User talk:NickCT

Ruby

Please either provide a citation to support your comments or strike your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I think you may have misread my comments. I've replied on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you replaced it, I have struck it again, please don't replace it again it is an uncited BLP violation and an attack on a living person. Please take this as a warning, I have written a report and if you replace your comment I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Look Off2, I'm willing to discuss this politely, but at the moment, I think you're pretty obviously violating WP:TALK and WP:HOUND. Perhaps you ought to take a step back and consider your actions? NickCT (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI - ANI

Please see here - Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Reformatted your comments

Oh most definitely, I shall be TPing your house for this sir! Just kidding, no, I have no issue whatsoever with that. The bullet points make it much more pleasing to the eyes. Thanks for letting me know though. :) Now I just need to fix Failbot' signing mistake (I am putting four tildes and Wiki is putting the sig .______., you don't have to, bot!) TheArchaeologist 18:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Hail, Sir Nick! Thou hath a barnstar!

		The Knight-Defender of Consensus Barnstar
		For your extraordinary effort in promoting and helping organize the process of consensus, without which Wikipedia would be impossible, and for doing so with such impartiality and admirable patience, you are righteously awarded this shield and Coat of Arms! Thank you for your fine work!  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ohio! I value these recognitions, especially from editors like you, and I think this one is appropriate. I've come to learn that despite WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP essentially is a democracy, and that's something I don't think we should shy away from. In general, when you get enough people focused on, and discussing a question, the answer you end with is usually more right than wrong. Bickering with some of the vocal and tenacious minorities that plague WP and warp POV, rarely helps. Calling in third parties and demonstrating that consensus is against those minorities with well written RfCs and straw polls usually does... NickCT (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally I have a full 3 barnstars. That's respectable enough to post on my user page! NickCT (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When will you learn?

To comment on the content, and not on an editor? Besides your comment stinks, and is as biased as your editing on I/P conflict related issues. Why didn't you say anything, when I wrote Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition or Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust just to name a few. Have you ever written a kind word about Judaism, or Jews? Yeah, your comment stinks D: D8 D;--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well, I guess you have made more than 1 article that isn't a blatant POV push. I'll add a note to my earlier comment. But seriously Mbz1, you have to admit that you do have a history of starting up controversial I/P articles. You don't think I have any grounds for making my comment?

Additionally, saying things like "your comment stinks" and "Have you ever written a kind word about Judaism" doesn't really assume good faith or seem particularly civil. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! The more you say the more false accusations come out of your mouth. I started around 70 articles Buridan's bridge;Ravens of the Tower of London; Despina_Storch; Ayin_(Kabbalah);Pinocchio_paradox Liar_paradox_in_early_Islamic_tradition;King_Philip_shipwreck;Broderick–Terry_duel;Earth's_shadow;Great_Comet_of_1556;Great_Comet_of_1264;Paleontological_sites_of_Lebanon;Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib; The_Mountain_of_Israeli-Palestinian_Friendship;Sefer_ha-Temunah; Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust; La_Peregrina_pearl; Reichenbach_Castle; Frederick_Mayer_(spy);Herrengasse_23_(Bern);

Australite; MV_RMS_Mulheim; Underwater_camouflage_and_mimicry; Peacock_flounder; Historically_significant_lunar_eclipses; Carrier_Pigeon_(ship);Legends_of_the_Coco_de_Mer; Orchid_hunters; Carnival_in_Bern;Geological_history_of_Point_Lobos; Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena; Aureole_effect;Black_Abbey;Homelessness_in_Japan; Dartmoor_kistvaens; Melhus_Church; Lac_de_Monteynard-Avignonet; Parc_naturel_régional_d'Armorique; Dartmoor_crosses; Sun_glitter Mirage_of_astronomical_objects; Lion_Geyser; Novaculichthys_taeniourus Diamond_ring_effect Starburst_Anemone Halemaumau_Crater Orange-peel_doris I could have go on, but what the point? I recommend you removing your comment from DR. They do not add to your cause, and only make you look stupid, because a person who makes claims without knowing what he's talking about does look stupid. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok Mbz1. Look. I don't patrol through your contrib history. I do follow articles for deletions. Perhaps I got a false impression of the kinds of articles you're creating, b/c all of your articles that come to AfD tend to be controversial I-P articles.

I'll clarify again if you wish, but I'd point out again that comments like "make you look stupid" and "false accusations come out of your mouth", aren't overly helpful. Best, NickCT (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing else to clarify, just strike out your comments (these are false and sarcastic accusations that have no place in AFD), and say you made them without looking through my contrib history, and now you realized that you were wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Struck. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if you just deleted all the comments relating to the dispute. But that's up to you. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed all your comments concerning me personally together with my responses. I hope it is what you meant in your comment above. If I got it wrong,please revert me.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. NickCT (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind, but I lodged that RfC since the discussion on the NPOVN was archived. Thought I'd save you the trouble... Nightw 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I was procrastinating. Thanks for getting to it. NickCT (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Is where Wraith is causing a bit of argument at the moment. He uses the same strawman there, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson - I've delved into this debate several times in the past. I really support your POV. WP shouldn't be a forum for shoving people into often ambiguous, and many times irrelevant ethnic/racial categories. Keep me informed in your debate, and let me know if I can do anything to help. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've often participated in CFD, and written these resulting guidelines about EGRS topics, over the past 8 years.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

browser through what?

You left a link on Jimbo Wales' talk page ([1]) that you said was interesting to browse through, but I didn't see any results at all. Is that just me? Wnt (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey... that's an IP range. So it shows all contributions from IPs starting with 214.13.

I'm guessing the reason you can't see it is because you don't have your preferences setup correctly. Please see Help:User_contributions, the line starting with "A search form, allowing you to search by username, IP addre". NickCT (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - after three or four tries I managed to get my Preferences to save this with the box checked, and then I saw many contributions. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

Hi NickCT, it looks like a lot of your contributions fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi NickCT. I notice you followed up to my reply on Jimbo's talk page. I'm not going to reply there, for a few reasons. Firstly, I appear to be unable to explain to anyone's satisfaction why trying to weaken an editor's argument by speculating on their religious bias is an extremely toxic thing for the project. Fair enough, perhaps my language skills aren't sufficient to make my point, so there's probably little benefit to me trying. If someone doesn't get why "you're probably just supporting this because you're a Jew" is a personal attack, probably no amount of hypothetical dialogue about Methodists is going to change that. You either believe in "Comment on the edit, not the editor", or you don't.

Secondly, Jimbo doesn't care. ARBCOM is in the process of accepting the case involving Noleander and the "Jews and..." articles, so he's certainly not going to step on their toes and start sanctioning editors while they're deliberating on this whole mess. Any continued discussion on his talk page would largely be for the benefit of other people reading, and I don't feel a particular need to spend time entertaining them.

If you sincerely don't understand my perspective, then I'll be willing to try to explain it a couple more times as best I can on your talk page or mine. But if you do understand it and think it's stupid or "naive", then we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes - Hey. Thanks for your response. Few points.

1) I think it's appropriate that you reply here. Jimbo's talk page is probably not the best place to be having this discussion.

2) I'd agree with you that "you're probably just supporting this because you're a Jew" could probably be considered a "disgusting" personal attack. On the other hand though, saying "you're probably approaching this subject from a Jewish perspective, which may not be entirely neutral given the subject matter at hand" might be a valid criticism (we'll abandon the hypothetical dialogoue here that could substitute in "American perspective" or "Methodist perspective"). There are probably a lot of grey areas in-between those two comments.

3) I don't think your perspective is "stupid". What you're doing is good. Being on guard against bigotry is good. I just think we should be cautious assuming peoples' comments are "disgusting"/bigoted, when really they might simply be asking the question "Hey! Given your background, are you in a position to discuss this neutrally?".

4) "Comment on the edit, not the editor" - I appreciate the spirit of the policy, but I really don't think questioning another editor's perspective (so long as it's done respectfully) is really a personal attack.

5) On another note, I haven't really been following the whole Noleander debate, but having interacted with this editor before my impression is that he's always been fairly cordial and that he doesn't engage in the traditional aggressive editing tactics common to the whole Israel-Palestine field. I've just cast my eye over Economic history of the Jews, which as far as I can tell is what initiated the controversy. My initial impression is that it seems somewhat synthetic and unencylopedic. I understand your sentiment re POV Wikipedia:Content forking, and it doesn't surprise me that many would share it; however, I really don't think this was Noleander's intent...

6) Thanks for the conversation! NickCT (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and your civil tone throughout. I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you on #4. "Jewishness" is a bit of an edge case in that both ethnicity and religion are involved. You don't seem to have a problem with the editors' religion being brought up; would you feel differently it was solely their ethnicity? For example, if an editor came to AN/I and pointed out a newly created article that was basically an attack page against black people, and someone else came along later and said "sure are a lot of black people commenting. Wonder if that makes them biased?" If that wouldn't bother you... well, I guess I'm out of analogies to offer. The assumption that Jews would naturally react in a knee-jerk fashion against an editor accused of anti-Semitic edits – rather than the AGF assumption that they might better understand what is and is not truly anti-Semitic, presumably having some experience dealing with it – is another problem I have with the "sure are a lot of Jews commenting here" comment. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

re "would you feel differently it was solely their ethnicity?" - An interesting point. Perhaps I would. Somehow saying "You only feel that way b/c you're Asian" strikes me as a bit more offensive than "You only feel that way b/c you're Mormom".... but then again, perhaps that's only b/c we're more sensitive to racial intolerance than religious intolerance? I mean, I'm guessing the average African American POV regarding the civil rights movement varies from the norm in the same way that a Protestant's POV regarding the reformation might vary. Are religion and race really all that different in the end? They both seem like quasi-abstract classifications into which we group ourselves and others....

re ""Jewishness" is a bit of an edge case in that both ethnicity and religion are involved" - True. It's probably worth noting that people tend to use the word interchangeably. It's difficult to know if someone really means it in a racial or religious sense. Frankly, this is a topic that still confuses me. Ethnicity and religion are different. If someone is introduced to me as Jewish, do I first assume they mean ethnically or religiously? Personally, I've always thought of it as religious first, then ethnic, but there are those who seem to think the opposite.

Anyways, I don't think our POVs are different enough to warrant extended discussion. I'd agree it's not polite or appropriate or in the best spirit of Wikipedia:No personal attacks to say something like "You guys are only saying that b/c you're Jews", but at the same time, we probably shouldn't automatically assume that someone saying that is a racist/bigot. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would guess the majority of things that sound racist or bigoted are probably just the result of people speaking/writing before thinking, rather than a reflection of any malice or hatred. At least, that's the AGF view of it. :) 28bytes (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My analysis of mathsci's example

Noleanderøs text: Marvin Perry states that the Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money: whereas the New Testament viewed money and profit as "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3), the Talmud took a positive view of money and profit because the Talmud "was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans, and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice."

Sourced to this text (the underlines text has been left out in Noleander's summary):

More fundamental than language and other customs in shaping Jewish attitudes and practice was the Talmud. It takes a positive stance with regard to economic activity, in sharp contrast with the New Testament and Patristic theologians who were vigilant against, as they thought it to be, filthy lucre and serving Mammon, and thus incorporated a strong, mystical, antiworldly, antieconomic strain in Christian theology and ethics. The Talmud by contrast was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice. They were family men, and some of them earned their living as merchants and the like, so as to serve the community without pay. It may be that Judaism's affirmative outlook on the world—Weltbejabung, what Weber called being "accomodated to the world"—made Jews more rational, less mystical, and more focused on life, and thus more likely to engage and be successful in economic activities in some degree. Also the Talmud, intricate in structure and intellectually demanding as it is, may have taught Jews to be logical, analytical, and rational in some degree. More significantly, however, in Talmud and Bible alike, getting and spending are far from being the primary or ideal purpose of life. Learning and wisdom were the jewels without price, which meant that Jews were literate and educated in civilizations where historically these assets for economic doings were rare.

By leaving out the underllined text and changing minor wordings such as:

"economic activity" > "money and profit"

"New Testament and Patristic theologians" > "christians"

Noleander manages to make Perry make the opposite argument of the one he was actually making, namely that the while certain social aspects of Jewish life may have made Judaic theology less biased against economic activity it is in fact the case that the Talmud and Bible both value knowledge and spirituality highly - and that this value of literacy required Jews to have skills that could make them especially succesful. Noleander in contrast makes Perry say that the Talmud and Bible are signinficantly different, that judaic theology is different from all christian theology and not just early Patristic theology. That this interpretation of Perry is correct becomes clear when compared with this sentence later on in the book: " Expectedly, Sombart simplifies matters terribly, reducing the Bible and Talmud to philistine justifications for money-grubbing. God and man are linked by a "businesslike connection" in which each person's deeds of good and evil are reckoned up in "a complicate system of bookkeeping," the one rewarded as profit, the other punished as loss. Many historians have demonstrated that such expositions as Sombart indulges in here are more stereotype and caricature than analysis; according to the modern scholar Ellis Rivkin, "The notion that Jews let loose capitalism is one of those persistent myths that grow with exposure." Noleander has in effect turned Perry's balanced and neutrally worded account into Sombart's caricature that he was trying to refute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Well look, for the sake of simplicity, let me paraphrase what I see as the main difference between Noleander's wording versus the text.

Noleander - "The Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money, in that the Talmud takes a positive view of money and profit."

Text - "The Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money, in that the Talmud takes a positive view of money and profit, but both note that getting and spending are far from being the primary or ideal purpose of life".

Does this seem like a fair paraphrasing of the two?

Frankly, the only difference I really see between the wordings is one of subtle tone. I'd agree that original text perhaps has a more positive tone to it, but I don't think Noleander's version really tries convey the "opposite" meaning.

I think if we were making even a minor effort to assume good faith here, and giving Noleander the benefit-of-the-doubt, we'd just assume that this was an accidental and perhaps non-notable omission of content from the reference that slightly changed the tone of the material.

You'd really have to be vindictive to call this "clear" evidence of intent to distort references. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about intent or an agenda to paint Noleander as an antisemite (nor for that matter anything to be vindictive about - I have never interacted with Noleander). I don't care about that. What I see is a pattern of very careless editing in a very sensitive topic area. I personally don't think wikipedia has anything to loose by letting Noleander edit in an area that is less sensitive and where failure to understand and correctly represent sources have less negative consequences. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - except for those who are not competent enough to follow good editing practice as laid out in our policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus - I might partly agree with your "careless editing in a very sensitive topic" comment. But I'd point out, that there is a world of difference between that, and the "antisemite" label some people are trying to apply to Noleander. Additionally, I think WP is crammed full of sensitive topics, no? That's part of what makes it fun.... I think if you applied the same level of scrutiny you did to Noleander's edit in other areas, you'd probably find no end of "careless editing". Regardless, thanks for the civil conversation. I wish you the best. NickCT (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Beefman, and Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin

Come on my friend. It wasn't silly on my part. Beefman seem to think he owned the page and article, and, frankly, looking over his edits on the article, he appears to have a rather strong POV. I was trying to make a point with him. Given that he's been blocked for a few hours, I failed.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey dude. I'm not saying what you did is silly; however, I read over the original comment from the IP and I don't see how it pertained to the conversation. It seemed like a non-sequitur. That doesn't mean it's OK for Beef to have removed it, but at least it means that he was right in saying that it didn't seem like it was part of the discussion. Regardless, I'm aware Beefy can be slightly difficult to deal with. I'd suggest you just take it directly to AE of ANI instead of edit warring with him. Best, NickCT (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're officially a Californian, the use of Dude is strictly forbidden. OK, Dude! LOL. Anyways, yes, the IP was writing some strange stuff, but he was using those comments to support some edits. I thought it was necessary to keep the conversation, in case Mr. IP (or Ms. IP) returned. Nevertheless, according to WP:TPO, no one can refactor discussions except under some very narrow circumstances. Anyways....no big deal. Dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not trying to say refactoring the comments wasn't a WP:TPO violation, I'm just saying, it seemed partially mitigated based on the IP's comments. If we were being generous to Beefy (which perhaps he doesn't deserve), you might have simply assumed he was trying to reorganize the talk page for better flow, and forgiven him the WP:TPO violation. Regardless, thanks for letting me know about "dude". I certainly wouldn't want anyone to mistake me for a Californian.

My best to you..... sir, NickCT (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you just insulted California. I think that's worthy of an ArbCom hearing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Every freaking day!

OK, I don't mean to be suspicious, but again, this is such an obscure (and discredited) theory and that this many editors show up to make the same changes, are these socks? It's the only explanation, unless there is a whole group of people in some bar somewhere who is complaining that Obama is suppressing evidence that could be used to solve the whole oil problem. Oh no. Am I onto something? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right to be suspicious, though it is hard to be sure with any certainty. All the editors with less than 100 contributions who are pushing this odd point of view are suspect. This includes TheJohns,Geologist, Scorpio & LeftCoast.

We could pursue an SPI, though frankly, these potential socks aren't really being very disruptive. I'm content to just keep my eye on the page. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

sock accusations distracting from merit of points made

Point taken. I will if, I decide to post further. In a perfect world people's comments should be judged based on the merits of the content of the comments, but I suppose that Wikipedia would be all the more chaotic if no one registered, because I do recognize the problem of agenda drive people hiding behind anonimity. Ironically a big part of my motivation to jump into this particular entry was the obviousness of (Registered User) Mindbunny's agenda (see my last comment that prompted you to scold me). But, as I learned yesterday, when I was falsely accused of being a sock of two other posters, posting anonymously just gave Mindbunny the opportunity to "respond" with an adhominen instead of addressing my points. So, you are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.51.27 (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for considering registering. It makes things a little easier for everyone. As a side-note, I would call it a "suggestion" more than a "scold".

And a word of advice, if think if we assume good faith and give User:Mindbunny the benefit of the doubt, I think his/her comments could probably be interpreted as legitimate content concerns, rather than "an agenda" or, worse, "antisemitism".

If you're going to expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt, be prepare to give it to others.......

Regardless, best of luck, and let me know when you've registered! Welcome to Wikipedia. Drop me a line if you need help/advice. NickCT (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching on the sidelines for the last two days (sorry, haven't gotten around to registering yet), and I think that though "giving the benefit of the doubt" is a noble plan of action for civilized people, sometimes there becomes less and less "doubt" about what someones motivation is. And in that case, giving the benefit of the doubt crosses over that fine ill-defined line into giving benefit, when there is no doubt. For example, in this case, though neutral people focus on the brutal and sexual nature of the assault, people on the "Israeli side" want to highlight the fact that shouting "Israeli" and "Jew" made the mob intensify the attack, and people on the "anti-Israeli" side, not only want to purge any anti-Israeli nature of the description of this dispicable mob, but even others without an agenda are buying into the "it must be policies of Israel if anything, and not classic antisemitism". But the fact is, it wasn't just "Israeli". It was "Jew", that intensified the attack. Note how even in Talk comments, Mindbunny religiously refers to the question of including "Israeli" or not, whereas everyone else refers to what it is: including "Israeli, Jew" or not. Even in his Talk comments he wants to purge any notice of the existance of antisemitism. One general thought: I think that a(n ideal) good judge is one who a guilty person would fear and an innocent person would want, not one who, ANY defendant would want. I.E. one who goes too far in giving the benefit of the doubt. And one thought specific to this case: I think that anyone who feels that, for example, someone walking around Tarir Square in Cairo with a yarmulka on their head would very likely get the crap beaten out of him, for being a Jew, would probably be a little redeemed by the fact that 10 million people who would not have otherwise believed them would now, thanks to what tragically happened to Lara Logan, and they would be incredulous at the efforts of Mindbunny here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.4.44 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption

You are invited for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok _{talk .} 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Rjanag's talk page.

Warning -- Defamation, Personal Attack

Please desist in making personal attacks on other editors, especially ones that are manifestly untrue, such as here. For an editor who has been sanctioned for personal attacks and inappropriate editing in the P-I area, to seek to intimidate another editor who has never been so-sanctioned, for either abuse, of tendentious editing in that area, is perhaps not in keeping with the civility standards that we strive to follow. Please understand that this is a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

@Epee - In this edit you suggested we should "endeavor to avoid what might be seen as POV editing.", when you must have known full well that you were actively seeking to engage in POV editing. Now you are giving me a "final warning" that I shouldn't "seek to intimidate another editor" when your very message is pretty obviously a miserable attempt to do just that.

Now I'm sorry you find it upsetting that folks aren't letting have your way with Freedom Flotilla II, but don't come crying to me about it. If you really feel I've maligned you, you're invited to continue this discussion either here or here. Good evening to you sir. NickCT (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Hi Nick, I see you flagged IP 24.7.26.52 as a sock for blocked IP 98.210.160.235 He is persisting in disruptive editing. Can we block as a sock? Best wishes Span (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just notified 2/0 who's dealt with this guy before. NickCT (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on reviewing the actual diff, I'd advise we don't summarily block. The "You are a dishonest liar. " is probably worthy of a civility warning. NickCT (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't know if socks were automatically blocked. That was my question. Thanks for the info. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotience Paradox

With all due respect. First, thou should not threaten fellow user (per Wiki rules). Second, apologies for earlier self-promo (honest mistake), but the answer is discussed in the Theosophical Society in America. If you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or it's unverified. Another thought: any theosophical (or philosophical) thought or concept that's not repeating of the old concepts or thoughts is new. There's no clear guidline about "notability", so you might think it's not notable, and I think it is. It's my word against yours - so why you think you're entitled to win (or better yet block another person?). I'm not going to engage in an edit war, hoping you will undo your own editing, feel free to include the reference to Theosophical Society. Georgy Tsikhiseli (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Georgy Tsikhiseli,

I wasn't threatening you. You looked new, so I was informing you of the rules.

If the Theosophical Society in America really is a reliable source than you may have an argument for this being notable. You are obliged to cite material you are adding so that others can verify the material is in fact notable. Could you provide me with a link to the material in question? NickCT (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on the society right here, it's more than a 100 years old, I guess that counts as reliable... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society As for links - the discussion transcripts are not published on the website. There were no publications by the society on this subject. But since it's one of these questions that can't be proved, yet offering a logical solution to the Paradox, and not offensive by any means, it can be published. I guess it will be fair to put an extra paragraph "The theosophical view", or something like that...

Georgy Tsikhiseli (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Verification is sorta a core WP principle. If it can't be verified, it can't go up, regardless of how inoffensive it may be. NickCT (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

She admitted she lied

The RS says that she "admitted she lied": "The housekeeper admitted to prosecutors that she had lied about what happened after the encounter on the 28th floor of the hotel, the Sofitel New York." [2]

You changed that to "changed her account of the events".

There is a big difference here. "Admitted she lied" is a deliberate distortion of the truth. "Changed her account of events" could mean she accidentally misspoke.

I understand seeking neutrality, but in this case you seem to think that you know better than a RS.

How can you justify making this change? Why are you seeking to deliberately tone down what is said in a RS?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, as a rule, we should always seek to be more precise, rather than less precise, shouldn't we? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to revert back to RS's language that's fine with me. I was really simply approaching from a perspective of better "flow". It seems to be better to say "She changed her account. Her first account was A. Her second was B.", rather than "She lied. Her first account was A. Her second was B.".

I don't think think there's really that much difference.... NickCT (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Bob drobbs (apologies to Nick if this is not courteous, Bob should have taken it to the Talk page). You do need to indicate in your copy that you are quoting a source and not making a value judgement of your own. I'll address that directly. FightingMac (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi Nick. Thanks for trying to keep me up to date on the person I thought might be a sock. My suspicions where only based on this person suddenly cropping up with a, seemingly, good familiarity re. Wiki procedures. I have to leave the more clever forensics to you guys. All the best Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm amused. To Prunesqualer, apparently your own behavior was so bad that you were banned for weeks for editing any articles related to Israel/Palestine, and now the two of you are ganging up and trying to defame me?!? Sorry, but I'm just me. And my goal here is to keep things neutral, informative, and balanced. So, good luck to you. And out of curiosity, what is your goal here? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs - We're actually talking about a different sock here. Not you. NickCT (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

NPA

NickCT (talk · contribs), please do not make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, as you did here. Such behavior is considered a personal attack and is frowned upon by the community. In the future, should you have grievances relating to an editor's behavior, make sure to accompany them with evidence.—Biosketch (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch - Geeez.... I thought my comments there made it abundantly clear that I wasn't really very concerned about your opinion Bio. I gotta wonder, why'd you'd post on my talk page here? Another attempt to nip at someone's ankles?

Do you honestly think my characterization of you as a "committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" was unfair, or are you just upset that I didn't provide evidence for it? If you think it's unfair, let's talk about it. Convince me otherwise and I'll retract and apologize for my comment.

If on the other hand you're here in some misguided attempt to harass (as I suspect was your goal on Malik's talk page) let me direct you to continue this conversation either here or here. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User Talk:NickCT - Hello, NickCT. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks. The discussion is about the topic User:NickCT. Thank you.—Biosketch (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

NickCT, it seems you have a habit of making accusations against people, and then asking them to prove their innocence. I've added my own comments about your behavior on Wikiquette alerts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand WP:NPA or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you here.—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to mediation regarding DSK housekeeper

Just wanted to invite you. By no means are you obligated to join in.

mediation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard Stengel

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard Stengel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)