User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 21

Thank You

"Nation at war" is indeed a good way to look at such books. Zeq 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New book

Accidental Empire: Israel And the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 by Gershom Gorenberg ISBN 08050-7564-X Publisher: Henry Holt and Co Publish Date: 07 March, 2006 Binding: Hardcover , 384 pages

Wikipedia and radio Islam

Hi Fred,

If, at the end of the day, articles on the issue of nakba that apear in Wikipedia bear striking similarity to article on the same subject that apear in Radio islam we would have a problem ?

maybe it is time to make the article NPOV ? an effort that has been attempted for nearly 3 years and it seems not only getting better but getting worse . Zeq 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration case

Thanks so much for the note. Nevertheless that's not actually what I requested. I requested a review on whether the case was properly opened, since my right to submit a statement was suspended when the case was opened. I can't pretend the workshop and other procedures have not been proceeded, to submit a statement for the purpose of responding to the opening request. — Insta ntnood 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it's pragmatic, but that's not quite logical. In what way one could respond to a case, when whether the case was properly open, and justice of the arbitration mechanism, is contested? — Insta ntnood 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCU—anybody home?

Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. Radio Kirk talk to me 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators are discussing this. The arbitrators themselves seem to be too busy and we are having trouble deciding on anyone else to do it. Fred Bauder 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks :) Radio Kirk talk to me 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Bill of attainder article

Fred: Please review this article [1] for the Bill of attainder Wikipedia article. I am a banned user. Can this go onto Wikisource or is it permissable for the External Links section of the BoA article to link to my site? Mr. Reynolds and the Law Review indicate the only regular attribution to the Reivew is requested for "fair use" of the article. I also see some ideas I like in an older version of the article: [2] but I am in need of assistance if those ideas are to be incorporated in the article. It is St. Patrick Day. Could you just look the other way about the fact that I am a banned user and see if there are any valid points in that version that can be incorporated into the current version of the article? Thanks. AWM -- 209.172.114.3 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not organized right for a Wikipedia article; it should start off with a definition. I don't do Wikisource, but if I were editing the article might make a link to it. It is well done. I doubt fair use would do for Wikisource. I haven't followed the events which led to your banning, so I'm not familiar enough to make an exception. As to editing it myself, I'm too busy and not familiar enough with the subject, although I am interested in similar abuses. Fred Bauder 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user

Fred, FYI, I'm deleting an edit made to your talk page by a banned user who has engaged in serious harassment of the person his edit is about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking to him, Fred. I hope it helps both him and the situation here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged rape victim

Hi. I saw your name at the top of the Arbitration Committee List, and I need your help with a user who is repeatedly deleting images from the article on an alleged rape victim, using extremely irrational and non-NPOV articles that I have succesfully refuted. The user, Tufflaw, refuses to respond directly my refuations of his/her fallacies, preferring instead to simply repeat them over and over, deliberately ignoring my responses to them. I tried placing an arbitration request on the appropriate page, but I'm not sure that I did it correctly. What should I do? Should I contact just you, or all the Committee members? Thanks. Nightscream 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser Assistance

Hello, I feel I need some assistance. A user placed my userid in for a CheckUser here Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#PoolGuy_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_GoldToeMarionette_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. I am not a very advanced user of Wikipedia, however after reading the green box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser there appears to be no reason for User:Jayjg to complete the investigation.

I am not sure if I have any Wikipedia Rights, however I feel as if they have been violated. I could understand if I had been acting to violate Wikipedia Policy, however I have not been, contrary to whatever the user who filed for the CheckUser wrote.

I would appreciate it if you would review this and comment back to me. Thank you. GoldToeMarionette 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the checks on the Gastrich socks. I know he's made a lot of work for people, I guess that's why the arbcom ruling looks like it's heading for a long block. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IAMthatIAM

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Thanks, Fred, I'll bear that in mind if he comes back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Message at Mushroom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am the wife of Danny_B._(usurped) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)], as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer Wiki alf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [3] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [4] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [5], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (MrDarcy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arniep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [nil :Lochdale] ([[User talk::Lochdale|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Func (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DropDeadGorgias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia_B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citation needed

And what about this one? User:Piotrus, who declared that to him referencing is more important than content, randomly picks up articles on Russian history and applies tags on whim here and there, asking for detailed references for common knowledge, e.g., that the Romanov dynasty came to power as a result of a patriotic popular unprising, even in those articles that were taken from Encyclopaedia Britannica or from Library of Congress Studies. See his edits on Muscovy, for instance, an article taken from the Library of Congress Studies, penned by the best scholars, and which he discards as unreferenced. Those who disagree with him he accuses of vandalism and reverts using a rollback button, yet when his own articles are tagged this way he also calls it "vandalism" and cites WP:POINT as a pretext to rollback. I believe we need a policy on the use of uglifying tags - when they are useful and when it's little more than pestering. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not reply on Ghirla's talk page, because he has the habit of deleting all comments from his talk page that don't suit him, but I'll gladly explain it here, as you seem to be involved in the case. Ghirla abuse of {fact} (not only here, but also here, just to name another example) was clearly a WP:POINT done in bad faith. Notably he targeted the lead, tagging every single fact - including both facts referenced in the article or simply obvious (Renaissance in Poland [was related to] Polish culture], and as you can see in the Renaissance article he also vandalised the external link section, removing it for no reason. My use of fact template in the Kievan Rus' is different, as I explained on the talk page (note that Ghirla didn't bother to use the talk page of articles he edited to explain his use of fact template). I acted in accordance with my understanding of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check: when I was reading this article, this para jumped out on me as having a lot of unreferenced but strong claims, so I tagged it in places where inline citations would be useful. If you look at the article now, every single one of my templates have been replaced by an inline citations (some of them I found myself), and the article is much better referenced now that it was before. Unlike Ghirla, who - being a great content creator, without any doubht - almost never provides any references for his articles (or what's worse, reverts), I try my best to properly reference my work (as the 17 FAs I particopated in writing illustrate, most recently the Katyn massacre, which I think is one of the best referenced article Wikipedia has at the moment). Therefore I'd appreciate it if you would rething your comparison of my edit to his being 'just as bad'. The last thing we need is for senior Wikipedians to support his POV and uncivil actions, and as - for good or worse - Ghirla is a very active editor, he is already using your edit as an ammunition against me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, to answer your, I would call them frivolous, fact templates (7 in one short paragraph!) at Kievan Rus, I spent half a day, filling up cite:book, cite-web, etc fields instead of creating content. This was just in order to answer your calls to "support with sources" the info that any schoolchild in RU and UA knows and what's written in the plain view in EB or could have been googled in 5 minutes if you were interested just in the info rather than in using fact as a tool to disprove something.

Fred, I tried to raise the issue of ethics of behavior in connection with fact template at this talk page. A comment from a respected editor like yourself would be very much appreciated. Too many users started to use tricks like "fact" or image copyright issues in content disputes. It is extremely tempting and disrputive because any number of "fact" can be added to any article at any time by a pestering user. Ideally, we would need a guideline for using "fact" and "dubious" templates. I hoped the issue I raised would draw wider attention. Should a separate project be started? Please take a look. --Irpen 08:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained there (and also at Talk:Kievan_Rus'#Common_sense_in_tags_demanding_for_refs, and I believe Ipren's talk page), what is 'known to any schoolchild in RU and UA' is not known to 99% of en-wiki users, and 'what's written in the plain view in EB or could have been googled in 5 minutes' and is not referenced at Wiki is simply not referenced. Especially if EB requires paid access, and who is to say what is googled in 1, 5 or 20 minutes and where do we draw the line? As with everything on wiki, various people tag various things, and some will abuse any tool, but in the end every single fact in any article should be referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This may be of intrest: [13].

btw, about the book: I never cared much about history, careabout the future. What bother me most is that people distored the past to gain the ability of shaping the future in a strongly biased way. At the end of the line the issue is Right to exist (which is also at the core dispute between what I see as your view and mine). Articles such as Nakba are just another attempt to lay the "historical background" to deny israel's right to exist. Zeq 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:IAMwhatsIAM

Hi Fred, the new LaRouche account has turned up again, previously as IAMthatIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now as IAMwhatsIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He renominated Jeremiah Duggan for deletion, and has tried to enlist support from Herschelkrustofsky, NathanDW, BirdsOfFire (all LaRouche editors) and Everyking. I've blocked him for 24 hours for vandalism, and left a note on his talk page saying that he's likely to be blocked indefinitely if he continues in the same vein. [14] I'm thinking of using the provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not ... to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." Please let me know if you have any thoughts about this. Also, Herschelkrustofsky started a thread about it here on WP:AN/I. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. I'm going to block the account indefinitely, rather than put up with more disruption. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Landmark against Internet abuse

Thought that you might care to look at these UK reports. Things are moving across the pond:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2096902,00.html IT Week, and The Guardian, both 22 March 2006, http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html?gusrc=rss

Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Dear Mr. Bauder,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [15]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [16].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bauder

Your banning of rajputs from the rajput has given a field day to muslims and there leaders, Bachman in fabricating lies about hindu rajputs. Is this really justice? Note they have no references still to support a single claim they are making. Please unban all rajputs so that this article does'nt become Islamic jihaad propaganda as these muslims are expert in doing. DPSingh 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are expected to edit responsibly regardless of whether you are there or not. Fred Bauder 13:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Right to exist"

Hi Fred,

I have no doubt that the Palestinian people is the biggest looser from the establishment of Israel.

There are many ethnic groups, which has been marginalized throughout history and had to find a mew home. This is not fair and not right but it is what took place. (I am not trying to justify, just putting in perspective). Many nations have almost disappeared as a result (American Indians in US, Tibetian in Tibet etc..)

History would be very different if Amin al-Huseeinei would not be an anti-Semite and pro-Nazi. I am sure that if in the 1937-1939 Palestinians would not object Jewish immigration but welcome it there would not have been a need for the 1947 UN resolution for a Jewish state. Palestine would become a bi-national state, with Palestinian/Arab majority.

But now, let's look at from the other side: Does it make sense not to have a state for a people who have persecuted all over the world ?

I think there is.

All over this world there are bigger tragedies than those of the Palestinian people. Everyone know the Palestinian exodus but a big exodus of Palestinians (about 400,00) were kicked out Kuwait in one week in 1991 but no one mention this. In Darfur there is a massacre that goes on for over 2 years. In Congo in every month more people are killed than in al the Intifada and no one care.

There is a lot of hyporacy both on the right and on the left. No one can claim to be "native" to anyhwere except those of us who still live in one carter in Africa where the human race originated.

Zeq 09:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]