User talk:Slrubenstein

It is currently 20:51 where I am

Please place any questions or comments for me at the bottom of this page. Thanks.

This editor is a
**Novice Editor**
and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Ping

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Doc Tropics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Complaint via ANI

Hello, Slrubenstein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

re Wikipedia:Areas for reform

A while back you asked if I was interested in contributing to the above. I demurred. However, I have now found it expedient to review the page and have noted the section "... Guideline... for administrators to... prevent or stop abuse..." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. You may wish to hurry over there and yank it out as not being appropriate, or decide to join in on that page, or both, or neither (or something else). I thought I should let you know of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk)

talk back

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Maunus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Occam (talk • contribs)

Rousseau

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Tomsega's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looking for a second opinion

Do you have any interest in casting a social anthropologist's eye over Chitpavan? I got involved as an admin after a complaint about it on RfPP, and now I find myself crossing into editor mode, though I don't want to. To my uneducated eye it looks as though User:Authentickle may be adding inappropriate material (arguably racist, certainly SYN violations on occasion), e.g. [1] But he also seems dedicated to sticking to the policies and producing a fair account. I'm now unsure what's legit and what isn't. Added to which I know nothing about the topic and have no interest in it, but I feel reluctant to walk away after arriving there as an admin in case things deterioriate.

A second opinion would therefore be very helpful. I did post a couple of requests for help on Wikiproject India, and a few people arrived but they seem to have wandered off again. See the talk page for various exchanges, and here for the latest.

As always, feel free to ignore this entirely if you have no time or inclination. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't treat my edits like vandalism

Hi,

I removed the source because the source given does not even mention prophecies. I left an edit summary noting this reason. Please don't treat my edits like vandalism, at least give a reason for reversions. Flash 11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Commandments

I think your view would be apprediated, here Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to get involved. I actually agree with your position. However I won't be able to get back editing until July 25. (Final Sunday as relief pastor.) If you want something more challenging than the Ten Commandments see the Gospel of the Hebrews - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments

I totally support your version and am very pleased that so many editors are finally responding to my repeated calls of addressing the perpetual issues around the RD. I simply stated that while the page is protected, no editors should make controversial changes. It would be nice if Kwami acknowledged that he's outgunned. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments

Was my mistake with who I addressed my reply to. I support your views. I think this K person is a troll just trying to stir up problems. The way he wrote the last part made me think he is intoxicated on alcohol or drugs and having a laugh at our serious replies. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Nick[reply]

Wow, more problems. I have a feeling that another lock on this article is coming again the way things are going.... Meishern (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RD

Oh, OK. Thanks for the link to Ritual decalogue. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haste makes waste

Sue Laurence was not the point -- scroll down a little in that e-mail. Louis Proyect (apparently moderator of that Marxism mailing list at the time) was quoting Wheen's biography, which was quoting Marx's own correspondence [2]. And the letter is noted in other sources, even to the point of quoting directly from it. [3] I thought this was common knowledge about Marx among educated people with any interest in his life at all. Yet you seem to be treating it all as apocryphal. Why is that? Shouldn't you (under AGF) at least check the sources I cite with a little care, rather than revert them as if they were vandalism? Yakushima (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about all the sources that also say the same? See discussion on Marx bio talk page. I don't see why Red Jenny is an unreliable source especially when it's just saying what all these other books are saying (and what Marx's own correspondence says). Why do you rip it out, and leave statements uncited? Certainly having no source for the statement about Wolff's bequest to Marx seems silly, when Red Jenny is as good as any other for that. Yakushima (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize by now, don't you, that the claim that Marx was speculating in the stock markets was made by Marx himself? [4] Could you explain what the issue is, after you've verified that fact (if you still need to)? Is it that you think Marx might have been lying, so we need RS to back him up? Then at least be clear about that. Yakushima (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by my "by now" should be clear: you did not understand that these weren't simply Sue Laurence's "views." You wrote "Sue Laurence simply is not a respected marx biographer and her views are not notable enough to be included in this article." That response indicates pretty clearly that didn't read far enough to see that Louis Proyect, in that Marxism list posting, went further than reposting an article by Sue Laurence and quoted extensively from Wheen's biography. In short, your whole approach to this has been dismissive, as if I (or other people) might simply be making this whole thing up. A more productive approach would be to (a) track down more reliable sources, while (b) discussing whether this merited mention.

"Snippets from some online search are worthless; we do not know the reliability of the source and cannot read enough of it to know the full context for the quote." How much context to do you need? If I turned up the entire text of the letter, right up to Marx's signature, would hold out that he might have written "p.s. ha ha just joking" on the next page? Or in his next letter to his uncle? Or years later? Yakushima (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Complain all you want about my deleting a lousy citation."

The original citation was to Red Jenny, and that got deleted by somebody who didn't look very closely. Then you stepped up and continued not looking at things very closely. I don't see why Red Jenny is a bad source, nor do I see why Louis Proyect, citing a Marx biography, is a bad source. Do you know who Louis Proyect is?

"But the fact that it was from a chat room or somee list-serve, ..."

(*Sigh*) as if there were no difference between a chat room and the Marxism mailing list, between some idiotic teenager and Louis Proyect. (Unfamiliar with him? Start here: [5]. Note this (my emph. added): "My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).").

"and the top portion was a private individual quoting a BBC report quoting Sue Laurence,"

I'd already cited Red Jenny by then. And by the time you joined the discussion, I'd already mentioned that this letter had been excerpted in biography by Wheen, itself excerpted by Louis Proyect. Did you skip all that?

"... when all of the sudden you are really referring to something below that,"

It wasn't all of a sudden. I'd already found Proyect's excerpt from Wheen by then. But I knew if all I relied upon was that, I might get shot down for citing only a mailing list. So I found much the same thing elsewhere, and cited the first thing I found (Red Jenny). You're getting the chronology confused.

"... shows what a lousy citation it was."

You're assuming something about me, and Louis Proyect, for that matter, that I think you'd better prove before you say it that way. Red Jenny plus Louis Proyect quoting Wheen quoting Marx himself doesn't add up to "lousy". If it adds up only to "improvable", why not make improvements?

"Better to provide a proper citation to a proper source."

I've pointed you to several that substantiate not only this letter, but Wolff's involvement in helping Marx financially later in life. But do you lift a finger? No.

"All I deed was deletee a lousy citation."

Tell me why Red Jenny is out-of-bounds.

"If you have a proper citation to a proper source, I will not stop you from adding it. Why haven't you even tried to add it?"

After seeing not just my words but my citations deleted even where they supported some of the facts left in place later, I was waiting to see what people would do if I merely supplied a number of links to sources (including, if you look just a little, Marx himself). Would they use those links to add substantiation to any statements made? It appears not. It seems that if some statement squares with canonical Marx hagiography, it not only goes unchallenged, but uncited. Leave a ^{[citation needed]} tag, it gets removed. Whereas when it's something that doesn't square with the standard account, it's treated with deep suspicion -- even when the sources cited are quite reasonable. (No, don't start up about "chat rooms" again. Tell me instead why Red Jenny was a uselessly bad source.)

"My starting point is something you wrote: "This is multiply-sourced, from Marx's own correspondence. ...."

There are two sentences before that one, in the same paragraph. Why did you skip them? After all, they say this, which might have saved you considerable misunderstanding:

I reverted your reversion and added a further citation, one that includes a link to a posting by Louis Proyect to the Marxism mailing list in 2004, in which he quotes extensively not only from recent popular press, but from Francis Wheen's "Karl Marx: a Life". Marx's "mushroom" refers to bubble conditions in markets.

Well, that's certainly enough to go on, if you're interested in finding better sources and more background. Why did you ignore it? Or did you not even see it?

"You raised these questions [about whether Marx was making up trades to impress an uncle]. All I am doing is taking what you wrote seriously, and asking that you follow WP policy."

No, you're doing more than taking me seriously there (moreover, taking me seriously after missing the obviously rather light and tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment.) You're thinking I'm so serious about this that you have to pull out the policy guns on me -- without first asking me whether I was actually proposing hashing out -- in the article text itself -- the question of whether Marx actually engaged in such trades. Well, as it happens, that strikes me as a hideously stupid thing to do. I mean, look at the sources. The only known item of stock ownership they've turned up looks like 4 pounds of equity in a newspaper Marx helped start, or something like that. It seems that nobody has solidly settled this question of whether he actually spent any money buying stocks, much less made any money. He might have done it but destroyed evidence of earnings to dodge taxes. Who knows? Anyway, I don't understand why you were so incredulous about this letter. It's widely quoted or at least cited, and not just in his biographies. It strikes me that Marx, with his understanding of economics, finance and business ("rather above" average, even Schumpeter was forced to admit), would actually have made a pretty shrewd investor. As to ideological consistency, well, Marx's letter has a little joke about relieving the enemy of some of his money. Actually, I was hoping to work that into the article, but thought it might be going too far. Maybe I'll get a little bolder. Yakushima (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And that is precisely why I deleted it. You have just provided a full explanation for my action."

Wait -- now you're saying you knew all this in advance. How does that follow? But you apparently decided to say nothing about your advance knowlege during a discussion in which you feigned missing one detail after another? Why is that?

If you knew all this in advance, why did you act for much of the time like this quote from Marx's correspondence might not even exist?

Finally, you never get around to saying: why is Red Jenny such a "lousy" source that it didn't even qualify for supporting anything about Marx's financial relationship to Wolff? The author of it is also the author of a number of other apparently creditable biographies of in intellectual history. [6] I'm getting the feeling that you WP:OWN this article, that you won't brook any change that doesn't sit perfectly well with you: easily examined from the safety of your own home with little more than a click. Well, I happened to do a few snippet view searches on Red Jenny (try it, it's not hard) to verify that it squares with what Proyect found in Wheen. (Which is another issue you completely dodge in this response, by the way: why, when you had a choice to look at those sources, did you just edit out any mention of them.)

I did some work. To support at least one fact that clearly stands up (after all, there was no mention of Wolff in the article until I added). And now that support is gone. You took it out. For no reason other than that you believe Red Jenny is not a sufficiently "scholarly" work. What's your measure for that? Will I soon discover that you consider yourself the ultimate arbiter of what is considered "scholarly" for all of the sources in this bio? Did you actually look at any information about that source before making your decision? Or will I have to tell you everything you want to know about it, only to be told, "I knew that! Why, that's precisely why I threw it in the trash!" Yakushima (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

n

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Talk:Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Knee jerk

Have you read the section I started about the layout that was ignored by other editors? Have you read the sources I have provided discussing the topic? Your recent comment comes across as finger pointing and knee-jerking.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant minority says enough. Again, if you think occupied deserves to be mentioned in every title in the topic area than it needs a more centerilzed discussion.

And the reason I brought up the previous discussion was that it was not political in any way and it was ignored by partisan editors. The topic area is full of editors trying to make certain assertions whenever possible that grinds proper consensus building to a halt.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize if it came across as baiting. That was not the intent. I was also not trying to put words in your mouth but it came across as your intent. Feel free to blank this if you want it off your page. So seriously, please do not taketone as me telling you off or anything.Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: races

I hope that piece by Ernst W. Mayr, one of leading evolutionary biologists of 20th century and author of Populations, Species, and Evolution can clarify your questions. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great discussion of Mayr essay

I really appreciated reading your response to the Mayr essay just now in the diffs of the talk page on Race (classification of human beings). It's good to get that kind of cross-disciplinary perspective in discussion of editing the article. When I read the essay yesterday, I was struck by how much Mayr concedes that of course we have to talk about social issues when we talk about race, and thus how much he supports much of the current structure and content of the article. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Talk:Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vandalism

Deleting POV tags and the like because you disagree with them, as you did at Ten Commandments, is note acceptable. The neutrality of the article is indeed contested, obviously. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slrubenstein. You have new messages at Tbhotch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Your name came up in a sockpuppet investigation

Here is the link. Wish we could have been informed.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at least everyone else knows, it is dirty pool. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty indeed that people weren't even informed. I'm already on record over at the ArbCom file as calling for the complainant's topic ban. It's unfair that you had to deal with this at all. I mean, what a coincidence that people who have had quality higher educations might all want to edit articles full of POV-pushing to make them more neutral. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of wilful disruption during an ArbCom case normally results in some kind of penalty. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate to the sick-and-tired feeling.

I just saw your comment on the ArbCom proposed decision talk page that you are tired of doing conscientious edits that get undone by people who don't read the sources. Please keep up the good work anyway. ArbCom must be sick and tired too, or I think the decision by those beleaguered volunteers would have come sooner, but eventually there will be some sanctions on some subset of editors, and meanwhile the whole project will have to change its culture to emphasize sourced edits and editors checking one another's sources for accurate citation, so gradually this will come around. You'll have me and others on your flank if you stay at the task. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple discussion at ANI

Hi Slrubenstein: A discussion and related vote you participated in is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves. You may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you at the ANI discussion referenced above. I believe, on re-reading your comment, that is was a misunderstanding on my part from a somewhat ambiguously worded comment you made. Could you please check whether I am correct in this, and if this resolves our being puzzled or baffled by each other's comments? Fram (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop

Thanks. I took the liberty to make the topic ban comment the start of a subsection and to "support" the suggestion. Please alter my changes as needed or as appropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban

Hi, you seem to be a bit involved in announcing and No loops discussion at ani, ani is the most watched page on wiki, please take care not to canvass. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content issue

Hi SLR, there is an RfC about whether a normally-hidden list of victim names and ages in a featured accident article is policy compliant. If you have the time and inclination, your input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation: Jesus

[7] Noloop (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Christ myth theory

The section we currently have explaining arguments against the Christ myth theory (i.e. arguments in favour of Jesus having existed) is weak, so I would like to try to strengthen it with a very clear introduction in simple language: "scholars argue that Jesus existed because ..." But I can't find a good RS summary anywhere.

Do you have any interest in helping out with one? I've started a discussion at Talk:Christ myth theory#Arguments against the theory again. No worries if you don't have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You were referenced by Noloop on ANI. Just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk)

Please do not make personal attacks on editors, like you did here. However angry you get at a contributor and however much you disagree with their argument, that kind of attack does not help. Fences&Windows 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm absolutely serious. It is your opinion that this editor is a bigot. You do not have a free rein to insult people, and if you continue I will block you. Fences&Windows 15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning you for attacking someone is not a personal attack. Again you attack Noloop, this time as a "troll". Final warning: you need to stay civil, this is not optional. Fences&Windows 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about Noloop's behaviour, and other admins are scrutinising his edits already. What I am concerned with right now is the narrow issue of the use of personal attacks by William C and yourself. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not contingent on us agreeing with an editor's opinions or actions, even if we believe that they are being disruptive. Criticise someone's edits, criticise their actions, even argue that they should be topic banned, but using insults and making attacks is not acceptable. You can make your point adequately without resorting to that. Fences&Windows 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, my advice right now is to refrain from using language that allows people to call you out on bad behavior. I read your, very long :), comments on AN/I and you are correct in how you have framed the problem. Absolutely correct. But its not worth the trouble in that venue at this time to stick to your guns. Andrew C has apologized for his use of the word, I'd say do the same or at least promise not to use it again because the last thing the Wiki needs is one of the rational voices in this particular debate to get blocked. Noloop absolutely believes, and has made it clear that he believes, that Christian scholars are biased on this question ... despite the fact that there are no reliable sources to back that claim. This is prejudice for sure, but my advice is to stay away from the b word. Say that "his position is prejudiced against religious historians" ... I highly doubt that this could be considered an attack. Could it Fences & Windows (I'm seriously asking)? I'd also stay away from "troll", though in essence that's not an incorrect statement either. In fact I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something more organized going on with all the sudden attention to these articles, but I'm too worn out to really follow that train of thought. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kohen article

Hi Slrubenstein,

I've run into a pretty inexperienced editor who is making edits to the Kohen article that I'm concerned about. Give your knowledge, would you be able to take a look? I've opened up a section on the Talk:Kohen page for at least one of the problems, though he's still making many edits, so there may be more by the next time I look. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]