, and in that situation it is clear that his Jewish heritage should not be mentioned because the article isn't about him, it's about that particular terrorist incident. When it comes to the Wolfowitz, Libby, Bernanke, and other pages we are talking about biographical articles, so of course if this information is verifiable there is no reason to leave this valid, sourced, and relevant biographical information out of these articles. We aren't talking here about personal habits or personality peculiarities ("trivia"), but crucial biographical details -- we don't mention Derrida's snuffbox collecting habit, but we do mention that he was an Algerian Sephardic Jew (because that is a critical biographical detail). But as far as passing references to someone's Jewish heritage in an article in which that person is not the primary focus, that is POV-pushing as you say and should be removed. You are correct to say that this prosecutor's Jewish heritage has no relevance to that article, but in the Alberto Nisman article (like other biographical articles) this information would be entirely relevant/verifiable and worth a mention (just like in the biographical articles of Wolfowitz, Bernanke, Libby, etc).
You wrote: "In the absence of demonstrated relevance, the truth or verifiability of the "fact" is simply moot." -- as I've said, biographical details are fully relevant in biographical articles. You are trying to blur the line between informative articles about events/places/organizations that mention people only briefly (their personal biographical details should obviously not be mentioned in this case), but I am talking here about including biographical details in biographical articles when that information is fully factual, relevant, and important to that person and their life (and therein lies the rub...the continued removal of this relevant biographical information from biographical articles by Jayjg and others is what led to my supposedly 'uncivil' edit summaries when I kept trying to restore this valid and relevant information). I hope you understand where I am coming from. --Wassermann01:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wasserman -- if I can offer my perspective, I believe the primary problem here may simply relate to the WP:Vandalism policy, and the way that phrase is generally used. My take is that people really aren't supposed to use that word in any situation other than where a person is intentionally and obviously screwing up Wikipedia, basically with patent nonsense, or perhaps material that is intended to mislead (randomly changing birthdates). POV pushing, no matter how eggregious, doesn't apply. I'm not sure how well that's laid out in the policy page (and I know editors sometimes disregard it), but it is a widely held perspective, and I think the one that your acknowledging here would most help. Other than that, I know you feel mistreated, but being that you probably did (if I may say) push the bounds of civility, the best option here may be to simply acknowledge that, and then save the more involved arguments for later. Regards, Mackan7918:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wassermann, I read the appeal of your block on AN/I, and I would like to give you again an opportunity to return to editing here. But before your block can be reduced, you will need to clearly demonstrate an understanding of our rules — specifically, briefly and in your own words:
Also, please list below all the IP addresses and/or accounts you used while you were blocked, so that we may inspect your contributions during the block period. Thanks, Crum37513:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have already "inspect[ed] [my] contributions during the block period"...you've already blocked all of those IP addresses for IMPROVING Wikipedia! At least you have now acknowledged that they were "contributions" and not "abuse" as you and others have falsely claimed in the past. Please face that facts Crum: ALL of my contributions during my block period have been entirely civil, constructive, factual, relevant, and verifiable -- the main reason I am being targeted so fiercely is because I work on Jewish categories, and some people around here don't like that (please see WP:OWN). So please unblock my account and let me go ahead and archive my talk page (a fresh start) so that we can begin to put all of this petty bickering behind us. Oh, by the way: nothing is going to stop me from continuing to help compile Wikipedia -- this is a project that I truly believe in and I will continue to edit and improve it no matter what. Thank you for your time. --Wassermann17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for the complete list of IP addresses you have used while your main account was blocked, so that we may inspect all your contributions - I have yet to receive that. In any case, to get unblocked you need to demonstrate compliance with our rules. Your continued evasion of your block is not a good way to demonstrate contrition or understanding of the rules. Crum37517:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in unsuccessful mediation of a conflict about Arvand Rud. So I know a little about conflict and being mad during a conflict.
Set you wikipedia account up with an e-mail, then e-mail me, then you can turn off (delete your e-mail) if you want to. I want to discuss with you some things about conflict. Maybe this will help you, maybe not. To others reading this, I just want to help, that's all.UTAFA02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:UTAFA -- do you have the wrong user? Your post here doesn't make much sense considering the fact that I've never spoken with you before here on Wikipedia. I know absolutely nothing about the Arvand Rud article and have never edited it before. I think that you have definitely mistaken me for another user. --Wassermann16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to address this NPOV issue, the fact we're dealing with an admin who is clearly POV, clearly opinionated on the matter, and clearly a primary editor of the article puts us between a rock and a hard place; the rock being our duties as wikipedian editors, and the hard place being facing the wrath of potential ban and arse slapping from the admin in question.
I have addressed this issue to you on the taliban talk page, and am unclear as to how to proceed. Do you have any recommendations at this point? Jachin01:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reponse. I don't think that I can help you out because (1) I am blocked and (2) I don't know much about the Taliban except the basics (what I've read in newspaper articles and on the internet). My main concern with that article was the blatantly POV picture of that public execution that used to be at the top of that article; however, now that this issue has been resolved I'll let the others deal with content disputes. Sorry I can't help you out though! --Wassermann16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked indefinitely pending clarification, as he seems to be continuing to evade his block via IP sockpuppets. Crum37507:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "evading" anything...I just reported myself (so please stop using such doublespeak); I'm IMPROVING this encyclopedia. The reason for my block today was "Abusing multiple accounts: Evading block by sockpuppetry" -- first off, I'm not "abusing" anything either (more doublespeak; "abuse" implies vandalism, personal attacks, incivility, etc). And again, I'm not "evading [my] block," I'm utilizing the only choice that I have (IP addresses) to continue to build, clean up, organize, and improve Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit (which means that blocks go against the fundamental rule of Wikipedia, that it is able to be edited by ANYONE). So please unblock me now; I would like to spend less time arguing with you all and more time improving and categorizing articles. --Wassermann16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Evading' is avoiding or circumventing the block that was placed on you as a person by logging in as an anon-IP, while continuing the same types of edits. 'Abuse' means you are using multiple accounts to circumvent a block, which is against our rules. Wikipedia is free to anyone that abides by the rules, but when you break them, we need to restrict your access to the site. I would be happy to reconsider your block, once I am convinced you have learned and understood our rules and agree to comply with them. At this point, given that you continuously violate them with sockpuppetry, and have yet to respond to my other requests listed above, I see no reason for a change in your status. Crum37500:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to get back to you so late, I'm essentially inactive on Wikipedia. Yes, "technical factors" is a good place to park that stuff, if they were going to delete the category "Astrological factors" — I can only attribute the repeated statement that it's a vague category to my assumption that the people making it are not familiar with astrology, since "astrological factors" is the traditional and precise term grouping aspects, houses, signs, decans, terms, planets, Arabian parts, exaltations and detriments, fixed stars, Sabine places, and the rest of it. "Historical factors" for the rest is maybe not the best name, but your grouping there too is good. Best, Bill19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion review. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Shirahadasha 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
