User talk:Slrubenstein

It is currently 21:26 where I am

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

Archives

1 - Mostly Exra Wax, Stevertigo, and questions about Jewish articles and anti-semitism 2 - Mostly DNA and genes, WHEELER and fascism 3 - some discussion of capitalism; debates on whether Jesus existed, and the cultural and historical background for Jesus 4 - Jesus, Jesus, Jesus 5 - Cheese Dreams and Jesus; race and evolution, capitalism, circumcision 6 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD 7 - BCE/CE versus BC/AD; FT2 and Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus 8 - Jesus, Bible, anti-Semitism, Martin Luthor, and the tip of the Virago iceberg 9 10 11 12 13 - The Bible, Evolution, Filllllll, Jesus, Race, advice for new admins 14 - a lot of race and intelligence stuff 15 - Fascism, Pharisees, and Race 16 - race, ethnicity and NOR 17 September 2007 18 October & November 2007 19 December 2007 20 January-February 2008 (Figs, psychohistory, ethnicity) 21 March-April 2008, Collenthegret and Epf 22 March- May 2008, R&I, Jagz, Jews and Christians 23 24 25 26 27

Just want your opinion

I ran across Water's RfA today, someone gave me a link to his blog. I might be over-sensitive to racism of any time, but everything I've read from the ADL about White Pride, is that it is equal to White Power/White Nationalism/Neo-Nazism/KKK dogma. It's sort of a "whitewashing" (forgive the pun) to make it sound better. The ADL, which is oversensitive at times, says it's a code-word for racism here. I'm strongly opposed to anyone who gives succor to racism, but I know you're involved in these issues too. What do you think? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, in response to your reply to me on WT:RFA/DHMO 3 regarding the above, I somehow missed one of your posts which ended up above someone I believe posted before you. Anyway, I just read it and decided to reply here. The issue with me being called a racist predates this RFA. Though comments from Orangemarlin in this RFA have been, in my opinion, directed at me in part. It started with a comment made by one admin directed to another during an RFAR last month. The situation spiraled from there and came to include me when the original offender made the same claims about me and was then supported in this by several other editors, including OM, despite a complete lack of evidence. That is the group I refer to. And many people are aware of that situation and are aware of what I meant. As far as my links on WT:DHMO 3, it's not about me, it's about DHMO, so I limited the linkage to those regarding him. Those regarding me are being gathered for another process. If you were, however, already aware of the links I posted, then I'm a bit concerned about your comments made before mine. Hopefully that helps clear things up a bit. Lara❤Love 17:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just read the link that OM posted and I don't see where it says "white pride is a code-word for racism". Perhaps I missed it. It's talking about "White Pride World Wide", which is the slogan for Stormfront, and Don Black's meaning of the term. I fail to see where they give their meaning. The unfortunate part of this situation is the failure to find not only the distinction between white pride and white supremacy, but the distinction between white pride and the white pride movement. His comments regarding DHMO stemmed from DHMOs blog, where he spoke in support of me and my view, which I explained in detail to him. I've also sent OM this detailed explanation. Yet there is still a failure to realize that what I and others refer to as white pride is not even close to the same thing as the white pride movement or what OM refers to. He keeps comparing it to the KKK, for example. This is a narrow view that focuses only on white pride organizations, which use the term to mask white supremacy. I was not educated to any of this a month ago, but I've done a great deal of reading since, as I obviously upset a lot of people. In my research, however, I did not find I am in a great minority with my view, which is not a racist one. So that is my issue. The original offender, I will add, has since told me he does not believe I'm racist, which is great. The problem is that OM, and possibly others, aren't realizing this or letting it go. Lara❤Love 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

H2O RfA

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

thanks

thanks. no problem. i realized after the fact that using idioms was probably a bad idea. and work is all self-inflicted, so i have no one to blame but myself. cheers --Legalleft (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI - Jagz

Hi SLR, I'm notifying you of this since it involves you and since you have been mentioned (if not by name) by Plusdown there--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Jagz has retired from the article for a year and so the ANI is moot. If it turns out that he has not, and additional voices are needed, feel free to let me know. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While he has not kept his word voluntarily in the past, I do believe his agreement to a voluntary ban here with admins Mastcell and noncom does make my opinion moot at this point. I am going to AGF that he will keep his word, but if he starts editing again within the next day, (as is his pattern) that is yet one more piece of evidence that he is here editing in bad faith and I will be sure to call it out. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The agreement is actually for the rest of 2008. I have not edited the article itself in several weeks as I stated several weeks ago. --Jagz (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I am not aware of any specifically thorny issue. It seems to me that there are a lot of people with their own ideas, pushing and pulling in different directions. I would suggest to just do what you think makes sense to you personally. Crum375 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:European ethnic groups

Slrubenstein, why is this so difficult? I have merely reacted to a talkpage comment at an article with which I was significantly involved. That happens on Wikipedia every day (nay, every minute), nothing personal about it. I consider you a good editor, and I don't know why you insist this is "personal". It may be to you, but I know it isn't to me. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Apolgies

Re: Jagz, I misunderstood his pledge at AN/I. For the record, I do not believe that you, Ramdrake, Alun, or any other editor should be restricted from race and intelligence articles. I thought Jagz was simply pledging that he, personally, would no longer edit the articles, which I think is a reasonable solution. On re-reading, I see that he was actually pledging to do so only if a bunch of other editors were also restricted, and that's not something I support. Sorry for the confusion on my part. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

European Ethnic Groups

Slr, I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone. If you are concerned with the specificity and clarity of the entry contents it is not helpful to use vital terminology on the talk page in ways that are rather imprecise and unclear. I believe it is important to clarify these matters, as I believe I have done. It also appeared to me from your initial conversation that without wanting to own up to it, you were pushing genetics as if genetics was the true basis for ethnicity--e.g. there is linguistic differentiation but then there is what really defines a "people". If you feel slighted in some way because I decided that it was important to clarify these matters, then I apologize, but I found it rather impolite of you to suggest that the matter was one of my misunderstanding. You are right, I do not know what you "think" and I cannot claim to understand "you" but I can read what you write, and so can any number of people who come to that talk page. I am a fluent reader of the English language and fortunately no one has to be a mind reader to comprehend the most common meanings conveyed by its use. You words, I'm afraid, are not under your control and I've offered you a very sensible understanding of them, one that no doubt is shared by others. If you find that this reading does not coincide with your intended meaning then I suggest you don't simple make the odd excuses you have presented on my talk page, but take seriously the interpretation presented before you, as a common understanding of what your words express. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Slr, I made it abundantly clear, with direct quotes, that I was dealing with what you wrote in your answer to my initial question. It does happen that what you wrote to me suggests precisely that Dab was not crazy for interpreting your initial comments as he did, but again I was referring directly to what you wrote. It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what you've read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me. I understand that you wish once more to take control of your expressions after the fact and claim some kind of ownership of them, but that is not how communication functions. You did directly suggest that a people, are such by genetic standards, as different from what ever language they may speak. This is exactly the most clear position the text I answered takes. If this isn't what you wish to convey consider the fact that you may be mistaken in how you have expressed yourself. Consider that an outside observer is fully capable of reading English, and is fully capable of understanding the lexicon in question, and may have constructive criticism to offer you if in fact you are poorly expressing your thoughts. I should not need to have read the entire talk page archive to understand this very simple point. The article as a whole does mix and match genetic and cultural characteristics in a problematic way, and I agree with you on that and I have stated repeatedly this agreement. On the other hand it is entirely incorrect to construe ethno-linguistic groupings in the manner you have, and doing so in fact confuses rather than clarifies this mess. If you can't bury your pride for two seconds and understand the fact that you may be doing something counterproductive, however noble your motivations are, or however productive your end suggestion is, then I'm truly sorry for not comprehending that before engaging you in critical discussion. When you repeatedly identify all problems with the those misunderstanding fools who naively and mistakenly believe to be actually critiquing what you have written, then my friend there is little hope for reasonable discourse. I'll disengage. However, I suggest you consider your use of terminology in these debates, and consider that when you think someone is "misunderstanding" you, it is in fact quite possible that you haven't been clear. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is counterproductive to write one thing, have someone comment on what you wrote, then come back and say ... well what you've read isn't what I meant and you just don't understand me." Really? How odd! What then should one say when one has been misunderstood? Are people never to try to clear up misunderstandings? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a serious question I will answer it. Possible suggestions are: "I'm sorry perhaps I didn't present my argument clearly enough, let me try again" or "gee I can see how you think I meant that, let me try to be more exact because that's not what I meant at all". If you do not understand the semantic differences between these types of statements and the ones you kept making I will be glad to elucidate further. If you don't think said differences matter, I will also be glad to explain why they do. All the best.PelleSmith (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry about the formatting mistake. Since no response had been posted to the post being made during this error, I have also replaced it with one that makes no more points of any kind to discuss. Take care and good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind reading?

I've had to push back on people who read my mind. Anyways I came across this article, and found you trying to keep the NPOV. How do you do this? You must drink heavily, or you just have the patience of Job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

R&I

One could write a PhD thesis on the systemic problems with this article, it would be a goldmine for sociological/anthropological research into denial of institutional racism in western societies. This is not an encyclopaedic subject, though as you pointed out an equivalent article on "Social inequality and IQ" would be more acceptable. I can't in all honesty assume good faith on this talk page, I've tried by I can't, this article just makes me too angry, which is why I avoided it for so long. I have the deeply held conviction that those promoting the fallacy that non-white people are "genetically" inferior in their "intelligence" are charlatans and racists, it's just a rehash of the same arguments that were used to support slavery and segregation, it is merely an attempt to dehumanise those we wish to exploit or deny full membership of society to. Though I am not so stupid to think that this is necessarily how they see themselves. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm trying to explain how I feel, this is my problem and I'm owning it, and so I'm not going to participate in this article any more. Alun (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm back. Can't keep a good man down, needed some time to think. I had a think and I reckon I can disagree with people and keep a civil tongue in my head. I also reckon that if I get overwrought then I can rely on people like you and Ramdrake to warn me. Alun (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you're quite right, I've spent the last few days going through some sources regarding "whiteness", especially the construction of "white identities" in North America and "Great Britain", I did it for the "White people" article, but it gave me some pause. I do feel I have something to contribute here, and not from a personal perspective, but from doing investigation into the literature. Indeed Wikipedia is all about research and not "belief". I'm more convinced than ever that this "R&I" article is hugely biased in favour of racialist povs, but also that given good faith we can overcome these. I really think mediation is the way forward. I also have a great deal of respect for Tim Vickers from my brief past experiences of him, so I know he will be impartial and fair if he were to accept the onerous task of mediating this situation.

On a different note I wonder if you have noticed that we (yourself, Ramdrake and myself) are considered a "cabal" by some editors? [1] I find it hilarious that respecting and asking for another Wikipedian's considered and expert opinion is now considered "solicitation". I have never been asked by yourself or Ramdrake to support you, only to give my opinion. And anyone familiar with our edit histories is eminently aware that we offer completely different analyses. I want to enjoy editing again, so I'm trying to be less emotional. Take care. Alun (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups of Europe

Hi Slrubenstein. No, I'm not 'giving up' on the article - I've just been swamped with work in my real life and have precious little spare time for Wikipedia at the moment. I don't know when I will be active again - I have a July 01 deadline and a mountain of research to do. Sorry! —Aryaman (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Vermes book?

Hello! I thought I'd take your advice on reading Geza Vermes book, but, looking at his Wikipedia article, I'm not sure which one you meant specifically. The Religion of Jesus the Jew is my best guess. Or is it Jesus in his Jewish Context, or Jesus and the World of Judaism? Much thanks! -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When I have 20 minutes

Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Sorry I didn't reply to your request. There's been work (a lot of it), the cats (3 queens giving birth last week alone!), and honestly probably something about my not wanting to inject myself in yet another controversy yet, at least until the dust has settled on the whole Jagz affair. If it's not too late, I'll try to give it an eye sometime this weekend. Have a good one!--Ramdrake (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Slbrubenstein, overall I think that you are a good admin, but I am increasingly concerned by some of the language that you have been using in regards to Jagz (talk · contribs). Specifically, I wish that you would stop using terms such as "trollish" and "ignorant racist troll" in reference to him.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Your recent comment on his talkpage was also uncivil, as you referred to "inane" and "silly" comments.[8] Especially because you are an administrator, it is incumbent upon you to set an excellent example of behavior, since other editors look to you as a rolemodel. I understand that you are an "involved" editor at Race and intelligence, but your admin bit still means that you are perceived as an authority figure, even if you cannot use your tools there. Other editors will follow your example. If you call a name, they will emulate your behavior and start using that name too. To be more specific: Please try to adopt a more civil tone, and cease with the name-calling. As for Jagz, I agree with you that his behavior recently has not been as good as it could have been. But for some reason he seemed to get under your skin, and you started to make things personal. I don't know why this is, but since it has gotten to the point of name-calling, I recommend that you back off a bit. What I would like at this point, is if you could both disengage. He has agreed to voluntarily avoid editing the R&I article, and avoid direct interactions with you. You are welcome to continue editing the article, but I would like if you could disengage from comments about him, and then everyone could just move on and get back to editing. Thanks, Elonka 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka Jagz hasn't edited an article namespace since 19 May and he doesn't appear to have any interest in editing anything on Wikipedia whatsoever now that he cannot edit "race" related articles. Since this time he's only been interested in posting on talk pages and often this seems to be for the sole purpose of baiting other editors.[9] he's not been interested in neutrality on R&I and he's gone out of his way to keep information that contradicts his own personal point of view (that "race" is a biological construct and that differences in "intelligence" between races is due to genetic differences between so called "races") out of the article. POV pushing is in itself usually considered a bannable offence, and Jagz is certainly a pov-pusher. I'm at a loss as to why you are so keen to unblock this guy, this is not about Slr's comments, it's about Jagz's conduct. It is not good enough to say "we should unblock Jagz because I think Slr should have been more civil", how does that logic work? Furthermore Jagz himself has said that he has nothing very much to contribute to Wikipedia,[10] and this is backed up by the fact that he has failed to involve himself with any other article since he stopped editing "race" related articles. He's just not interested in contributing in any other way. So why are you so keen? Alun (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alun/Wobble, your own behavior on this is far from clean. If necessary, I will pull up multiple diffs where you engaged in uncivil commentary, using terms such as "nonsense", "claptrap", "ignorant", "troll", etc, but I'd really rather not spend the time trawling through your contribs. Instead, can we just agree that everyone should disengage from Jagz, let him try to edit other articles, and see how it works? If he is genuinely as disruptive and malicious as everyone claims, it'll show up soon enough, and then he can be blocked again. --Elonka 18:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, with all due respect you need to look at what Alun was responding to, which was a combination of two profoundly offensive behaviors that we do not want Wikipedia publically associated with: (1) Jagz' claims that there is scientific evidence that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites combined with (2) Jagz' refusal to provide any evidence to support these claims, when politely asked. As for lifting the indefinite block - I never requested that and this is a matter to take up with others. However, if the indef blck is lifted I believe strongly that Jagz has to be blocked from editing any race-related articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it would be best to provide specific diffs of something like that. But it may be moot, because as to Jagz's editing future, he has said that he will avoid race-related articles for the remainder of the year, and (assuming that the block is lifted) I intend to hold him to that promise. --Elonka 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka seems uninterested in evidence, but for those who are, here is a good representative sample: User talk:Slrubenstein/Jagz Slrubenstein | Talk 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, I am extremely interested in evidence. And the deeper I dig, the more I realize that there are other editors who should perhaps be removed from editing the R&I article. For example, Slrubenstein, here is an example of the kind of language that you have been using with Jagz. Is it your opinion that this is appropriate behavior for an administrator? Because I do not. Even when dealing with a blatant vandal, this kind of language is unacceptable.[11][12] --Elonka 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding the actual discussion at hand? This is not about civility, jagz's or anyone else's, this is about disruption and pov-pushing. Jagz was not blocked due to incivility and no one has claimed that this is the case. You seem to be saying that others should be excluded from the article due to their lack of civility as if this were the same reason that Jagz was blocked, but it is not. Jagz was blocked for disruption and pov-pushing,[13] but your whole defence is to attack other users for not being civil, that's a different question. If you would like to start an AN/I page discussion about the lack op civility on the R&I talk page then I think that would be a fair thing to do and I'm sure you can provide many diffs to support a general lack of civility there. But the issue with Jagz is not the civility or otherwise of any editor on the talk page, it is his long term disruption and pov-pushing. I suggest that your defence of Jagz would be better served to show that he is not disruptive or that he is not pov-pushing, because those are the specific allegations against him. Civility is a different issue, though it's fair to say there has been incivility on the talk page. Let's keep it relevant please. Alun (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, in the spirit of de-escalating this situation, I'd like to ask that you refactor some of your own comments at ANI, specifically this one and this one, which are basically unfounded accusations. If you re-read yourself, you should easily figure out the specific sentences in these posts which need to be refactored. Thanks,--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was careful not to name specific editors, though I think that some reacted strongly because they thought that I was referring specifically to them, regardless of whether or not I was. If anyone does want me to be very specific about my concerns about their behavior, I can spend the time digging up the diffs, but if I do, I'm going to write it up formally, as an official notice about incivility on said users' talkpages. My guess is that most of them don't want that, and that most are well aware of what they've said, and do not need a reminder. Specifically, I would like people to stop with the name-calling, and stop calling Jagz a "troll" and "vandal", since those terms do not apply. If there's evidence that he was deliberately misusing sources, I would be interested in reviewing that, in a format of, "Here's a diff of him adding something with a source, here's what the source said, and look, what he added bore no resemblance to what was in the source." Or if he was deleting sourced information without a plausible explanation, I would be interested in seeing a few diffs of that as well. But ultimately this may all be water under the bridge, since he has agreed to avoid the topic area, and to avoid the talkpages of the involved users. Remember that blocks are preventative not punitive. He has agreed to disengage, and I would like to see the other involved editors do the same. --Elonka 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would welcome an appreciate (really!) you taking the time to show us where "there were multiple disruptive editors, who were pushing for Jagz to be ejected, while other editors with equally bad behavior were not censured or even, as near as I can tell, cautioned", for example. I guess my point is that I'd like the charges to be either substantiated, or dropped altogether. As they stand, they look like innuendo, and I'd rather either be shown where I erred, or be exonerated.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I have posted a thorough response at your talkpage, Ramdrake. If anyone else wants something similar, please let me know. --Elonka 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I have never claimed to be always the height of civility, and if there is a problem with my behaviour then I would encourage you to deal with it appropriately, that is either start a user RfC on my conduct, or report me to AN/I. I am more than happy for than community to examine my behaviour, and I'm more than happy for the community to impose any sanctions it sees fit, civility and AFG are not demands that editors should allow themselves to be treated as doormats, I'm civil when other editors are civil to me, but I call pov-pushing what it is, and when nonsense is talked by people who do not understand what they are saying, then I call it nonsense, as per WP:SPADE. If the community were to decide that I've overstepped the mark then I can accept that and will take any sanction in good faith. I'm not "afraid" or "intimidated" by the community, Wikipedia works on the idea that we are a community of equals, there is no authority here. The point is that this is not about my, or Slr's or Ramdrake's behaviour, it is about Jagz's. It seems to me that your only defence of Jagz is that other editors have been uncivil, but that's not a defence of Jagz. The accusation against Jagz is of continual disruption of the talk page and pov-pushing. Of course other editors have got exasperated with him because of his behaviour, he has deliberately scuppered an attempt at mediation that all other editors on the article were prepared to contribute to,[14] [15] he has also stated that the R&I article went through it's most productive period during February. Take a look at what happened, Jagz decided that the article was good enough after February to remove the NPOV template. Ramdrake asked that we have an RfC to see what the consensus was, there was an overwhelming consensus that the article was not neutral,[16] and yet Jagz claims that this is an exemplary version of the article. Furthermore recently he claimed that the article was essentially complete, even though very few of the problems detailed in the RfC have actually been dealt with. Regarding Jagz himself, I'm relatively ambivalent about his block, if he keeps away from "race" related articles then I see no reason for him to be blocked. On the other hand it seems to me that he couldn't keep away from the talk pages of these articles, he appears to be searching for talk pages to make comments, it was inevitable that he would get blocked when he has nothing better to do than frequent talk pages looking for comments to respond to. I really admire your commitment to mentor Jagz, I think it's an honorable thing for you to suggest and I hope it all goes well. I think you have shown tremendous faith in Jagz and I hope that if I should ever get into a similar situation you would work as hard for me, he's extremely lucky to have you, and Wikipedia is lucky to have someone as selfless as you. I must admit though that I'm more than a little bemused that you have such faith in this man, but your faith may be very well placed and I may just be too jaded. All the best. Alun (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have two different issues here, one in terms of his behavior at the R&I page, and another in terms of his behavior after the R&I discussions. For his behavior at the R&I page, Jagz was topic-banned (told to stay away from R&I) for what was claimed to be POV-pushing. I'm not sure that this assessment of his behavior was accurate, but I have not yet checked the sources for myself, and since he voluntarily agreed to stay away from those pages, I'll support the ban, meaning that he should stay away from those pages. However, after the ban was in place, and even though he was sticking to his word and avoiding those pages, he was still indefinitely blocked, with a reason of, "Long-term pattern of disruptive and tendentious POV-driven editing, capped off by trolling and vandalizing userpages of opposing editors"[17] I do not feel that that block was correct, and that's what I am trying to get overturned. An indefinite block was out of proportion to what he actually did. Sort of like if an editor said, "BS", and I indefinitely blocked them for "incivility, vandalism, and trolling". Perhaps a 24-block for incivility might have been in order. But an indefinite block for "trolling and vandalism"? No. --Elonka 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, but it doesn't explain why you keep mentioning the level of incivility at the R&I talk page with regard to your attempt to overturn Jagz's ban, the level of incivility at R&I was and is irrelevant to his indeff block. He was disruptive on the R&I talk page and he was an tendentious and pov-pushing editor on the article, and no one has disputed this, not even you. No one has ganged up on him at the talk page even though he repeatedly posted unnecessary and irrelevant posts there in apparent attempts to derail constructive discussion. I would have thought that the three examples I provided of this disruption; his sabotage of mediation;[18] his odd comment about the "egalitarian nature" of Wikipedia making the R&I article irrelevant;[19] and his claim that the article is "essentially complete"[20] would suffice as ample evidence of the disruption he caused, though there are plenty more examples to be found. Add to this similar tactics at the Dysgenics talk page diff diff and there's a clear pattern of disruptive behaviour that goes above and beyond incivility, this disruption has got nothing to do with incivility. No one else attempted to disrupt the talk page by making irrelevant or pointless posts on the talk page, the rest of us were far more interested in actually discussing the article and how to improve it and make it more neutral. I really don't understand why you think that repeatedly commenting on Slr, or my or Ramdrake's civility is relevant to Jagz's indeff block, because these are different issues. As far as I can see Jagz was blocked because this repeated disruption and his pov-pushing had led to a lack of faith in his motives, the posts to Mathsci's page was clearly the final straw in a long passage of disruptive behaviour and it was this that finally caused an Mastcell to lose patience with him, a patience that I have rarely seen extended to other editors who display the level of disruption that Jagz did. Furthermore myself, Ramdrake and Slr have all stated at the AN/I discussion that we are not opposed to Jagz's indeff block being lifted as long as the topic ban remains in place, which really does undermine the claim by Jagz that we three in particular, and some other editors in general, have a personal vendetta against him. Alun (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, are you sure this is wise?[21] --Elonka 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein. Good to see that you're back editing! The above kind of micromanagement can be a little puzzling. It seems that the ghost of User:Jagz recently vandalised my user and talk page, just as Jagz did recently. (I think Elonka wrote on that occasion that it was not vandalism, just user:Jagz being humourous; we do now know a little more about his refined sense of humour.) As then, other editors reverted these changes before I even noticed them. They probably did it out of empathy, realising that it might possibly upset me, rather than bring a smile to my face. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, these kinds of comments were personal attacks, and conduct unbecoming of an administrator.[22] Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and avoid this kind of language in the future. Remember that since you are an administrator, other editors look to you to set an example of behavior, so that they can model their own actions after those of the authority figures. This has even been reinforced by ArbCom. Please, try adopt a professional standard of behavior, not just for yourself, but for those junior editors who are looking to you as a rolemodel. Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what kind of language, specifically? I really am confused by your message. I am starting to wonder about your priorities as an administrator. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. No "junior editors", whatever you might mean by that, take administrators as role models. You seem to be harrassing Slrubenstein. Please could you stop? Mathsci (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci, for making a very important point. Elonka's claim that admins are authority figures is in fact anathema to the whole spirit of Wikipedia, and a very dangerous and disturbing claim. Admins are janitors who have certain technical abilities required for general maintenance. Wikipedia itself is a relatively anarchic community in which eveyone is an expert in something, in some way. I really hope Elonka reconsiders the elitist implications of her language and just how corrosive they are to Wikipedia. be that as it may, I still wish Elonka were specific about what "language" she was refering to. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I was specifically referring to your (Slrubenstein's) statement here,[23] calling another editor a "racist troll", and then the assumption of bad faith in questioning how "supportive of the project" the dissenters were, mentioning User:Zero g in particular, and me by implication. There are certain venues where the latter comment about Zero g might be appropriate, such as a User Conduct RfC, ANI thread, or even Zero g's talkpage, but to make a statement like that on the talkpage of a third-party editor (Mathsci), was (in my opinion) inappropriate.

Next, regarding the "admins as authority figures" discussion, I strongly stand by my statement. Administrators are expected to be rolemodels. ArbCom agrees: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Administrator_conduct. It is also true that administrators can take off the admin hat and be "just folks" in certain situations, such as when editing an article. However, even there, administrators are expected to be conscious of their administrator status. This is important: You can try to say that other editors don't regard admins as rolemodels, but it's just not true. And I'm not just saying this as a random comment. Keep in mind that off-wiki, I have been a professional online community manager for over 20 years. I am very familiar with the dynamics of online communities, and am even a public speaker on the topic. Online communities have well-recognized dynamics, one of which is that junior (newer) members of a community will naturally look to the senior (longer-term) members of the community for cues on how to act. This goes triple for anyone acting in a sysop or administrator capacity, both because they are authority figures, and also because many junior members often dream of becoming administrators themselves, and so closely observe the behavior of existing admins, to learn how to conform to the community's expectations.

Lastly, be aware that I didn't even know that you (Slrubenstein) were an administrator, until Mathsci pointed it out, and emphasized that since you were an administrator, your opinion carried more weight.[24] If anything proves that admins are regarded as authority figures, even when not using their tools, his comment should. So please, keep in mind that other editors really are watching what you do and say. It is important that you set a good example. --Elonka 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has raised two issues, first concerning the role of admins, second concerning my statement about Jagz being a racist troll. First, I cannot disagree with you more strongly about admins being authority figures. Wikipedia is an open society in which the only authority figures are Jimbo, for legal reasons, and Arb Com, which has a limited mandate. Admins are given the ability to perform certain technical tasks that are required for the functioning of the community. They should never use these abilities to serve their own interests, and should never claim that their being given certain technical tasks to perform in any way gives them any kind of authority. In fact, I believe that to encourage the view that admins are authority figures does tremendous damage to the Wikicommunity. People new to Wikipedia may look for an authority structure because most people who come to Wikipedia come from highly authoritarian societies. We need to disabuse them of this notion. Wikipedians have few obligations but the very nature of the wikicommunity dmands that its members resist attempts to create authoritarian structures. I have never, absolutely never refered to my status as admin in any dispute with any editor. It is not relevant; I do not make it relevant; those who believe it is relevant are mistaken; those who insist it is relevant are doing damage to the community. In my dealings with Jagz I appealed, as I do with any other disagreement with any other editor, to common sense and wikipedia policies, and nothing more. Conversely, the fact that he was not an admin had no bearing on our conflict either. I know that there are those at Wikipedia who believe that Wikipedians should be divided into classes with different privileges and expectations. What does Elonka mean when she says there are "junior members" of Wikipedia? Anyone can edit at any time; that is all that really counts here and it is a right given to absolutely anyone. What does Elonka mean when she says that there are "junior members" who "dream" of becoming aminds? Does she mean that they dream of having authority or of being authority figures? I hope to high heaven not, because that is not what Wikipedia is about and we should fight any attempt to make it so. If people want to dream of ecoming authority figures they can play Dungeons and Dragons, or they can be active in Everything2 which is sent up to promote explicit levels of authority. Wikipedia is not, which is why I am inactive at Everything2 and am active here. I consider this abhorrent and will oppose it until I leave or am kicked out. Elonka is free to disagree with me but as far as I am concerned she is dead wrong.

Second, Elonka thinks that my calling Jagz a racist troll is a "personal attack" and "incivil." I am confused. Is Elonka saying there are no such thing as trolls? Or is she saying we should tolerate trolls? Wikipedia has long had a guideline, "do not feed the trolls" (WP:DNFTT). Why would we have such a guideline, if there were no trolls? Is Elonka proposing that we do away with the "do not feed the troll" guideline? Well, she is free to write her own essay on the topic. But I have been here a long time and next to people who dig authority trips, trolls are the greatest menace I know of to the project. When a troll is active at Wikipedia it is essential that we identify them and ncourage others not to feed them, which is precisely what I did. Elonka is right that I have been around a long time. If this matters at all to newbies, it can only matter because of what I have learned from experience and what I have learned is how to recognize trolls, and that we should have a zero-tolerance approach to them. I cannot believe that anyone who would call themselves a responsible member of Wikipedia would actually disagree with this view and suggest that we should on the contrary feed trolls. That is just absurd. Are you really saying we should delete WP:DNFTT Elonka?

Also, I called Jagz a racist because every disruption of his was motivated by his insistence on giving prominence to the view that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Sorry, Elonka, but that is racism. And racism is wrong. Do you really believe racism is right, Elonka? Then we have another area where we disagree. But let there be no mistake: ir is racism which is incivil and an attack on others. To criticize someone for racism is to criticize someone for attacking others and for being incivil ... indeed, it is to criticize someone for being worse than incivil. And look, kif we Wikipedians are told to reject incivility, then surely, we should reject racism even more strongly. Do you think Wikipedia should tolerate racism, and allow its pages to be used to promote racism, Elonka?

Finally, Elonka believes that my assertion that people who considered Jagz' calling Mathschi a "fucking bastard" who should "eat shit prick" excusable are not supportive of the project was implicitly aimed at her and inappropriate. Well, what can I say? I honestly was not refering to you, Elonka. However, if you think I was refering to you because you do believe that Jagz' calling Matchsci a fucking bastard who should eat shit prick is excusable, well, then, yes, I do not think you are supportive of the project. Zero G did in fact suggest that this was excusable. I really did not think you considered it excusable, but are you now saying you do? Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to support what Slr says about admins, they are not authority figures and they should not claim to have authority, they should not expect any special deference or treatment (although the norms of Wikipedia behaviour apply obviously). If they do expect special treatment, then they should probably not be admins. Administrators are permitted by the community to undertake some maintenance work on behalf of the community. I have noticed that experienced Wikipedians are often taken more seriously than less experienced Wikipedians, but this is down to a deeper involvement and understanding of the project and not any authority being invested in these editors. Still it has nothing to do with administrative status, there are many Wikipedians with a great deal of experience at editing who have never been admins, and there are good admins with relatively little experience. I will also say that the overwhelming majority of admins I have had experience with have not expected any special treatment, nor have they behaved as if they have any authority or special status, indeed I didn't even know Slr was an admin until quite recently and he never mentioned it even when we were having a very frank exchange of views about a year ago. Most admins are helpful, thoughtful and seem to have ended up as admins because they are genuinely altruistic, though of course there will always be a subset who really are on a "power trip". I will resist any attempt to create different "classes" of editor and the creation of any authoritarian structure here on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

There's a question for you here Talk:Christianity and Judaism -- just rock bottom, please.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Culture GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Culture and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to bible

Per this edit, I was trying to rewrite the sentence to make the creation according to Genesis link a little more obvious. Just linking the word creation doesn't really make sense. Any suggestions? I'm not sure what you meant with your science/mythology comment? I didn't think there was a comparison (or that one was necessary if that is what you meant). The articles I linked to are intimately linked to the bible article, and should exist somewhere in the article. I'm not sure I can think of a better place either. Ben (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, users clicking the word creation will expect to find an article about creation, not a particular creation myth. Per WP:EGG, the sentence needs to be rephrased. It also needs to remove the word the that precedes creation, since this gives the impression there is only one creation myth. I think the version I wrote is clear, it gave useful links to other articles that readers reading this particular section will likely appreciate, but I'm happy to work something else out. Ben (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused

Are you an admin? In the ANI you just posted, you seem to indicate you are. But I've never seen you do anything admin-wise, and your log doesn't show you to be an admin. What gives?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at what he's just posted, yup, he's an admin. His logs have certainly got admin entries in them as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it on the logs. I've seen where he was blocked by certain admins in the past, but I can't see where he got sysopped. Oh well, now I know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has been here a long time - 2001 actually! He doesn't have an RfA page because when he applied to become an admin, there weren't any subpages - people just edited the main RfA page and added their nomination directly, and people commented directly on the RfA page so to find his RfA, you'll have to go through the history of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (it might take a long time though!). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He was made an admin in 2003, and the logs apparently only go back to 2005 or 2004. Well, now I know. Honestly, and it feels like I'm talking behind his back, I've never seen him do anything "admin." I have never seen him make a block, for example. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's actually made quite a number. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there was a time when the way people became admins was this: someone would mention your name as a possible admin on the list-serve. If no one else said "no" and others said it was a good idea, you were made an admin. Ah, but those were the days! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [25].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [26].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for chiming in. FlaviaR (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

R&I

I have a little time to kill, but not much. I keep hoping I'll come back some day and the article will be magically fixed... But I guess one must do a little work to make that happen, no? futurebird (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Desperately Needed Break

SL, honestly, I'm way too committed to a change in jobs, and a change in writing projects. I'm in the middle of trying to get one book out the door, start another, and negotiating for a screenplay. The only reason I got dragged in here was because I perceived Lisa on one page accusing me of trying to promote Messianic Judaism, and I defended my honor -- so to speak. The result was an edit war on a different page -- Shituf.

As far as Shituf is concerned, I only have two isses:

1. The definition we have for Shituf is the definition Christians have for Arianism.
2. Either our definition doesn't do justice to the Jewish intent of Shituf, or Shituf doesn't address Christianity.

Either one is fine, but clarity is helpful. If we wish to claim it applies to Christianity, we should find an existing definition that covers Trinitarianism.

And if one doesn't exist, then we should admit there is a disconnect, and call it a day. Different religions have disconnects all the time.

And my own disconnect is trying to have a life and deal with a pointless edit war. I really don't CARE if there is a disconnect, OR if the definition should be updated. It just makes us look a bit odd to any semi intelligent Christian to claim that there is no disconnect with the current definition.

And with that, I really desperately need a break. I have no problem with Wikipedia, but I do need to get away from a certain editor who is stalking me on other pages.Tim (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) is a coincidence, it does not matter since all we are concerned with is the Jewish POV. (2) is a non-sequitor since Jews believe that shiruf addresses Christianity, and all that matters here is the Jewish point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw a post about this at Tim's page, thought I'd drop by to "reflectively listen" to SLRube.

I want to try to argue for SLRube's approach in a slightly different way, one that may have some room for Tim too.

I think we need to make use of the NPOV.

I think what I'm hearing is that the appropriate way for a neutral encyclopedia to approach the topic is to accept the background common to Judaism and Christianity—one unique Creator.

Shituf applied to Philo and various other views needs to be described first, so a non Jewish reader understands how the word is used to differentiate from Judaism and God-fearing through Shituf to Idolatry.

Now, here's the suggestion. The problem is Jesus. Both Christians and Jews find him problematic.

From the neutral point of view, what does it mean to accept Jesus as distinct from the Creator in some sense, yet the Creator himself in another?

Actually, Islam and most common sense people would think it's just nonsense. That's kind of the NPOV.

From the Jewish point of view, it doesn't matter that it's nonsense, it matters that its not ALL nonsense.

From the Christian point of view, it has to be sense, and that sense is called Trinity, but is mostly asserted, not actually explained.

This is extremely important. Who knows and who cares whether Shituf actually describes how Jesus fits into Christian theology (in the context of a Shituf article this is). Shituf doesn't need to know everything about the doctrine of the Trinity to be correctly applied from a Jewish POV. It is perfectly sufficient for Jesus not to be the Creator, yet to be associated with him. The precise details don't matter, except that the association genuinely includes a claim of divinity for Jesus.

Shituf is an accurate (true) description of Christianity and the Trinity. It is not a precise (detailed) description of the Trinity.

Therefore SLRube is correct. Christianity is Shituf. AND Tim is correct. Even Arianism (which is not Christian) is Shituf.

For any passing logicians:

(S) Trinity → Shituf, but

(T) not(Shituf → Trinity)

(S) is SLRube and (T) is Tim.

BOTH ARE TRUE!

Tim is also right that real Trinitarianism is much worse that Shituf, it is idolatry because Jesus in the Trinitarian, non-Arian sense actually replaces HaShem in a sense, he is "one" with him.

Don't know if that helps. Probably all wrong. Please register your complaints at my talk page, people seem to be queuing up to do that these days. But God bless 'em anyway! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Logic is not the issue here; providing reliable sources for notable views (even ones we think illogical) is the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit easier than that. Judaism came up with the idea of Shituf long ago, and then asked if Jews can practice Shituf (partnership) with Christians, and then asked if that was what Christians thought of with their God. Well, as you said, yes and no. The article doesn't need a huge edit war, or a cabal, or the crashing of two POV armies. I'm even fine with the deletion of the entire Christian view section. I'd just like a definition that covers the Trinity, or a caveat that Christians forbid the idea of inter-divine "partnership" with a "see Arianism" link. The only reason the Christian view got so tendentious in its wording is because of an earlier edit war. Personally, I think that Shituf DOES forbid the authentic Christian view, and that a slightly more careful wording in the definition would remove the need for a caveat. But this edit war will never get us there... Anyway, sorry to clutter up your page SL.Tim (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's inaccurate. Partnership with Christians, as you're talking about, is not called shituf in Hebrew. It's shutafut. They are different terms entirely. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolls

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

I want you to SUFFER this!

Say what?

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

Now wasn't that caveat helpful?

Best,

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

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

God comment on Jesus talk page

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

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

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

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

Bible

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute with user who just reverts & does not use talk

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

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

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

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

Question about a possible Wikipedia article

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

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

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

Ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving Talk:Bible

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

Zero g

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

AfD on Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

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

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

edit conflicts

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

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

Edit war on Sigmund Freud article

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

Crake

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

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

Please e-mail

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

User:Perusnarpk

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

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

Atiyah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution

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

FYI

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

Race and Intelligence revert

Hi. I noticed you reverted my latest edit on the race and intelligence article. I removed a sentence that starts "all commenters agree..." that has been tagged with "citation needed" for at least a month. According to the quote from Jimmy Wales at WP:PROVEIT : "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

I'm new to Wikipedia so maybe I've misunderstood the rules. Could you explain why you reverted my edit, so I will know what to do in the future? Thanks.

Judaism article

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

RfC on Elonka

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

RFC/Elonka

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

Input

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

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

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

Okay, THIS TIME you have me stumped

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

Rat!

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

you are a ...

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

Revert

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

Pointy double post on Elonka's talk

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

Draft

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

Removal of tags

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

Amazing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Error on Talk:Negroid

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

Link

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

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

New antisemitism

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

The topic itself is the creation of a number of academics, and there is opposition from academics also. The views of both sides are represented in the article, all from writers with good academic credentials, and with history of publishing in academic journals. Wikipedia guidelines encourages the use of such sources when they are available [27]

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

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

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

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

What you are saying seems contrary to WP:Reliable sources [28]. It is true that Tariq Ali is notable as an English political activist, but he has no knowledge of antisemitism, or anything else that would qualify him to speak on this issue in a Wikipedia article. I could, at most, see a small mention of him someplace in the article, but not with his photograph and a paragraph placed just below Norman Finkelstein [29], as though he was a scholar who knows something about the subject.

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

The article by Tariq Ali [30] that is the source for the disputed paragraph was not published in the New Left Review, but in CounterPunch and il manifesto. If you read that article, you will see it contains many claims, but no documention and not a single source is cited. I do not see how you can justify using that as the source for a paragraph in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Boyarin- Judaism?

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

RFAR notification

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

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation

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

Survey request

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

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

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

Jesus derivation

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

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

Thanks.

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

Technical question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus BC/AD BCE/CE

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

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

Warning IP Users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely opposite normal admin practice...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Marx

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

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

Policy change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

European ethnic groups

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

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

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

Lwów pogrom (1918)

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

Freud article again: Esterson controversy

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

Ontogeny/Embryology

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

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

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

A good example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date formats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback misuse

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

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

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

Break reply

Dear Slrubenstein,

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

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

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

Acid Throwing report on WP:POVN

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

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

Any comments on what's going on here?

You will be familiar with this I think - [31] and [32] Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this

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

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

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

Editing of Masson article by Esterson

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

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

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

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

Opinion requested

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

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

Opinion requested on Mileva Maric page

Slrubinstein: Could you give your opinion on a difference of views on a posting at the Mileva Maric discussion page? [33] Esterson (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more example

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

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

It's a fairly horrifying piece of POV OR, that's for sure, and it states its agenda up front, which is refreshingly honest, but entirely at odds with policy. That said, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, at least from what I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

talkback

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

Thanks on SP

Sincerely appreciate your level-headed interest on the Palin article. I think you've managed to establish yourself as a dispassionate voice of reason very quickly. Fcreid (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, well done. Frank Fcreid (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not overdone at all, and a discussion long overdue. I can now see where I've been wrong (and occasionally right) during the past month! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin

I've replied at the article talk page.[34] No offense intended.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

ce needed

"My intention was to make clear precisely what you way" •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost in Space

Thank you, Slr. You have initiated A timely and extremely important discussion. A few concerns;

• how do we keep it on point, focussed on the core principles?
• won't it be lost once it is archived? I know it will be there, somewhere, but not as an on-going conversation/lesson for newbies, myself, etc?
• can we whittle it down to a lable-sized paragraph?
• can I make some corrections? (copy/edit)........--Buster7 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka (talk · contribs)

slr, why did everything die out from all of the issues surrounding her retraction of the promise made to the community during her RfA? I know you were making a few points about it, but it just seemed to go away, which is a problem that is annoying about this project. I'm getting concerned about her constant interaction with POV-pushing editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't discuss people without inviting them to the conversation. I recommend blanking this thread, or moving it to a suitable forum and inviting the subject to participate. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin and the Bridges

Hi there. I think the problem with a pure chronological portrayal is that the reader doesn't really know what you're talking about from the first sentence. I thought the section should read like a newspaper article, i.e. first paragraph: these are what the bridges are and their relationship to the subject of the biography; second paragraph: pre-Palin history; next paragraph: what Palin did; last paragraph today. Otherwise, you are saying something about Congress before you even tell readers what the bridges to nowhere are and why they're named that way. For example, on the city council section, the first paragraph says she served 1992-95 and only the second paragraph describes her election. The same is true with the mayor section. I think people are going to come here looking to know what the bridge(s) to nowhere is/are and why they're called that way and its relationship to Palin before they want the nitty gritty. That's my two cents and why the original draft was formulated the way at was. (It was also the subject of substantial compromise, so I somewhat fear the section's redrafting but I'll look at what you're done when you've finished.) One thing that definitely has to go back is the beluga whales. Maybe someone ruined my citation, but it's well cited and several editors wanted it.

On a side note, I just wanted to say that I very much respect your opinion and strongly agree with you about BLP as not allowing verified relevant information to be excised entirely as long as both sides are given.GreekParadise (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I responded on my talk page.GreekParadise (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned again at Arb

This time you are accused of being my and Malik Shabazz' sockpuppet, an "extremist editor" and are likened (as all three of us are, to terrorists. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting me in your edit summary

I really, really do not like that you've put me in your edit summary as suggesting your edit. I oppose your edit. You would know that if you had discussed your edit at the talk page before making it. Please make a correction.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the Palin article

While that article is undoubtedly saddled with numerous unreasonably critical editors with an ax to grind, I am deeply troubled at what I see as a trend favoring the exclusion from the main bio article of any material deemed to be critical of Palin, on the supposed grounds that it violates some Wikipedia policy on the nature of BLPs, the subcategorization of more specific articles, or various NPOV-related arguments. I can't help getting the impression of an ongoing attempt to whitewash that article.

I wanted to commend you on serving as a bulwark against that trend. I wish that I had the energy to keep it up, but the ongoing battle is quite dispiriting and it looks like very dirty work.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think I value your attitude toward the issue. I cannot say I am without a POV on the subject, and have been careful in my edits to avoid inserting it into the article. I think a lot of people share this goal. But there are also those instances where it appears NPOV is simply interpreted as "no point of view" or otherwise used to remove material that somebody may find controversial, regardless of whether it is relevant and well-substantiated. It's quite maddening. Anyway, keep up the good work. Insofar as I have the time and mental energy, I'll be checking in periodically on the article content and commentary, contributing if I have anything to offer.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving you're opinion on the Bullshit section, in Talk:Sarah Palin. Sorry I couldn't be around to give further comments, but life only affords me an hour or so a day by the computer. I try not to involve myself in long concensus debates, especially those which degrade into petty wording battles, but try to linit myself to "a point in the right direction" type comments, or to deflecting some of the more blatant rumors. Anyways, Thanks again.Zaereth (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and you'e right, some people do start off antagonistic, and intend to remain that way. I see little point in arguing a specific viewpoint to no end. I say my peace, and those who will listen do, and those who won't ... don't. I think the ability to compromise is lost on some. You and I, I believe, may differ greatly on our opinions, but we can still be civil about it. I do believe, ideally, if people would commit to policy, then yes, the article would greatly improve. I'm no expert on policy however, (as you corrected me on in previous edits), and while I have backed off on my 'way to hard' stance on including opinions, I still think policy should be against wild conjecture, no matter where it came from. (ie: The notion that Alaskans are so removed that we don't even know what achille's heel mean, simply because she avoided a question). I know conjecture can't be ruled out completely, or there would be no articles on gravity, or particle physics, or astronomy. But there should be a line somewhere ... Still, I glad to see there is someone else who works toward compromise rather than against it.Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that erroneous rule-pulling on the Palin article. I thought what I described about the "source citation" was the expected conduct on talk pages. Didn't realize it had much more limited scope. In my defense, part of my confusion about Wiki rules is that if I can't remember which sub-article a particular policy topic is under, I can never find it ever again. Is there any way in which you can "search" Wikipedia policies, other than Google?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please enable your email, or mail me

I think it would be beneficial to have a conversation but it appears you do not currently have your email enabled. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: checkuser

Well, keep in mind that in many cases the policy being violated is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or something of that sort, where there isn't any direct evidence of a violation unless the accounts are demonstrated to be sockpuppets; so we could only ask for evidence of a potential policy violation, not evidence of an actual one. But that may be just semantics.

As far as the substance of your idea goes, I see several issues with it:

• In some cases, the evidence driving the check is itself private, and simply cannot be posted on-wiki.
• Some requests come to us privately not because the evidence requires privacy, but because the party being accused is sufficiently influential that the accuser is afraid to voice their concerns publicly, for fear of being harassed over it.
• In some cases, we do not make the fact that someone is guilty public, at least not initially. When admins have been caught abusing sockpuppets in the past, for example, it has been traditional to offer them the opportunity to quietly resign rather than being publicly humiliated. Whether that approach is the best one is obviously a subjective question; but it has been the normal operating procedure in the past.
• The biggest issue, however, is that what you're proposing won't really give you what you want. Suppose we have accounts A and B, which are suspected of being sockpuppets. If we check B and find a connection to a third account, C, then we'll quite likely run checks on C as well. But if we were to reveal that we've done so, we would be violating the privacy policy by divulging the connection between B and C (particularly if it turned out that the connection was not indicative of a sanctionable violation of policy); and if we were not to reveal it, then you'd still have the problem of a check being run against C without being documented anywhere.

Kirill ^(prof) 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two obvious examples come to mind:

• Oversighted edits
• External correspondence that's been forwarded to us

As far as general ideas go, I don't think it's really an active topic of discussion. It's not something that's easy to propose reasonable solutions for; I'm not sure if there is a good way of having more transparency in the general case without greatly limiting the usefulness of the tool for investigating anything more complex than the most obvious sockpuppetry. Kirill ^(prof) 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mesta

Hello Slrubenstein! The best I could find was:

• KLEIN, Julius (1920), The Mesta: A Study in Spanish Economic History, 1273-1836, Harvard University Press.

I know it is not exactly recent... but I do hope it may help. Here's a link to the full text in pdf (I think!). Enjoy!! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci block

Mathsci made outrageous accusations on a previous incident thread that is now archived, preventing me from responding to them. In that thread he attempted to “out” me. Subsequently he attempted again on my “talk” page to out me.

It seems Mathsci does not understand copyright law as applied to U.S. Government documents. Nobody can acquire a copyright on any material published in a U.S. government document simply by quoting or paraphrasing it in a book published by a commercial publisher. The material remains in the public domain as public property. No publisher is going to come after anyone for reprinting material that is in the public domain, and nobody else has legal standing to do so.

Your unblocking was premature. There was a pattern.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following on Mathsci's talk page. Cross-post here since I think it's important.

Slrubenstein - you're plain mistaken about harassment, and you didn't check with the blocking admin who might know more than you do on this. Sorry. But everything in that policy states that even one incident, if serious enough, is to be treated seriously. You haven't checked Mathsci's record as Charles has; you didn't consider the blocking admin might know matters that you don't; you didn't read the long standing wording of the policy you cited, but merely the first few lines. In fact, Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information has a long standing consensus of the community, that's very blunt and very simple: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious [example snipped], attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Thats a well established communal consensus.

Please do not unblock without consulting with the blocking admin next time. This is not the first unblock I'm aware of where you didn't, and found you were not in fact aware of the case sufficiently to make a good decision. Please do be careful to check carefully in future, to avoid any more.

FT2 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I say that I think you have done everything wrong in your unblock? I'm in the UK, and sleep at night. You owe me a consultation before unblocking. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)