User talk:Slrubenstein/Archive 21
Hi, I've looked over about a couple dozen of her contributions. The funny thing is, she edits a lot of obscure articles of which the added content is quite difficult to verify. She seems a little strange, but at the moment I think she's still tolerable... until paths cross again of course. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, after this bad decision of hers, I reblocked her to autoblock her IP addresses. Given the time delay, I've added a few days to your block as well. I also protected her talk page (for only a day) so that she will realize that this is not appropriate to do. If you know of what particular articles she was playing with, we should go looking for the other account she mentioned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia and have a ton of questions. I want to add a new "Alternative Views" addition to the Jesus article, which is semi-protected. Can someone give me some guidance? Is there a way to PM users here? Sahansdal (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, don't know how interested you are, but Epf is now saying that he will start a "proper" French peope article called "French people (ethnic group)" which will be about "indigenous ethnic French". I have warned him that this constitutes OR. I also think it is a clear pov-fork. He has not managed to get his way in the French people article, he wants to remove people who he sees as not "ethnically French", but no one agrees with him. I'd appreciate it if you could find time to comment here and here. If you don't have the time then I understand. Thanks. Alun (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rubenstein. I suggest you ignore these accusations by Alun since although I intend to create a separate article, I have never used the words that it will be a "proper" French people article. The new article I am proposing will be created by users who support it and wish to take part in it, working from a neutral POV and valid references. It will be distinct from the "French people" article since it will focus on the ethnic group and be appropriately titled "French (ethnic group)", simialr to Dutch (ethnic group). The "French people" article focuses on all French, nationals and citizens, regardless of ethnic origins. Most others in the discussion recognize this and so far no one else has opposed my proposition. I had made complaints about the inclusion of people in the photo selection who were not ethnically French, of non-French descent or those who were not born or raised in France (Marie Curie and Josephine Baker) with regards to the current "French people" article but have since retracted them. I have support from one other user in terms of these complaints about that specific photo selection, but again no one apart from Alun has opposed the creation of a separate article on specifically French ethnicity since there is no valid basis to do so. Ciao, Epf (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the same though is it? Dutch people redirects to Dutch (ethnic group), they are not different articles. You want to create two distinct articles (French people and French (ethnic group), based on your belief that ethnicity is primarily defined by ancestry. But French people do not all share a greater degree of ancestry with each other than to people from different groups, they share the greatest degree of ancestry with the people geographically closest to them. For example someone from Marseilles will share a greater degree of ancestry with someone from the proximate regions of Spain and Italy than they will with someone from the very north of France. Alun (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about my suggestion for having some sort of guideline for ethnic groups on Wikipedia? I seem to be having the same dispute with Epf over and over again at different articles. I think it would therefore be a good idea to have a guideline about ethnic identity that could be used when it comes to discussing ethnic groups or ethnicity here. I'd rather have this argument in one place where we can really thrash it out. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on this, and it may be that sometimes I am talking a lot of nonsense, which is another reason why I think it would be a good idea to have a guideline. Epf is really annoying me now and I'm increasingly loosing my temper with him, obviously this is a bad thing because it is difficult to remain civil when one's temper is up. You know me, sometimes I get carried away and end up "feeding the troll" when it would be better to keep quiet, old habits die hard. Maybe the guideline is a bad idea, I don't know, but it seems stupid to me to be having the same debate over and over again at different articles. What I don't understand is that Epf is using more or less the same argument and applying it to different ethnic groups, but surely all ethnic groups use different criteria for identification? Or am I just hopelessly ignorant? Anyway I'd very much appreciate your thoughts about whether we need a guideline or not because I have a deep admiration for the solid work you do here and the lucid analyses you provide. Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Alun (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone is truly a POV-Pusher, then evidence to that fact from either community consensus via an RfC or an ArbCom case has proven it. Even so, I don't think name-calling would ever help. Saying such a person's edits seem to be pushing a pov has much less sting and is less hostile than saying "you're a POV-pusher". If somebody tells me that it looks like I'm pushing a POV with such-and-such an edit, they'll get a much more positive response than if they accuse me of being a pov-pusher... I think those criteria are what needs to be put into place. The essay "call a spade a spade" has been abused time and time again to attack edtiors that are being disagreed with for having a different POV than the accusing editor. A majority of the time, the worst pov-pushers are the ones accusing others of being the same. It's an ugly situation that really needs to be addressed. NPA and even CIV say to talk about the edtitorial content of articles and not attack other edtiors. Civil comments about someone's behavior are allowed, but name-calling and hostility are not welcome. If ArbCom identifies an editor is a pov-pusher, and makes sanctions or restrictions - then violations of those restrictions should be pointed out..but what's the point of name-calling and saying "oh, you're just a pov-pusher". Too easily abused. That's the point I'm trying to make on WP:SPADE. I think you were making a similar, but perhaps slightly different point here. Dreadstar † 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of violating a policy or guideline is fine, but too many times I've seen editors accuse other editors of being pov-pushers while pushing a pov themselves. I don't see how name calling helps. When someone is pushing a pov, that means they're violating WP:NPOV, so saying that the person is violating NPOV with such-and-such edit is fine. But who decides an editor is a pov-pusher? Some editors regularly use it as a weapon to try and disenfranchise or ridicule other editors. So far, I've seen individual or like-minded editors making this decision within their own limited group. Hell, I've been called a pov-pusher, but I'm not...how do I get them to stop calling me that? By filing an RfC or RfArb? Why put the onus on the falsely-accusd to have to prove they're not a pov-pusher. I say put that onus on the ones wanting to engage in name-calling, make them RfC or ArbCom suspected POV pushers and have sanctions applied.
- Here's another example of an unfair attack, one that seems to have driven a good editor from editing an article that she has expertise in...it's these types of attacks that need to be dealt with. Giving anyone an excuse to engage in hostile name-calling, like "pov-pusher" or "woo-woo" or "crank" is against civility, there are other ways to identify and deal with problematic editors. Dreadstar † 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, resorting to personal attacks and insults with no factual basis whatsoever. It seems that you are both the ones who lack credibility in these discussions. Just because I interpreted a source and its information differently (and clearly more accurately if you look at the description of demographics in other countries of the US Department of State's background notes, which deals with the ethnic composition) from yours does not mean I am "lying". Honestly, I don't really care if you think "I haven't made a good argument" and it is quite obvious that neither of you have made a valid response to them. My conclusion is that both of you have resorted to personal insults (please see WP:No Personal Attacks) because my POV and arguments strongly challenge yours. You are both abrasive and ignorant users and I am personally fed up with your "ganging-up" method of dealing with very supported viewpoints from other users that challenge your own. When someone interprets an issue differently with strong reasoning behind it, it does not merit you to make ad hominem arguments. Whatever relevance you had in this discussion has evaporated. Epf (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you and Ramdrake make good contributions to Wiki like the rest of us, but these latest slew of insults towards myself from the both of you (but not from anyone else) on Talk:French people and Talk: Franz Boas are unacceptable. I have made clear and concise arguments. You disagree with them, fine, but groundless insults are not needed or acceptable to Wikipedia. I don't know what your problem is, but give it a rest and stop acting like you have the moral or intellectual "high ground", because its ridiculous.
"...nothing will prove Epf wrong - he is like an unfalsifiable experiment, just not science"
"Epf is a joke."
"...he has returned to his pattern of lying and misrepresentation."
"...his reading comprehension skills are so deficient that one just cannot assign any value to his research."
"My only conclusion would be that he seems to live in a world where the rules of logic differ in significant ways from the ones they have in this world." - Ramdrake
One more thing, I never intended for or stated anywhere that the US Department of State definition of the ethnic composition of the France is alone justification for the creation of a French ethnic group article. Read correctly before you make ignorant comments. You, Alun and Ramdrake disagree with me, fine, but don't resort to "ganging-up" tactics and personal attacks. I have made a valid concern and argument regarding 'French people' but no where made edits about those without consensus or agreement, so please do tell me what the hell is your problem ? I know my research and knowledge in anthropological areas is solid, so your insults don't mean anything, but it is still unacceptable. If you have a personal problem with me, what can I really do about that ? Epf (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My two cents on a question which seems to have been nagging you
To me, it is clearly anti-Semitic, and I would hazard it's personal. The fact that his edit went up very shortly after you chewed his head off one more time for his POV pushing IMHO confirms the fact. Sorry, just had to put in my tuppence. Don't care if Jagz tries to use it as evidence of collusion; to me it ain't, and I'm not going to worry about it: not worth it. Have a good one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)