User talk:IjonTichyIjonTichy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! IjonTichyIjonTichy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Your addition to Janine R. Wedel has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. This was the first time I created a new wikipedia article.
In the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, I re-edited the article and inserted links to the book reviews instead of the original text of the reviews. Again, I appreciate the feedback.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Zeitgeist Movement. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info.
Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

It might be good to read about the three-revert rule. It's not obvious how it works, and it's possible to violate it by mistake. Tom Harrison Talk 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Input?[edit]

Though we disagree about some things (though maybe not so many as you may think), I'd welcome your perspective at Talk:LaRouche movement. Tom Harrison Talk 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see my numerous responses to your actions and comments on The Zeitgeist Movement talk page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

So, what the crap are you doing? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving the TZM article to prepare it for dispute resolution. Please see the recent (last several days) postings on the talk page of the TZM article for further details. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Technological unemployment[edit]

I read this article while it was still the Luddite Fallacy page. I fail to see how the Zeitgeist movement has any bearing here. I just wanted to refer someone to a page that explains the Luddite Fallacy. I'm not sure if these pages should be merged. And Zeitgeist films are hardly credible sources.

Apologies for not following talk page protocol I'm not sure how to add to a discussion. (User:ZombiePriest) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

The three Zeitgeist films (Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) have not been used as sources in the article on Luddite fallacy.
(As you know, the article on Luddite fallacy is automatically re-directed to Technological unemployment). Looking at the list of references of Technological unemployment, and focusing only on the sub-section regarding The Zeitgeist Movement, I only see references to journal and newspaper articles, and three videos. These three videos are listed below.
The Zeitgeist Movement seems to believe that technological unemployment is a very serious problem. They seem to reject market-based approaches to the problem of technological unemployment. Instead, they suggest a new kind of a global economy: Resource Based Economy (RBE).
For more details on The Zeitgeist Movement's proposed solutions to technological unemployment, you may want to view the three videos below --- the two RT TV interviews with Peter Joseph as well as the documentary by New Future Media:
Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Sept. 14, 2011
Further discussion of Zeitgeist ideas, Russia Today, Dec. 2, 2011
Short (38 min) documentary on proposed solutions to technological unemployment, New Future Media, April 14, 2012.</ref>
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear ZombiePriest and OpenFuture, your comments deserve a response. However, your comments should be posted on the talk page of Technological unemployment, to allow all editors of that page an opportunity to view and respond to your comments. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort; let's use this community component. You may want to copy and paste your comments from this talk page to the Technological unemployment talk page, so that the discussion can continue there. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your work[edit]

Hi IjonTichyIjonTichy, Thank you for your work on the TZM article, by the way, I have some userboxes on my page userpage that you may like. you can also use it if you want. ;) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'll definitely take a look at your userpage. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Resource-based economy. And yes, I like your userboxes and am now using some of them in my user page. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning about personal attacks, May 2012[edit]

Personal attacks; like accusing several editors of immaturity or laziness are against wikipedia policy and can lead to you getting blocked or banned. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry and I apologize. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate on improving future articles. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Translations of foreign-language articles[edit]

By the way neither Wikipedia:Translation or Wikipedia:PAIC apply to your translating a source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
Are you sure that WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations does not apply to my translating a source? This WP policy says: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate."
Can you please explain how this policy does not apply to my translating a source?
As I indicated previously regarding the other WP policy, Wikipedia:Translation, yes, I agree it does not apply directly to my translating a source, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources into English. However, as I wrote previously, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language quotations). WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.) In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English.
Are you indicating that my conclusion that WP calls for assuming good faith in WP editors when it comes to translations is incorrect? Could you please explain.
As I wrote previously, I currently don't see a problem with using a WP talk page as the physical location to store the translation. (If I'm wrong on this, please let me know.) One of the editors on the talk page of resource-based economy repeatedly claimed that because I've stored the translation on a WP talk page, then the translation is a WP article, and WP articles cannot be used as sources. I explained in response that storing a (translation) of a source on a WP talk page does not turn the source into a WP article, and that the only issue of importance is the reliability and quality of the source (and verifiability, etc.), not the source's physical storage location. Again, if WP policies indicate that I'm wrong on this, could you please explain?
I'm puzzled. If both WP policies above don't apply to my translating a source, then which WP policy does apply?
I'm relatively new to WP and thus am relying on much more experienced and savvy users, like yourself, to provide necessary guidance and insights.
Thank you for your work and for providing feedback, and I look forward to hearing from you soon; at the present time, I would like to continue to move this article to WP:ANEW.
(Any feedback/ insights that you may be able to provide on WP:ANEW in general and WP:ANEW in particular for resource-based economy would also be greatly appreciated.)
Warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand it the WP:PATC is discussing quotations in an article and not the translation of a source. Also I think that posting that translation is a copyright violation, I'm just going to look into it. Non English sources may be used as a reference. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears that translating is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7#Can translations of works be used without violating copyright? CambridgeBayWeather (talk)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll remove the full translations from the talk page of resource-based economy, the talk page of Peter Joseph, and the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.
It seems that based on WP policy on Foreign-language quotations), I can still use the original (foreign-language) sources to support my WP article edits, as long as I provide translations of quotations of the specific (foreign-language) sentences or paragraphs I'm using in support of my WP edits? Is that a correct assumption? (Of course, I understand that I'll also need to fully abide by the other requirements of the WP policy such as explicitly distinguishing quotations that are translations from those that are not, indicating the original source of a translation and the original language, and providing a reference to the original, untranslated text.)
I'm grateful for your feedback, insights and guidance. I'm learning a lot from you.
Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The information you want is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. SO It appears that unless you are using a quote in the body of the article you don't need the translation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. Yes, I studied and re-studied both of these WP policies several times before I began the process of citing and quoting from the two Hebrew sources on RBE ...
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring.[edit]

One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that we don't know who you are, and what you know and if what you say is true or not. And that goes for everyone. That means we all have equal amounts of say, and we all have to listen to each other and approach the topics with out eyes and ears open. We also need to understand that quite often we are simply wrong. I am wrong, you are wrong. We have to listen to what everybody else is saying, or we will run into a wall with our edits, and get nowhere. If we don't listen to others, they will not listen.

The articles on TZM and TVP and related topics all suck, and Wikipedia badly needs more expertise on the subject.

Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement, Technological unemployment and Resource-based economy. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you in the future. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to WP:DRN, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

Outline of automation[edit]

Dear Transhumanist, is it OK to add a section titled 'Social movements' to Outline of automation? The Technocracy Movement, The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project all advocate for applying semi- or fully automatic systems to provide for all human needs - for example in food growth and production which will take care that no one would go hungry, in automatic construction, transportation, healthcare, etc ... In the view of these 3 movements, automated labor should be perfected and implemented on a mass scale globally, eliminating all mundane jobs that insult human capacity when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively, freeing humans to do more creative work (and/or less work). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, all improvements are welcome. I look forward to seeing your contributions. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! I've added the section. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Nicely done. You inspired me to add annotations. Please take a look and make any corrections or completions needed. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice job Transhumanist. One correction -- the Technocracy Movement seem to still be active, they apparently have a well-maintained website.
Your work inspired me to add more to the outline (when I have time in the next few weeks/ months). Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring[edit]

Ijon, you no doubt mean well, but you shouldn't refactor your own comments at WP:DRN after others have responded to them. See WP:REDACT. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. I was not aware it was not proper, and I was not aware of WP:REDACT. I will study the policy and abide by it. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article about Zeitgeist movement[edit]

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post on my talkpage page. I've been off line for a while. WP email does not allow attachments, so if you want the article from the Journal of Contemporary Religion, you need to send me an email via the wikipedia email system and then I will reply to it with the article. You can send me an email from my user page by clicking "email this user". --Slp1 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Dear User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, I would like to ask you if you can translate the article Israel Tsvaygenbaum from English to Hebrew. Thank you. Sincerely, Boxes12 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Done. Thank you for the survey. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

czesc[edit]

Siemasz, Ijonie, jak leci? Co slychac od Tarantogi? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Staszek, how are you? I hope you are doing well. I've enjoyed reading almost all of Lem's books over the last 3-4 months or so. I've just finished The Futurological Congress and made a minor contribution to the WP article. Lem is definitely one of the very best authors I've read in my lifetime. I've enjoyed his books very much, they are very important books, serious and funny at the same time, and I wish I've read them much earlier in my life. On the other hand, if I would have read them when I was younger, I would not have fully appreciated them then, because for me at least, I'm able to appreciate Lem's work much better now, after accumulating some personal life experiences, etc ... Is your WP user name Staszek after the main character in Hospital of the Transfiguration? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello.[edit]

Regarding climate change (global warming) as “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” (Stern Review) in the Naomi Klein article, please see Talk:Criticism of capitalism#Market failure paragraph. Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down may be of interest too. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I posted a comment. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon, I second OpenFuture's warning and have commented at WP:DRN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fair warning OF and Bbb23. Please note I've already apologized to Andy. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Doing an endless series of attacking and then apologizing does not cut it IjonTichyIjonTichy. Being insulting and then praising, over and over, is still disruption and attacking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. Believing in good faith that you violated WP policies (followed by explaining in public why you did not) is not normally defined as an attack or an insult on WP. It is normally considered strictly an editorial dispute, not an attack nor an insult. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You have no idea when others are telling you that you are attacking others. I see. Must be a communication breakdown. The consensus is that you are attacking others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but calling it an "endless series" is a bit too much IMO. He has done it a couple of times. IjonTichyIjonTichy: You need to stop getting angry, and stop taking arguments personally. Criticizing TZM is not a personal attack on you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A couple means two. I think not. Good luck on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
[2] --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to xkcd, it's a fun read. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Also discussion[edit]

I don't know who you have posted the message about the See Also discussion, but if you didn't post to everyone, it's called canvassing, and is frowned upon. The best place to post something like this would be on the dispute resolution discussion, rather than on individual editor's talk pages, so that everyone with a vested interest can participate. VanIsaacWScontribs 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have no intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion towards any one side of the debate. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacking[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia [3] Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You display incredible audacity in accusing me of attacking you, when it is you who has been obsessively, repeatedly, relentlessly attacking me. See wp:Boomerang. Please do all editors (including yourself) a favor and develop some awareness and WP:COMPETENCY. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion, try to focus on the subject of an article and not editors, and your opinions of them. The name calling things automatically are a non starter [4] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree we should focus on the subject and not on editor. But you need to stop wasting people's time with a discussion of user's own pages, because all editors are able to read user pages and don't need you to mollycoddle and shepherd them. I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Wikipedia editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. You finally removed the mention of RBE in the article, and thus credit and praise to you for finally listening to me, after you wasted many, many hours of my, your, and everybody else's time in attacking me for explaining, beginning several months ago, why the term RBE should be removed. But you agreed with Andy on everything else, regretfully, and contribued several comments offensive to other editors and to the subject of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR - edit warring[edit]

The Zeitgeist Movement - WP:3RR warning - Youreallycan 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

Hi Ebe123, you wrote "There is a ArbCom request for Youreallycan, so this should be referred there." I'm not familiar with ArbCom. I read everything on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and I don't understand how this relates to the DRN you closed. Where can I find the ArbCom request for YRC? How is the ArbCom request related to the DRN? Is the ArbCom going to make a decision related to YRC, and how is that going to affect the DRN? (If you could answer on my user talk page it would be great.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom can make decisions on it, and here's the link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. The DRN and ArbCom are both to resolve disputes, but arbcom does it by making binding desisions, while DRN makes consensus finding easier. The ArbCom desision will not affect DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ebe123. Your response is most helpful. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Ebe123 may misunderstand Arbcom; they action on long term conduct issues and explicitly do not address content problems. So any content discussions should be resolved in the relevant forums. If there is a user conduct issue associated with the content dispute then this might be relevant to any arbcom case - but addressing the content issue should take priority. --Errant (chat!) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For me, the dispute seemed to be attached to conduct. And I was not ignoring the request. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ebe123, Prioryman wrote that following discussions between him, YRC and Anthonyhcole, it seems that a solution has been worked out. Where can I find these discussions? I could not find them at the archive. (Kindly please respond on my own talk page.) Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy that a solution has been found, and you may search the archives (there's a search box on WP:DRN). Please do not edit it though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Prt YRC & the block evader ATG (TW)"[edit]

Should have been, "Per YRC & the block evader ATG" YRC - YouReallyCan ATG - Andythegrump. Both are experienced editors with a very good eye for editing, so if both of them were reverting you then you need to take it to the talk page rather than editwar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I will respond to your comment on the talk page of the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

Unless these people are dead[5] I recommend you self revert right now. And I am not at all happy with the way you got around the Examiner being on the blacklist. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [6] [7] [8] [9] --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I firmly believe you are responsible for initiating the attacking, and I'm only responding in kind to your attacks. Furthermore, you fully supported AndyTheGrump in his wholly erroneous, misguided attack on TZM and on a subset of Wikipedia editors. You are only motivated by good faith and are only driven by a strong desire to help and improve wikipedia. But perhaps your desire is too strong and you are too emotionally involved in this article, because your edits and comments are not productive to the development of the article. And you continue to attack me for mistakes I made as a newbie, among many other ways, all un-justified, that you continue to attack me. Credit and praise to you for disagreeing with Andy on his labeling TZM, and several WP editors, as members of a cult. But you agreed with him on everything else, regretfully. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My userpage[edit]

Glad you like them, but there is no story about them. I just went through the category of featured images at commons for images with a 800 × 600 pixels size. Then, I made them random (You get 1 chance per 163 for 1 specific image). The list of images is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ebe123/images&action=edit . ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to request for comment[edit]

Hello

In reference to your posting on my Talk Page here is the section on internal links from the Manual Of Style.

What generally should not be linked

OVERLINK

An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.[1] Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking:

everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the context;

the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions;

units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units;

Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on.

REPEATLINK

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

I've highlighted in bold the MoS sentence that covers internal linking to Countries. Thank you for the feedback; the Sumo article is very well written and very informative.

Sluffs (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sluffs. This is informative and helpful. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Zeitgeist movement[edit]

By consensus of the community, you are topic banned from editing pages on Wikipedia related to the Zeitgeist movement to include articles, article talk pages, user and user talk pages, Wikipedia space, and all other namespaces. You may not engage other editors on this topic. This topic ban is broad in scope which means that it also includes related 'movements' and biographies of proponents and opponents. The scope of the ban should not be misunderstood to be limited to what I have outlined. You are to avoid any appearance at all of violating this topic ban. If you have questions about the topic ban or wish to appeal, you may contact me on my talk page, as I am an uninvolved admin. I will forward any reasonable questions to the community for consideration. You are strongly advised to reconsider your approach to interaction with the community including taking more care to understand the arguments of those opposed to your opinion.

To quote AndyTheGrump:

it includes everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi TP, regarding the topic ban, how can I appeal it. The accusations against me are based on a mixture of (a small portion of) truth mixed in liberally with (a much larger portion of) half-truths, omissions, falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, misrelations and misstatements of my edits and my comments. This community discussion aimed at passing sanctions is plagued by bias where argumentation from editors with personal biases against me, due to previous interactions and perceptions about my views on editorial disputes regarding the TZM article, have lead uninvolved editors to support the arguments of the biased editors, due to a perception that multiple editors raising the same concerns is ipso facto evidence of misconduct. I've been railroaded by this community discussion about my conduct and given excessive and unnecessary restrictions that have a damaging effect on my willingness to contribute as they directly generate feelings of futility and persecution. I've been viewed through a biased spectrum that leads to my conduct being treated more seriously than the same conduct from other editors. Some of my contributions represent a far less popular view within the editing community and society at large, leading to my receiving considerably heavier sanctions than would be given to editors that represent more popular views. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to appeal, you may use the "E-mail this user" feature and outline, with diffs provided, why you believe the accusations are not true. However, I'm not willing to entertain any discussion about the movement itself or other people's behaviors. The email should pertain strictly to how your behavior has been misrepresented.--v/r - TP 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll try one last effort to reach out to you, because I'm a nice guy with infinite amounts of hope in humanity. :-)
It's admirable that you stand your ground and believe in yourself, IjonTichyIjonTichy. But this decision was unanimous. When everyone agrees that you are wrong, don't you think it's time to seriously consider the possibility that maybe you are wrong, instead of blaming the problem on everybody else?
In your comment above you claim that seventeen people are all misinterpreting, misrepresenting and misstating your comments and actions. All in the same way. How is it possible that seventeen individuals who has nothing to do with each other misunderstand you and your behavior in exactly the same way? Do you really think that's possible? Doesn't it seem like maybe in fact *you* are the one misunderstanding something? Isn't that at least worth considering? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OpenFuture, IjonTichyIjonTichy is now topic banned from discussing this issue including on user talk pages. Do you think it's appropriate to engage them on it immediately after the ban takes effect? I do not think you mean it, but this could easily be construed by IjonTichyIjonTichy as an attempt to provoke him to test the topic ban which would result in his block. Please just disengage. If you want to discuss it with him, I suggest email.--v/r - TP 21:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. In any case, I'm not attempting to discuss the topic with him, but the ban, which I think is quite clear from above. Or well I'm not attempting to discuss anything, I don't expect or even desire him to answer, I want him to think about why he got banned. Anyway, I will keep to email in future cases, or maybe simply keep quiet. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all productive. The best thing you can do right now is leave him alone. There are two sides to every story and his behavior is the sole cause of his topic ban; however, it is not necessarily the sole cause of the dispute between him and everyone involved. Do not think for a moment that he is the sole problem and that his topic ban vindicates everyone else. I am sure he has plenty to say about everyone's behavior that he cannot now. Just back off. What you are doing is grave dancing. Please go away.--v/r - TP 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will go away. You are wrong, but that's irrelevant. I wasn't aware that he isn't allowed to discuss the ban itself. Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for WP:DE and violating topic ban, see WP:ANI discussion.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Essay = Good Read[edit]

Yup. Really enjoyed it. Primergrey (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for your contributions. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie[edit]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, IjonTichyIjonTichy is currently topic banned from "editing pages on Wikipedia related to the Zeitgeist movement". I would suspect that this article might be seen to fall within the remit of the topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

if you might...[edit]

There is a deletion discussion about the article The Pixar Theory and the topic seems to have met the GNG though a lot of (recent) coverage.... BUT my own research indicates the the base concept of "The Pixar Universe" has been recognized in media at least as early as 2003, making this later "theory" notable only in it making enough recent waves to be considered a "viral meme". Toward addressing the earlier concept, I began work on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe, but upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article might best be folded into the main topic Pixar so that we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? And would you care to assist? Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Megalopolis (city type)[edit]

Hi. I am not simply "removing content". I just created a new article and adapted the table in the article Megalopolis (city type). Please, pay attention to my issues before I say I'm doing things that I'm not! Chronus (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice job on creating the new article. It looks interesting. Keep up the good work.
Please try to provide edit summaries in the future, to prevent further misunderstandings. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference I've used is a high quality reference (the New York Times) summarizing scientific research in the US. It does not violate WP:MEDRS. I've left a note on your talk page per your request. IjonTichy (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor IjonTichyIjonTichy for useful additions to articles, for defending their neutrality, and for publishing very interesting reflections on editing Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBPIA[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fox News Channel controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert McChesney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Maidsafe[edit]

Please respond on the Maidsafe talk page to my questions to you. Sanpitch (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken Spindles[edit]

Hello. I reverted your blanking of Broken Spindles because we don't delete articles by removing all the text. If you wish to have this article deleted you can either propose the article for deletion (see WP:PROD – no discussion, if no editor objects page is deleted) or open a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion.

You might want to do a quick search for references before nominating the page for deletion, and reading WP:NBAND will be helpful as well. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Organizational conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avoidance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

25 November 2014: Accounting of ideas and Intequity[edit]

Re your recent edit of the Entrepreneurship page, copied below.

"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,501 bytes) (-763)‎ . . (→‎Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"

I do not know how to start a talk page to discuss your edit. Could you do that? Entrepreneurship is a concept, which is far from stable, therefore, new inputs should be discussed. Also "Recent developments", which was the heading, is normally not widely reported.   (Unsigned comment on 17:40, 25 November 2014‎ by User: Mdpienaar)

Thank you for starting the talk page at the Entrepreneurship Talk page. Was not aware of it. I guess the Google filters in your country and South-Africa work not the same. a Google search for "intequity jetems" in South-Africa shows the first researched paper with regard to intequity: jetems.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Management%20Accounting.pdf if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Haredi[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you could just check through to see if there are any more reports of Haredi being sprayed with skunk chemicals. See Skunk (weapon). Sorry for the bother and ignore if you have, as is probable, nicer ways to use these final hours of 2014. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot think of a nicer way to spend the last moments of the year than to correspond with a person whose WP editorial work I greatly respect and admire such as yourself. I searched on the websites of Israeli newspapers, as well as on the Hebrew version of Google. Could not find a single report on spraying on Haredi or any non-Palestinians (the only exception that I could find is the link that was previously on the talk page of Skunk (weapon) - and the video in that link does not show any actual spraying). Found several reports on spraying on Palestinians (e.g. by entering 'skunk' in the search window of Haaretz.com, the English version of Haaretz) as well as blog posts, e.g. this post (in English) on the apparently indiscriminate, aggressive spraying of Skunk in East Jerusalem in July of this year. Best regards and a good new year, IjonTichy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skunk (weapon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of American Sniper (film) controversies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Sniper (film) controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the American Sniper page[edit]

Another user is removing or slanting all of the criticism section references on the main American Sniper page. I would appreciate if you would like to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Sniper_(film)#Which_of_the_following_references_should_be_inserted_into_the_criticism_section.3F David A (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested in contributing to this complaint: [10] David A (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --MONGO 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WP: BOOMERANG. The only one who has been edit warring is yourself. I have not edit warred in years, and have no intention of ever doing so. I have too much respect for every member of the community, including even for highly disruptive, tendentious-editing, WikiBullying users such as yourself, to engage in any edit wars. Please begin to learn to LISTEN to what others have been repeatedly trying to tell you over the last few weeks (in fact over the last few months), including (but not limited to) not only myself, but, more importantly, highly experienced admins and users such as User:TParis (please see his responses today to your comments on his user talk page e.g. here, here, here, here, and here), User:Erik, User:David A, User:Nbauman, User:Viriditas as well as many others. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@IjonTichy: Also don't take my comments as emboldening. You aren't on the straight and narrow yourself.--v/r - TP 20:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TP, I appreciate your feedback. IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You continue to misuse this website for advocacy and you'll find yourself sitebanned, Ijon.--MONGO 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, the AN/I is about you, not about me. You are the problem, not me. Your behavior is the reason the AN/I was started, not me, and your efforts to shift the blame to me are not going to be well received by the community. If you don't want to get topic banned or blocked, you need to begin taking full responsibility for your own actions. The only one engaging in advocacy is yourself. I did not advocate for anything, I just cited from a large number of sources in an effort to build the encyclopedia. I worked collaboratively and patiently and in a friendly fashion with all editors, including those with whom I may have editorial disagreements.
In contrast, you have contributed almost nothing to the development of the content of these few specific articles, except to repeatedly delete anything you don't like, to edit war, to attack users with whom you disagree, and to bully people around. You appear to continue to refuse to listen. It appears the content of the articles causes you some sort of cognitive dissonance. It appears your belief system is tied to the ideology of the 'American Sniper' film and you cannot accept the fact a very large number of scholars and commentators say that they have found deep, fatal flaws with what the sources say is the ideology espoused in the film. It appears nobody can convince you of anything you don't already want to believe, because, as some wise person said thousands of years ago, "you can't convince a man to understand something when his whole belief system is founded upon him not understanding it."
User: Viriditas explained my sentiments perfectly when he wrote in response to your comment on the AN/I: "Having been the subject of your [MONGO's] unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you [MONGO] are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article." user:Viriditas 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
--IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is going to block or topic ban me from that article because you have it backwards. Your POV fork failed even though even I supported merging...but what you want, which is a laundry list of every negative opinion on earth is never going to happen.--MONGO 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want a laundry list. I want to contribute to an article built via the WP consensus process, an article that is a well-written, informative and neutral, in the style of e.g. Triumph of the Will, or Birth of a Nation or Zero Dark Thirty, for example. You will be blocked or topic banned because of your battleground behavior, due to the cognitive dissonance resulting from your inability to separate your ego and your personal ideological belief system from your work on political/ historical/ social articles, or sections of articles, that cite sources that contradict your ideological persuasion.

On American Sniper (film), and the AfD discussion, you have posted a large number of talk-page comments and article edit summaries that were extremely hostile towards, and mistrustful of, the authors of sources that were critical of the political/ historical/ social/ philosophical/ moral/ ethical/ racial/ ethnic/ religious and other aspects of the film. Your comments were full of derision and contempt for most of these authors. Furthermore, you insisted on repeating Hasbarah (i.e., propaganda and public relations) talking points on the article talk page, and you have used Hasbarah messages as a valid and sufficient reason (in your view) to silence the voices of authors which you claimed were antisemitic and to delete their (sourced) views, which were critical of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film.

And you insisted and persisted in unilaterally doing all of this against consensus, while dismissing the repeated requests from User:Nbauman, User:David A and myself to stop. your disruptive, bullying behavior. And when it was pointed out to you that one of the journalists/ authors you labeled as antisemitic [and whose criticism of the film you stifled] was Jewish, you responded with yet more Hasbarah (propaganda) talking points.

I'm not saying you cannot contribute productively to any political/ historical/ social and related subjects, but there is ample evidence that shows you cannot edit neutrally on political/ historical/ social articles and other complex, intricate, sophisticated, nuanced subject matter that may conflict with your (apparently overly simplistic) worldview and your personal ideological persuasion. (However, your edit history shows you have done a good job contributing to many topics that do not conflict with your personal belief system.) When an author of a source expresses political/ historical/ social views that disagree with your own views, the evidence shows you tend to resort to ad hominem attacks on the writers of the sources (again, as detailed in excruciating, painful detail in the current AN/I and especially on the talk page of American Sniper (film) and other WP political/ social/ historical articles), and you resort to unprovoked attacks on and bullying of fellow WP users.

And it seems you are unable to listen. You appear to have automatically rejected every piece of great advice/ feedback provided to you by TParis and all the other experienced users I listed above, advice that was generously provided to you in the last few hours, last few days, weeks and months. User Viriditas expressed my sentiments perfectly when he posted yet another comment on today's AN/I: "You (user: David A) have provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance ..." Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

Anyway, mongo, I'm not interested in reading any more WP:BATTLEGROUND-style comments from you. If you have anything particularly interesting or novel to add, you are welcome to post here. But if you don't have anything intellectually stimulating to add, then I will not respond to your overly-simplistic comments and/or your war-mongering-like comments and I will not bite into any bait you may offer. You have already wasted too much of my time while you have contributed nothing of value to any of the numerous 'Sniper'-related articles or article talk pages. Thanks and goodbye, IjonTichy (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff above. That's a pretty hefty barrage of insults and condemnations...the kind you are accusing me of btw. You let me know when you write a single featured article before you lecture anyone about their competence.--MONGO 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think your intentions are honorable. I think you genuinely want to help build a great encyclopedia. I did not intend to imply you are not competent to edit all WP articles --- I'm only saying you have serious competency issues on political/ historical/ social articles that express views that clash with your own personal views.
You have repeatedly insulted, condemned, attacked and bullied me (as well as User:David A) on the talk page of the film and on the AfD. And you have ignored all my polite requests to stop your counter-productive behavior. I have politely asked you to refrain from posting on my user talk page any more of your typical battleground-style, hostile, aggressive, overly simplistic, uninteresting, useless, pointless diatribes and rants. Your comments on the article talk page, as well as your recent postings on the AN/I, have only served to prove (again) you appear to behave like a WikiBully and that you are incapable of listening. You appear to have automatically rejected the many insightful, thoughtful, evidence-based perspectives that several experienced members of the community have repeatedly and generously offered to you over the last few weeks (since I began contributing to the set of 'Sniper' film articles) including the last few days since the AN/I complaint was opened, including (but not limited to) User:TParis (on his user talk page), User:Erik (on the AfD and the AN/I), User:David A (on the film article talk page, the AfD and the AN/I), User:Nbauman (on the film article talk page and the AfD), User:Viriditas (on the AN/I), as well as other experienced editors. (And your recent posts on the user talk page of User:TParis [including the edit summaries of your posts] also provide further evidence of your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence-based arguments of experienced editors and admins opposed to your opinion.)
Furthermore, your posts on the AN/I appear to be just a desperate attempt to shift to me the blame for your own disruptive behavior, edit warring, relentless advocacy, and obsessive attacks on and bullying of users, instead of taking full responsibility and ownership for your own tendentious editing.
Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added (in an older section on Talk:American Sniper (film)) several additional sources in criticism of the film and in support of the movie.

As I said before, I think everyone's concerns and perspectives are valid and have merit. May I respectfully ask that users entirely refrain from labeling other users' work as 'POV pushing' or 'coatrack' or anything that can reasonably be perceived as a label of mistrust or derision. This labeling tends to put the recipient in a hostile, aggressive mood, it destroys users' enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia, and significantly reduces people's motivation to find a compromise with everybody's perspectives or positions. Repeatedly attacking a user's work feels like a personal attack, even if admins don't necessarily consider it a sanctionable offense. Attaching negative labels to a user's work tends to significantly curtail the recipient's creativity and work productivity. Let's foster a friendly, hospitable, supportive work environment where we trust each other and where we encourage each and every user who may be motivated to contribute to building a first draft. Let's place our trust in each other, especially in our 'opponents' and let's build each others' confidence and enthusiasm. The final consensus version would possibly, or even probably, look very different from the first (or second or third) rough draft(s), so may I advise for patience and calm, let's all please try to be less emotional about this and more cool and gentle and supportive of each other, especially those with whom we may otherwise disagree.

I hope users don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not saying any specific person is more emotional than logical, I believe every user is simultaneously both an emotional and a logical/ rational person, I believe emotions are very important and have a powerful role to play in debates, and I myself tend to get too emotional sometimes. I hope nobody thinks I'm picking on them or that I'm implying they are a roadblock to compromise, that's not my intention at all, everything I said applies to all users equally. Please let's trust each other fully without reservations, and let's all try to be supportive of each other's efforts without any criticism of each other's work for a while. After we have a first rough draft, then we should (politely) criticize the draft (not the people who wrote it) to try to reach consensus. May I respectfully suggest that users read the WP article on Brainstorming. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, you are welcome to post on my talk page. You and I appear to be interacting civilly and working collaboratively on the article talk page and/or the DRN to reach consensus. It seems we may be making progress towards achieving consensus. However, I'm busy in real life and I'm likely to take a long time to respond to comments. (By the way I enjoyed reading your kind words in your farewell note to TParis upon TParis announcing his retirement.) Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed: "User MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area." IjonTichy (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper[edit]

Please see here David A (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

Hello. If you go to a second user's (e.g. Veritas') talk page to make negative comments about a third user (e.g. Mongo), that is not a legitimate form of dispute resolution. Wikipedia is not for gossiping about people or for carrying on feuds or plotting with others to get editorial opponents blocked. Please consider this a warning that you could be blocked if that activity continues. Should you have a problem with MONGO that hasn't been resolved, please file a request for arbitration with supporting evidence, or else drop it. Do not carry on, in multiple venues, casting aspersions, looking for fights. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to plot with anyone to get editorial opponents blocked. I have no interest in getting MONGO blocked, I'm working collaboratively with him (at the DRN) to resolve the dispute. In my view, we seem to be making nice progress at the DRN. I am not looking for fights, they are unproductive and a waste of time. although MONGO has attacked me relentlessly and obsessively since my very first edit on the film article, the AfD, and the AN/I, and I responded to his attacks. However, in an effort to de-escalate, I have stopped responding to his attacks on the AN/I. I have not read the AN/I since I last posted there a couple of days ago or so, but I am confident MONGO has stopped attacking me posting there, too, and I greatly appreciate the fact he is investing serious efforts on collaborating with his opponents on the DRN. I am enjoying working collaboratively with him on the DRN in an effort to find a compromise, and I have openly stated on the DRN his concerns and perspectives are valid and merit equal consideration like everyone else's, which I honestly believe (or I would not have stated it). And I added to my user talk page my strong belief his intentions are honorable and sincere.
I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be used for gossiping about people or for carrying on feuds or plotting with others to get editorial opponents blocked. And I thank you for the warning. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, IjonTichyIjonTichy. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Censorship on GMO Controversies page[edit]

I wanted to alert you to the fact my response to you was censored here. Is such censorship ethical? David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, I've copy-pasted your comment below, and I've deleted (struck) some parts:
IjonTichy : Welcome! FYI. This article like everything else about GMOs is carefully controlled by Pro-GMO editors (accusations have been thrown around that they are paid by Monsanto or have other COI, but I have not seen strong evidence supporting that. However, there was at least one COI found, which I could dig up). For whatever reason, the editors have a strong Pro-GMO slant and are often frosty to or threaten admin. action on new editors with legitimate GMO concerns, like those you tried to include above. They will vigorously fight to keep content like that off the page. Please don't be scared off if they get nasty with you. We need balance. If you read the GMO articles, the bias should be obvious. I'm doing what I can to address some of the most egregious problems of non-NPOV and slant, but it is an uphill battle, as like I said, any changes that give voice to GMO critics concerns are generally met with vigorous opposition. I'm all ears for any suggestions you have to make ANY PART of the article balanced, including the material you are trying to add that they will no doubt disallow. Their standard way of scrubbing GMO concerns is to say the source is unreliable. Hopefully you have more experience than I do at asserting WP:RS and identifying hypocrisy in source citing. In your case, they will make the argument that any consumer group, NGO, etc. who is concerned with our health and well being MUST be biased, unlike say university professors who get money from Monsanto. I hope you stick around. Curious what you think? I would have written this on your talk page, but I have already gotten into trouble with the lead editor for trying to talk to people who are not Pro-GMO and were upset about the NPOV problem (See above about "canvassing"). I think if you engage me on my talk page, it will be okay, because they can monitor anything we say there more easily. It will be interesting to see how they respond to what I just said here. David Tornheim (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
David, in general removing a user's comment on an article talk page is against WP's policies and WP's communitarian nature. However, it is a good idea to remove a comment if the comment contains a direct personal attack against specific user(s). Your comment did not mention anyone specific in person, but I'm not familiar with your past comment history on the particular page or other articles in the general area of GMO.
In my view most (not all) of the WP GMO articles have a Pro-GMO slant, but in my view most (not all) of the editors that are active in the GMO area have done a reasonably decent job over the years. I often disagree with their personal perspectives on GMOs, which they have expressed e.g. on their own user pages or their own user talk pages, but in general the evidence shows most (not all) editors that are active in the GMO area have most of the time (not always) over the years set aside their personal views in order to do what they feel is best for the encyclopedia. The blanket rejection of primary sources in favor of secondary ones is not always the best approach but it works reasonably well, overall, over the long term. Over the years I've come to accept the WP GMO articles are not good, but they are not terribly bad, they are almost reasonably decent given the complicated, messy, difficult, challenging, simultaneously-ugly-and-beautiful, simultaneously-insane-and-illogical-and-rational-and-logical environment all WP editors, and more generally the global human population, find ourselves in. These articles reflect the messy realities of human complexity.
I advise you to focus on addressing content issues; do not focus on your views of editors' bias. My personal approach has worked very well for me over the last 2 years: specifically, I do not assume anything about other users. I don't assume good faith, and I don't assume bad faith either. I assume nothing about fellow editors. Assuming any faith, good or bad, is a waste of time, and almost always leads, eventually, to disruptive behavior that (sooner or later) results in a topic ban or block.
My advice to you is to not waste your time focusing on the intent of other users. Instead, spend your highly limited (and thus highly valuable) time, focus and energy on doing research to seek reliable secondary sources, and discuss the content of your sources on the talk pages of the GMO articles. For one example among many, the full text of all papers in the current issue as well as in the vast archives of PNAS are available for free viewing and download. Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
APPENDIX:
Paraphrasing WP:Don't assume: If you don't feel like assuming good faith about another user's actions, you don't have to. You can still give the benefit of the doubt by simply not assuming, one way or another. As User:JeffBillman put it: If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"What do I think? Well, at the risk of sounding rude, I couldn't care any less. Let's put it this way: I don't assume there's any truth to Niteshift's claim of being a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". I don't assume that it's a lie, either; or a joke, or anything else. It is to me, simply a statement Niteshift wished to share with readers of his userspace, for reasons I'm rather disinterested in knowing at the moment. Because of this, I don't assume anything about Niteshift when I read his contributions here. I find this to be a much more tenable position than the assumption of "good faith" Wikipedia asks us to maintain. Because I don't assume good faith per se, it's also difficult for me to assume bad faith. I'll admit this is a fairly recent discovery of mine. Up until recently, I tried to assume good faith of my fellow editors, and failed miserably at times. This seems to be working out for me thus far. Just a suggestion ..." JeffBillman (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: No angry mastodons: "A related mistake is to speculate about the intellectual capacity or the mental health of other editors. People do not rise to their best selves when they are reminded of their worst selves or accused of faults they do not possess. Editors who make these accusations exhibit poor self-control. Leave the angry mastodons in the Ice Age and focus on the article."
Ijon Tichy note: In other words, don't assume any user attributes at all, e.g. whether they are intelligent or not, whether they have integrity or not, whether they are a "good" or "bad" person, etc. Furthermore, don't speculate or claim to know that an editor has or has not read a source, read the article, or read a policy or guideline. Don't focus on users, focus on the sources and policies - make statements similar to these examples: "As noted in the (source, WP policy or guideline, etc) it is the case that X, Y and Z." Your comments, whether on edit summaries or talk pages should address the sources, Wikipedia article content, structure, policies and implementation of policy in accordance with the WMF mission rather than the habits, knowledge, skills, abilities, or lack thereof, of WP editors.IjonTichy (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

David, some reading for you: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable (and the section under that, "Editing comments"). Basically, another editor can remove your comment if it's not in accordance with talk page guidelines. It's not "censorship". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback. If you read the diff. I provided, I don't think I "assumed" anything about the other people nor did I "attack" anyone. Let's look at the code section for WP:NPA, and see if *anything* in there applies:
Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
Not applicable
Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
Not applicable
Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
Not applicable
Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
Not applicable
Threats of legal action
Not applicable
Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
Not applicable
Threats of vandalism
Not applicable
Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
Not applicable
Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.
Not applicable
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
This is the only one that is applicable. Admittedly, I did not provide evidence; I did not know it was necessary. It is certainly easy to do that! A simple look at the footnotes, the article and talk page histories for any time someone has suggested an article from an NGO consumer group are always rejected--if not, it has no doubt been scrubbed by now for this very reason. I have seen no exceptions to this. The behavior there is nearly 100% consistent. If it comes from GMO critics, they reject it. Which is exactly what they did for exactly the reasons I gave. I just don't see why not giving evidence of the behavior that is clearly there is a "personal attack" or what this is about assuming "good faith" or "bad faith". It's just stating a reality that is easy to see unless you are Pro-GMO or unfamiliar with the GMO critics positions. I didn't assume anything, except that the behavior of the past will be repeated in the future, a fallacy that is the fundamental to all science, as David Hume noted in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I was stating a fact, which is easily verifiable by any experimenter who wants to look at the history of the article. So, I just don't understand how that is a "personal attack" to state this fact. And I think new editors need to know this so that they don't get frustrated by the opposition they will receive for trying to include material that is relevant to the article will without question be unreasonably barred from entry, based on exactly the criteria I outlined, just as happened in this case. It appears to me the problem is not that I made a "personal attack" but that I pointed out behavior that is problematic that is true. Since, it is not a "personal attack", I think the best explanation is the person who deleted it doesn't want anyone else to know about what is going on on that page, something I continue to bring up. I could bring it to DR, etc., but I thought you are supposed to first try to resolve problems on the Talk page, which is what I have been doing...David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

American sniper[edit]

See Noam Chomsky's remarks on Kyle and the film 26 minutes into Noam Chomsky (2015) "Terrorism and Civil Liberties" (NEW!). Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nish. Great analysis by Chomsky, as always. I have not looked at American Sniper (film) in more than a month (although I continued to contribute to the article talk page over the last few weeks). For various reasons I am not sure whether I'll ever feel any inclination to return to editing that article. Best, IjonTichy (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you tried to restore the "Criticism section dispute" thread after it was archived. Considering the length of the thread, I have instead started a new section that links to the archived section, which was taking up quite a bit of the talk page. This should not prevent anyone from being able to review the content, if there is still some light related activity about the subject matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a new citation to the thread. The thread is still alive and active, and archiving it was a mistake. It should not have been archived in the first place, at least not yet. IjonTichy (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Threads are archived after 14 days, which I think is a reasonable time frame. From what I can tell, the situation is a stalemate with no real end in sight. The talk page has moved on to other discussions. I think it is appropriate to just link to the older collection of resources in the new thread. If there is interest in moving forward somehow, then these resources can be tapped with ease. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but the problem is that now the list of sources (criticizing or supporting the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film) is broken into two separate lists. It is better to have all the sources together in one list instead of two. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Bobreyner Arbitration case request, which you made a statement to, as premature for Arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shaken baby syndrome. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Daffydavid (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This notice is complete bullshit. It is unnecessary and thus disruptive and offensive. I have discussed the matter on the talk page of the article before you posted this entirely superfluous, redundant notice, in an overly aggressive, ridiculously transparent attempt to intimidate me so that you can get your way on the article. Your pathetic, hostile attempts at threats and intimidation are not going to work. IjonTichy (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all you need to WP:AGF and I find your attitude uncalled for. I posted the notice because you were violating WP:BRD and you are aware of the policy based on a quick glance at your talk page. Your posting of the same notice to my page and then accusing me of being pathetic and hostile reflects only on you and is a violation of WP:NPA. I am more than comfortable reporting this behaviour if it continues. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct to point out I violated BRD, but WP:BRD is an essay and is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself. I typically follow BRD, but on a relatively rare occasion, when I feel the circumstances justify it, I may revert once, and only once, and then I usually go to the talk page to discuss, and I don't make any additional reverts until a consensus is reached on the talk page. In this specific case, I only reverted once, because it seemed utterly bizarre to me that an extremely brief, concise, precise summary of a major investigative report by a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist in a major newspaper (The Washington Post) was removed from an article without prior discussion on the talk page. (However, after you have explained your motivation on the talk page I respect your motivation although I disagree with it.) I then immediately posted to the talk page and waited for your response as well as the response of other users. I did not revert again after that, nor did I have any intention of reverting again - my intention was, and remains, to wait until additional users provide their perspectives so that we can reach some sort of consensus.
David, your original posting here was heavy-handed. It was over the top. You have over-reacted to my single revert. The notice that you posted above can be seen as a violation of WP:AGF and, more importantly, as a direct personal attack on me. Instead of apologizing and removing your entirely superfluous, unnecessary notice, your second note above may be seen as continuing to attack and threaten me. And you may be twisting my words (although you may not intend to do so) -- I did not say, nor even remotely imply, you are pathetic in any way, shape or form, because I do not believe you are pathetic (or anything even remotely as bad as pathetic) at all. I am thankful for your many solid contributions to the encyclopedia. And I don't mind that you disagree with me on this specific Wikipedia article, I often learn more when people offer perspectives that disagree with my own compared to the case where they fully agree with my views.
I only characterized your words (and only in the specific case of your first posting above, not your other work on Wikipedia). I'm not criticizing you as a person. (Everybody is susceptible to doing or saying pathetic things sometimes, including myself.) I do not know anything about you as a person (nor do I wish to know anything about you as a person), nor do I wish to guess about or allude to any personality or character trait you may or may not possess. I have no knowledge of, or interest in knowing, your personality or character.
You could have resolved this issue very quickly simply by apologizing for your over-reaction, or if you do not wish to apologize, at the very least you could have stopped after your first posting and not posted further. Instead you may have been interested in convincing people you are right and I am wrong. Your words have the effect of escalating an already bad situation and making it progressively worse. Please read WP: Don't escalate.
David, I'm looking forward to collaborating with you on this Wikipedia article as well as additional ones in the future, and you are welcome to post further on my talk page, but please only do so if you have something interesting or insightful or enlightening to say. Refrain from any further comments that may be seen as threats. Critical thinking is good; threats or gratuitous negativity, on the other hand, add nothing of value to the community. They are unpleasant to read and detract from doing good work. If you have something important but negative to say, that's fine, but say it in a respectful way.
Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. By that I mean negativity that adds nothing of substance to a comment. This includes all forms of meanness. New work and new ideas are fragile. Too much gratuitous negativity might be the difference between someone giving up on contributing to a particular article and building the next great article.
Obviously, we want the user talk pages and article talk pages to help people doing good work, not hurt them. Building stuff is hard, and we always need a thick skin. But there is no need for us (including myself) to make the problem worse. Let's not pile on to others' mistakes. These things feel good in the moment, but they're harmful. Wikipedia is a community of smart people. Let's all apply our smartness to *not* being like that. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In praise of rap for wrapping this up[edit]

here via Norman Finkelstein com. Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nish. I've been enjoying Juice Rap News over the last 5 years, I've watched all of their episodes multiple times, and almost every day I check whether they have posted a new episode. I highly recommend all their work, I believe you will enjoy almost all their satirical news shows. Warm regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Might interest you. given the interest in Gaza gas fields[edit]

Exhibit A.

Exhibit B.

What is interesting here is also the difference of venue, aside from the different principles used either to demand payment or refuse it. In the first, one goes to the legal system of an ally. In the second, one seeks redress in an international court.

(Iran is seeking through international courts $7 billion. How that pending threat is faced is anyone's guess). Richard Silverstein mentions the irony, I now see. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Our external links guidelines[edit]

I think it would help if you became more familiar with our external links guideline. Generally, a good article should have few if any external links, and all should clearly meet WP:EL. Further, if you disagree with someone's removal (or tagging) of extenal links, you should discuss it on the article talk page, leaving the links out until there is consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and for your many contributions to the encyclopedia.
I agree with the external links guideline. In the (relatively few) specific cases where I reverted your edits a few days ago, I did so because, in my view, these specific edits did not help improve these specific articles, in fact I felt these edits removed content that was helpful to the reader, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. (Again, my views are only applicable to the very few of your edits I reverted, I'm currently not commenting on your many other edits.)
In many cases, a contributor is very pressed for time. They have chanced upon reading a great source that they feel can help improve the WP article, they scan the WP article quickly to see where the source can be added to the article, but sometimes, this process is much more time consuming than the contributor can afford, so often the contributor simply gives up and does not add the source anywhere in the WP article, which is a total loss to the WP article. In some cases, the contributor does not give up entirely but only partially/ temporarily, i.e., they may add the source to the 'external links' section in the hope that, days or months later, either the contributor himself, or some other editor who may perhaps have more time, and deeper expertise with the subject matter and more intimate familiarity with the intricate details/ structure/ construction of the specific WP article, would, with relatively less effort, find a good home for the source within the body of the article.
Indeed, I seem to recall some past cases where I (and other editors) have added a source to the 'external links' section of articles, and some weeks or months later, either myself, or other contributors, moved the source from the 'external links' section to the body of the article, using the source for a citation in the body of the WP article. This was done to help immediately improve the article, and also in the spirit of the view that Wikipedia is a work in progress, as well as the other essays listed in the 'See also' section of WP: There is no deadline. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The three articles are all heavily sourced, so I'm not clear on how the links help. If they were poorly sourced, then we wouldn't be having this discussion as I regularly leave such links for exactly the reasons you give.
In cases like the where you reverted, I will often place any promising potential references on the article talk page instead under a topic like "Possible references". Sometimes I'll move the entire section to the talk page when I'm in a rush and don't have time to examine them all. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss rather than revert, and note that the burden is on you to gain consensus for inclusion per WP:ELBURDEN --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I explained that some editors are highly pressed for time. You responded by removing a large number of relevant, meritable external links from several articles, copy-pasting the links to the article talk pages, and demanding that contributors discuss the links one by one. In other words you are now demanding that editors spend a great deal of time justifying many links, time which contributors often don't have.
Following editors from one article to the next across multiple articles, repeatedly reverting them and edit warring with them, demanding they spend enormous amounts of time justifying the inclusion of each and every one of many good-quality, meritable, relevant links, are not the best actions that one can take to help enhance articles.
Following guidelines is important in Wikipedia, and I like the WP:EL guideline, but on Wikipedia, doing what it takes to improve articles is much more important, and much better use of contributors' time, than following editors around, reverting them, and putting enormous demands on their very limited time, while formally and mechanically citing Wikipedia guidelines.
Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pressed for time too. How about we WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm focusing on content. I'm not commenting on your personal character. I don't know anything about your character or personality nor am interested in knowing anything, or commenting on, your character or personality.
I've explained (in numerous comments above) that on Wikipedia, doing whatever it takes to add good-quality content (that adheres to V, RS, NOR and NPOV) is much more important than formally, mechanically citing guidelines. Your response? You neglected to address the substance of my numerous comments, and instead, you formally, mechanically cited yet another policy. Please stop wasting my time, and your own valuable time, with your unhelpful reverts of good content, and unhelpful demands that I spend enormous amounts of time negotiating with you on each and every meritable, relevant, useful link.
These external links help improve and enhance the articles, and your wholesale removal of the links does not help improve the articles. Your comments on my talk page (what you wrote, your failure to respond to the substance of my comments, and your failure to provide a single good reason to remove the links - a good reason in your own words that does not involve citing from some rule or process), as well as your edit warring to remove good quality content from numerous articles, and your demands that WP editors spend enormous amounts of time justifying each external link to you, appear highly bureaucratic, in my view.
Since you appear enamored with formally and mechanically citing the dry, cold language of WP rules, regulations, policies and guidelines, while neglecting to carefully consider the spirit of the policies and the nuances of the bigger picture of how your edits degraded the articles, you may want to read WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IjonTichy (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC).
IjonTichy (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you appear to be taking this very personally, and are again and again focusing on me. If you cannot take your focus off me, we're indeed wasting time. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking this personally. Don't try to turn this into a personal conflict. This is purely a content conflict. Your specific comments on my talk page and on these few specific articles, and your specific edits to these few specific articles, are poor-quality, in my view. Your comments on my talk page are almost entirely empty of substance, and your edits reduced the quality of the articles. Your specific comments and edits on these few specific articles are highly bureaucratic in nature, and while they adhere to the written policies, they are not well-aligned with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Your edit warring and your wholesale removal of good-quality links degraded the articles, and you should revert your own edits. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from this. I hope you'll consider doing the same. I'll not respond further here for at least a day. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt you mean well and you are acting in good faith. But please try hard to provide substantive responses. Your responses so far on this talk page have been highly bureaucratic in nature and devoid of substance. Your responses may indicate you were unwilling and/or unable to hear or address the substance of my comments.
All of us on WP are required to apply good judgement, instead of blindly, robotically, automatically, mechanically applying the rules. WP: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In the case of these specific articles, instead of wholesale removal of all the links, followed by engaging in edit wars, and then making unreasonable demands on (highly scarce and thus highly valuable) editors' time, a much better approach may have been to not delete the external links (except for obvious cases of e.g. vandalism or links promoting a for-profit enterprise and other obvious very bad cases), and gently raise on the article talk pages the possibility of incorporating the links into the text of the body of the articles.
And if after some weeks nobody, or almost nobody would have meaningfully responded to these gentle requests, then you should have taken this as a sign that people are OK with the articles with the long 'external links' sections and that people (including yourself) have better, more productive ways to spend their valuable time on Wikipedia. This would have been a good signal for you that users were gently, indirectly trying to tell you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the article.
Many articles have long EL sections, and that's not an ideal situation in terms of article quality, but it is much better than wholesale removal of the links: it feels good to follow rules, it feels good to 'clean up' articles and make them look more appealing to the eye and eliminate long lists of EL and/or remove apparent disorderliness, messiness or chaos, but every article is different, and very often on Wikipedia, we should resist the powerful temptation to 'clean up' articles, because the article with the many links (some of which may be unattractively formatted or messy, unclean, disorderly) is a better article, overall, and is much more informative, interesting, and useful to the reader than without the links. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy removed yet another bureaucratic, vacuous 'response' posted by Ronz.

From WP is not a bureaucracy: While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy,[5] it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

From the lead section of Bureaucracy: Since being coined, the word "bureaucracy" has developed negative connotations.[9] Bureaucracies have been criticized as being too complex, too inefficient, or too inflexible.[10] The dehumanizing effects of excessive bureaucracy became a major theme in the work of Franz Kafka, and were central to his novel, The Trial.[11] The elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy is a key concept in modern managerial theory.[12]

IjonTichy (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy removed yet another bureaucratic, vacuous 'response' posted by Ronz. IjonTichy (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ijon Tichy removed yet another bureaucratic, vacuous 'response' posted by disruptive, clueless editor who appears to refuse to listen and more importantly to understand. IjonTichy (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ijon, your passive-aggressive messages here are getting a little too uncivil/personal attack-y. Ronz is a regular editor who knows what he's doing, I assume (I don't know what this discussion is about). Nobody's perfect. But you can't just call someone disruptive and incompetent (and get away with it). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jeraphine, I have no doubt you mean well and are acting in good faith.
I fully agree nobody is perfect. In my view, we should all cut some slack for each other as often as possible, depending on the circumstances.
The fact Ronz is a 'regular editor' does not imply his behavior is above criticism or reproach. Your assumption Ronz 'knows what he's doing' does not imply that what he has done on these few specific articles, and on this user talk page, is the best for the encyclopedia.
Jeraphine, you have admitted you "don't know what this discussion is about." This discussion is on complex, challenging, difficult, nuanced issues that take considerable amount of time, and experience on Wikipedia as well as in the 'real' world outside of Wikipedia, to thoroughly understand. (I don't blame you if you don't have the time or inclination to immerse yourself in the substance of this discussion.) Your (un-informed, by your own admission) comment is, in my view, only escalating this situation. For example, your comment has escalated the situation by accusing the messages of only one side of the dispute (my side) as being passive-aggressive. If editors (not that I have any interest whatsoever in inviting other editors to contribute to this discussion) knew what this dispute is about, some of them may (or may not) have characterized the other side as being considerably more passive-aggressive. (And I respect your comment characterizing my words as passive-aggressive but I don't agree with that characterization.) There are many ways to be passive-aggressive, some of which are not always obvious at first sight and may take a lot more careful thought, analysis, reading and experience to identify as passive-aggressive.
I don't know how much experience you have with bureaucratic behavior by editors on Wikipedia, but I feel strongly about this issue, as I feel that bureaucratic behavior by editors, e.g. the behavior amply exhibited by Ronz in this disputed, is in my view highly detrimental to the encyclopedia, both in the short term but especially in the long term. May I respectfully recommend reading Bureaucracy and WP: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (the first is a WP article, the second a WP policy), including the articles in the 'See also' section of Bureaucracy, as well as some of the more detailed sources of the WP article on bureaucracy, some of the other high-quality essays and book chapters posted online on bureaucracy, and other WP articles dealing, directly or indirectly, with the effects of bureaucracy. Among the many good sources on the highly negative long-term effects of unnecessary, heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian bureaucracy, may I highly recommend reading the somewhat famous (in silicon valley, at least) slide deck by Reed Hastings.
And regarding my accusing Ronz of being disruptive, note that in several comments above, I accuse him of edit warring, and edit warring is disruptive. Also, I accuse him of WP:IDHT, and IDHT is disruptive. And I accuse him of following me from article to article across multiple articles, and following editors is again disruptive.
At a minimum, please read WP: Don't escalate. And please note I'm not going to respond further to any comments from well-meaning, earnest, acting-in-good-faith editors who "don't know what this discussion is about." In fact, in the interest of not allowing this issue to escalate any further, I'm gonna be extremely reluctant to respond to any further comments on this matter, even from editors who may say they know what this discussion is all about, unless they can offer some amazing, profound new insights that I may have missed. I have better, more productive (to WP) ways to spend my highly limited time on Wikipedia.
Jeraphine, I hope I've discouraged you (or any editors) from posting further on this discussion. In the (hopefully unlikely) case anyone chooses to go ahead and post to this discussion, please use small font, as I've done in my most recent posts to this thread, and more importantly note I'm largely done with this issue and am highly unlikely to respond to any further comments on this issue (unless the comment offers powerful new knowledge/ insights), and I'm likely to delete new comments on this thread. Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ijon Tichy deleted the comment above by user:Jeraphine Gryphon, and removed a new comment by highly disruptive user Spumuq.
Spumuq (but not Jeraphine) is a relatively new editor but already has a history of edit-warring, disruptive editing, wikihounding, exercising a battlefield mentality, and attacking other editors (including attacking me back in February out of the blue without Spumpq and myself having any prior interaction with each other). Some days after Spumuq first attacked me in Feb I posted a note on his talk page asking him to not do so again, he responded to my note with hostility and a set of hostile questions, I answered all his questions and advised him to act more civilly, he did not heed my advice and a few days later Spumuq was blocked on Feb 27 for two weeks for his disruptive behavior. Since the expiration of his block he appears to continue to behave disruptively - Spumuq has been warned repeatedly by numerous users including but not limited to myself (on Spumuq's talk page, on other users' talk pages, on article talk pages and on administrative boards) to stop his disruptive behavior, including his personal attacks, but he appears to be unable, or uwilling, to listen.
In addition, Spumuq ignored everything I wrote above on de-escalating, and ignored my request to use small font (to help to de-escalate), and ignored my warning that any further vacuous comments will be deleted.
(As always, comments that offer amazing, profound new insights and understandings are welcome. But vacuous and/or uncivil comments on any issue or discussion on this talk page will be deleted or removed.)
Jeraphine's comment is in good-faith, and is well-meaning and earnest, in sharp contrast to Spumuq's comment. However, Jeraphine's comment is incorrect, misguided and overly simplistic. Jeraphine's and Spumuq's comments have been deleted and removed, respectively, because reckless, baseless, frivolous accusations of personal attack are disruptive, only serve to escalate, and most importantly are themselves violations of WP:NPA policy. IjonTichy (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks weird, but it isn't ...[edit]

Philip Weiss on Oren. I've always thought people like myself are just all transcribers of an internal debate (taking sides, of course. I remember the 50s ad 60s, and how crucial Jewish voices were in pressing for sanity in American society). Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this is interesting.
Oren appears to be accusing Jewish critics of the brutal, vicious policies of the government of Israel of being Self-hating Jews.
"This just shows how meretricious the use of the “anti-Semite” label is, and ought to offer even more encouragement to all you non-Jewish critics of Israel who are afraid to say anything lest you be tarred." I agree with this statement by Philip Weiss.
Back in February of this year, on the talk page of American Sniper (film), when editors accused Max Blumenthal and Zaid Jilani of anti-Semitism in an effort to suppress and silence the excellent, powerful criticism of the film offered by Blumenthal and Jilani, user:Nbauman put it best, when he said something to the effect that anti-Semitism is now the new McCarthyism. I agreed with Nbauman, and added that the accusations against Blumenthal and Jilani in the mass media (e.g. on Fox News) were a Hasbara i.e. propaganda effort.
I am seeing a number of recent attempts in the mass media, as well as on Wikipedia, to suppress and silence valid, well-documented criticism of the policies of various governments (Israel, US, Russia, Ukraine, other former Soviet Union countries, France, Spain, some Arab countries, the UK among other governments) by accusing the critics, both Jews and non-Jews, of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments. These vacuous accusations are a form of ad hominem attacks on the critics. In my view, some of these frivolous, baseless, groundless accusations were issued in an effort to silence and intimidate editors such as yourself, Nishidani, among other productive, acting-in-good-faith WP editors.
Also, as I posted on your talk page, accusations of Antisemitism are intended, among other purposes, to distract the populace from enormous socio-economic inequalities and the on-going kleptocratic looting, i.e. the transferring (stealing) of the public wealth to create private riches. This distraction campaign is one part of the timeless - ancient, current, and future - stratagem of kleptocrats/ oligarchs/ plutocrats and their servile hacks in practically all global countries, governments and mass media, employing almost infinitely many variations of Bread and circuses-style and Circus Maximus-style distractions. (Another example, among many examples of massive distractions are the Orwellian-called "democratic elections." For a small subset of the many good examples on this issue, see all the books and investigative reports and essays by Chris Hedges, for example his most recent essay 'America's Electoral Farce.' Also highly recommended: 'Obey': Film Based on Chris Hedges' book 'Death of the Liberal Class' by Temujin Doran, freely available on YouTube. In my view the film is different than the book and is mostly based on Chris Hedges' columns in TruthDig, but nonetheless it is a very good film.)
[There is no 'conspiracy' here of any kind by the kleptocratic oligarchs -- they are only people like everyone else and they are not part of any cabal or organization, they are not at fault here, the global socio-economic system is the problem and it developed slowly over thousands of years and is now deeply embedded in each and every person on the planet, including myself. In many cases these distractions are not even part of a deliberate strategy or tactic - in many cases the kleptocratic plutocrats and their hacks in government and the mass media and other 'professions' (e.g. most, although not all, so-called 'economists,' or e.g. the military-surveillance-police-prison professions) actually fully believe their own propaganda, Hasbara and public relations horseshit.] IjonTichy (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, one should try to keep cheerful, even when listening to this, which elaborates on your second paragraph. That programme is one of the several bright spots one can listen into the world over for keeping the broad public informed of what's going on, and worth checking from time to time. Politicians are, predictably, trying to shut it down, citing economic rationales. Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this radio program is informative. May I also recommend everything by Juice Rap News, including e.g. this episode. IjonTichy (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Good grief, two intelligent sites in Downunderland! Very good. Bookmarked for daily use.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I was not in the best of moods today but your comments lifted my spirits. You are right, one should try to keep cheerful, despite all the insanity in the world in general and on WP in particular, and to remember the bigger picture, including e.g. that the world, including WP, also have much goodness and hope to offer. Best wishes, IjonTichy (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been lucky so when I give advice in bad situations, feel bad for the obvious reasons. But my general principle is, only be surprised by goodness, and take evil/bad manners/madness/arseholes as normal, to be expected, and, though always analysed, never something to anger one. I see a fair amount of decency about, nothing headline-grabbing, little things like courtesy in a supermarket, caring for a small animal, or a stray dog, offering a sandwich to a begger, a shopkeeper fixing a cut electric cord for the motor mower, waiving aside money, a Bengali Muslim without papers, living under a bridge and fossicking for food in rubbish dumps for months, jumping into a river when he saw a body floating past, and pulled a potential suicide, an Israeli woman, to the shore, a dog licking a wounded cat, and not reacting when its face is clawed. I think I decided to marry my wife when she told me, just offhand, that she was sitting out in a desperately poor village, daughter of the only people, the teacher and naval officer with a house, at the end of WW2, and a circus, of bedraggled clowns, skinny acrobats, and a few rheumatic animals turned up, and put on an act, in exchange for some bean soup or whatever from the hardscrabble farmers. The day after, three years old, she got her weekly orange and went out into the sunshine to eat it. One of the clowns, an old gaunt man passed by, stopped and stared, with pain in his eyes, as he watched her peel the immediate postwar luxury and eat a slice. Ashamed of himself for an importunate request from a child, he asked if he could just have a little bit - he had forgotten how they tasted. She gave him the whole orange, feeling ashamed of her privilege, though he insisted only on a little slice. These things happen all the time, but don't make the news.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)