User talk:Noleander/Archive 2

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

An empire of their own[edit]

I just want to let you know that I am less sure than others about any agenda or bias you brought to this article. My problem with it is that it relies too much on your summary of the book. I am not questioning your intentions, only that I think your eforts would be better-served by looking ofr secondary sources. How was this book reviewd? Only in the mainstream press, or the academic journals too? If academic, ones on jewish history, or ones on film history? How was it reviewed? Such informationis the real way to ensure that you are complying with NPOV and not violating NOR. Presumably, the book itself cites articles by historians and sociologists, the sources for the book may be good sources for this article if you want to mkie it more encyclopedic. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this ... starting in the talk section, with a plea for experienced editors to helkp work on NPOV and notability issues, is often a good idea and here I'd say your hindsight is 20/20.

I think people have a knee jerk reaction to the title of Gabler's book, and here I think you could have protected yourself by being more expolicit about who his intellectual influences are, and his motives, and then adding as contect the way others have reviewed it. With uncontroversial topics no one editor bears the burden. Alas, with controversial articles, frequently one or two orhtree editors have toi do all the editing You are bing slow, but considerate, good luck Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)



As the nominator of two of your articles, I thought that the least I could do was to explain why I put both of them up for nomination. The first (Jews in Hollywood...) I nominated strictly because it appeared to be a poorly written article that was more of an aggregate of things from other articles, and as such wasn't encyclopedic. If there had been some substance to it other than the information from other WP articles, I probably wouldn't have nominated it. I stated on another user's talk page that I believe the article to be abhorrent, and I maintain that position. I don't believe that this article should be on WP because it does come across as inflammatory and could be perceived as anti-semitic...and that it only serves to provide new fodder for bigots and racists.

As for the book, I'm actually waffling on this one...While I agree that it could be notable, there's nothing yet to provide evidence of notability (though the Time article is a good start...can you pull that in somehow?) My main reasons for nominating it were that it failed the two guidelines I quoted in the AfD.

I should let you know that I do not think that you are anti-semite, bigoted, or racist, or that your articles in and of themselves are anti-semitic. I think that you are a good editor who had good intentions in creating these articles, and one whom I hope to see continue to provide good things in the future.

Happy Editing! Frmatt (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I admit I feel a bit overwhelmed right now. Im the first to admit I am not a good writer. But I am willing to roll up my sleeves and help make this a better encyclopedia. Im sure things will look better after a few days have gone by. --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't feel too overwhelmed. You've been here a long time with a good track record, and I'd hate to see you get soured by this experience as you mentioned over at ANI. I actually think that overall, this is a tempest in a teapot, that everyone should just drop the stick and back away from the horse at this point! Let the AfDs run their course and then move on with our editing! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Compromise[edit]

Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a idea if I can actually do it, but I followed WP:IAR and just went ahead and did it anyways. Would love to hear your feedback. Frmatt (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD comment[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that if the article ends up getting deleted, that most likely won't mean your work is lost. Any administrator can provide you with a copy of a deleted article to work on in your userspace, and would be willing to do so as long as they're convinced you want to make an honest effort at improving it, and won't simply re-create the same deleted article in main space. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Fyi--Peter cohen (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins Comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations[edit]

FYI: I’ve started a discussion of the comment:The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR . at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal note: I do want to say that while your concerns about bias overall on wikipedia are understood, your approach to dealing with them has been very clumbsy, i.e., titles and subjects of articles and some bigoted sources you hopefully accidently used (which I've done a couple times myself using reprints from sources I didn't realize definitely were bigoted). I think you've seen the incredible backlash that can produce, even if some of it probably was motivated by tag teaming. In this area it is best to do only the most neutral edits with the most reliable sources on existing articles til you learn the ropes and that's what I'd suggest in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Joseph F Smith family high contrast.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Joseph F Smith family high contrast.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Noleander redux. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 01:41, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Noleander redux. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

I'm sorry, but this edit, and this edit, along with a whole host of other edits you've made over a period of time are just not acceptable.

I have therefore blocked you indefinitely, and noted this on WP:AN/I. If you want to have this reviewed, please add {{Unblock|your reason}} - ~~~~. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I appear to have misread those edits. I fully apologise for blocking you indefinitely, I have reversed this now. However, I maintain that you are being disruptive in other areas, however not for the reasons I cited. I will not be blocking you again, so I will leave this up to other admins to sort out and do what they feel is best. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you to reread WP:DE and WP:TE. It is very closely describes your behavior: most of your edits seems to to support a marginal viewpoint, edit warring against consensus , etc. You seems to continue this pattern of behavior despite quite stern Tbdsy's warning. Please stop and do something more constructive or I have to block you. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick thought[edit]

Hi Noleander, I just saw the discussion on AN/I yesterday, and that you had returned to editing (in the same controversial area). I posted a thought on AN/I, namely that I don't believe you can be prohibited from editing from an anti-religious perspective, even if it focuses on a particular religion, if your edits comply with Wikipedia's policies. I should clarify that's a big "if" when you are picking controversial issues; the fact is that editors get much more leeway on non-controversial issues, but on principle I think that also makes some sense. The issue is also much fuzzier when you address things that look less like religion and more like ethnicity. My quick thought, anyway, was this: assuming good faith, please do realize that you're dealing with a complex topic in a complex arena, and per another comment I saw, please also keep in mind your own fallibility. If you think a topic should be covered in a certain way, ask for opinions. Suggest your own, and see what others think. If you're confident that you've found something workable, then move ahead. Don't just go for the most controversial things; if you are working on an article, improve all parts of it. The fact that one person tells you something does not mean you can take it for true; the fact that an editor does something does not mean you can do the same. Keep in mind that most editors want to get along, including with those you may think are wrong. Show deference to consensus, be straight forward, only do what you agree with, if consensus isn't there then work for it, and never be a part of any WP:Battleground environment (a very broad concept). Otherwise any of these are reasons why someone may be booted from controversial areas with very wide support. Maybe one day I'll make some of this into an essay for people wanting to work on controversial topics, who knows, but I hope this helps. Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Interpretations of Genesis[edit]

Ambox notice.png

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Interpretations of Genesis. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Book of Genesis. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Book of Genesis - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Interp of Genesis[edit]

I just took a look at the article you created and saw that you had Genesis creation myth listed as one of the interps. You wrote that some scholars consider genesis to be a Creation myth. I think we should be steering away from statements like that. Nobody contests that Genesis 1-2 meets the definition of creation myth (which is why it's not an interpretation). they may not like that the term "creation myth" is used to define a religious account of cosmogenesis but as of now that's just the way it is. The only way it could be considered an interpretation is if there were actual sources that supported a position contrary to Genesis 1-2 being a religious account of cosmogenesis. I recommend we move references to Genesis creation myth to a "see also" section or add to a lede section discussing the creation myth and subsequently it's various interpretations. Nefariousski (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So I retitled the section as "literal interpretations" and referenced Biblical literalism, Creationism and their supporting groups and people. I'll try to add more to each section (summaries and wikilinks to other articles that fit each category) when time allows over the next few days. Nefariousski (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism[edit]

Your edits indicate that you are combing sources to find any criticism you can, even if the criticism is either misguided, incorrect, or very WP:FRINGE. This is more of an indication that you seem somewhat possessed to find whatever criticism you can about Judaism, and you are not capable of approaching the article from an unbiased perspective. Notable criticisms are fine, and encouraged. But finding picayune items in some book here or there, especially ones that do not reflect current practice, is inappropriate. Perhaps a few months spent on other religions, or better yet, completely unrelated topics, would be appropriate. However, your current mission is turning you into a single purpose account for which a topic ban may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WT:JEW#User:Noleander and Criticism of Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment there, as I'm concerned this should not be raised on a particular Wikiproject for discussion. As a partial observer, I would also suggest that this should be supplemented with more specific problems if there is to be a request for action. Even if one accepted that Noleander is an WP:SPA, for instance, that would not in itself be a basis for taking action. I can assume that the issues are more specific, but I think they would need to be clarified in order for others to make a fair evaluation. The accusation of an "obsession," for instance, is problematic at this point in that it has not been supported. There needs to be caution. I do not see how that particular claim could be supported, and for that reason I am going to remove it from the section header. Mackan79 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Mackan is right, that your recent behavior on Wikipedia probably does not warrant custodian action at this time. I just don't believe that an editor should get into trouble for trying to find reputable sources to build up an article, especially when he's discussing these sources with other editors (including some who have attacked him). Even though this is my own religion and ethnic group, I strongly support WP:NOTCENSORED. However, I would like to know why you have become interested in this subject to this extent. FYI, there's been a lengthy discussion about you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which I think you might want to see. Some type of explanation, on your part, might be helpful to us when trying to understand what you want.

For example, are you trying to write the article with a particular person or group of people in mind? Do you live around some or many Jewish people, and are you responding in some way to how they are interacting with you? Do you feel you are reading too much of one angle about Judaism? (I sure do, which is one of the reasons I became interested in historical Jewish heresies. You people may want to look at the very cool column "Heretic of the Month" from American Jewish Life magazine, with articles about Shabbetai Tzvi (also see Talk:Sabbatai Zevi), Jacob Frank, Baruch Spinoza, Joseph Rabinovitch, The Witch of Endor, and Anan ben David.) Are you aiming for GA or FA status for "Criticism of Judaism"? Am I on the wrong track altogether? BTW, I don't think anyone agrees with every aspect of Judaism, which is, ironically, one of the reasons I think so many Jews immerse themselves in it. As on Wikipedia, there's nothing like conflict and controversy to get people involved. --AFriedman (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The motive is irrelevant. Noleander nor anyone else is required to explain their interest in any particular article. He's explained before that he's simply interested in religious skepticism, and that's good enough for me. It would've been good enough for me had he not even disclosed that much. The quality of the edits and interaction with other editors are what's important, not the motive behind it all. Equazcion (talk) 22:12, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the motive is irrelevant to his right to edit, but it may be relevant to helping us understand his vision of this article and the encyclopedia as a whole. As an editor, he seems to have received more than his share of controversy and taken up a tremendous amount of other people's time. I'm hoping that other editors will be able to work with him rather than against him. --AFriedman (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


You may be right on the talk page. The problem I think has to do with OWN. Some time ago I did what i could to add material from respected secondary sources and was challenged all the way. I hope you will do some research into the topic and perhaps do some direct editing to fix the problem you see. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Controversies template[edit]

No reason to do this:

Move "Islam controversies" template from sidebar to footer, to be consistent with other "Criticism of [someReligion]" articles; no content change

For one, the controversies is what the article is about. Two, we dont care what other articles are doing. We do what makes more sense. The article is Criticism of Islam and it belongs in the main Controversies template so burying it at the bottom of the page a "show" section is equivalent to making it completely disappear so dont do that again. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 15:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Noleander/draft List of prophecies[edit]

As promised. I note there is some OR there, by the way, as well as uncited stuff such as "Orrin Porter Rockwell protected from enemies" - if that can't be cited, the prophecy shouldn't be in the list. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Controversies related to Israel and Zionism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Controversies related to Israel and Zionism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to Israel and Zionism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yossiea (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Controversies related to Israel and Zionism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Controversies related to Israel and Zionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Judaism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Judaism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not restore inappropriate content[edit]

Please do not restore content that has been judged by multiple editors to be out-of-cope, inappropriate, possible original research or synthesis. Continued disregard of discussions and consensus may be construed as disruptive editing. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Noleander, do you have any evidence that "Avi brought in user BusStop and Chesdovi"? If not, I strongly suggest you remove that claim. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


An ANI discussion has been started that involves you. You may wish to go and leave a response there. SilverserenC 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)