Many are already sourced at the "source" - at the wiki article on the person, to which they are linked. No need for double work on these (if this were a Wiki policy).--Epeefleche23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"User Jayjg's policy"
Hi Wasserman. Please desist from using the phrase "user Jayjg's policy" or similar locutions in future edit summaries; it is a violation of an important Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk)22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because that's what the rules dictate: the consensus was to delete the article, and in order to get it reposted, you have to go through the proper channels. Listing a DRV is pretty easy - the steps are right here. -- Merope20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously don't understand how to do all of that stuff when it comes to all of that code and procedure. I'm kind of old and computer illiterate when it comes to all of that. Nevermind I guess; it'll just have to re-created again at a later date. I might try to figure it all out later. --WassermannNYC20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WassermannNYC, you are misusing your talk page, that's why Merope removed the article. Your talk page is for communication with you, not hosting deleted content. If you need to create a draft, it should be a subpage of your user space. Leebo8611:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know that I was "misusing my talk page" by pasting deleted material here. If someone would have told me that I wouldn't have been upset about someone tampering with my TP. Hopefully we can clear up this misunderstanding because I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way around here, just edit and improve articles as best I can. --WassermannNYC04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hi. I'm afraid you're misusing your talk page by holding the "Jewdar" deleted article there. What you could do is host it in your user space, however, I warn you that eventually, someone will come along and list that page for deletion too. In the meantime though, that's your best bet. You could click here and cut and paste the material to the new page. Ignoring the requests of others not to misuse your talk page is a swift route to trouble and I'm sure you don't really want to start ignoring Wikipedia's rules and conventions. Yours helpfully, --Dweller12:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... I'm thinking. Is it against the GFDL to post the deleted content without its history? In that case, the only way a version could be hosted in Wassermann's user space is if it was recreated by him (without using the contributions of others). That's assuming there are other contributors. Leebo8612:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leebo is correct. Furthermore, WassermanNYC's persistence in posting this here without going through the proper channels is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Consider this a warning; posting this content again here will result in your being blocked from editing. I've linked you to the instructions on how to request a deletion review. If you can't do it, you can ask for help (simply by putting {{helpme}} on your talk page along with your question). -- Merope14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to create controversy here, just trying to preserve a worthy page that was unjustly deleted. I had no clue that posting deleted material on my userpage was against the rules, so I do apologize for not knowing that. I still don't understand this "deletion review" process...all of that procedure and code is too complicated for an old guy like me, so if someone here knows how to work through the deletion review process please do so and let me know here. I don't know how to use many of the advanced features of Wikipedia yet, and I'm not sure if I ever will. --WassermannNYC04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly help you. You will need to look at the old AFD (found here and articulate what you object to. It does look like process kinda fell apart in the discussion, so that's on your side. Do you have new sources that attest to this word's use in the vernacular? If you can write out your reasonings for overturning this deletion, I will set up the review on your behalf. -- Merope04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Okay! I've listed it on deletion review here. Good luck!
It's no problem -- I understand how convoluted some processes are around here. However, maybe next time you might not be so jumpy when an editor makes an edit you don't like? I try extremely hard to be patient and understanding with all the editors I work with, because I know that, unfortunately, I make a few of them angry. But there are reasons for what I do, and I'm always happy to explain them or even to restore articles to users to help them fix them up. Just something to keep in mind. :) -- Merope05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, many of the processes on Wikipedia are indeed very convoluted, especially since I'm still learning many of them and don't know much about protocol, obscure policies, advanced features, and all of that. I do want to apologize again for being jumpy as you said; I wasn't really angry so much as mildly disturbed, because I didn't know that other people were allowed to alter the talk pages of other users unless it was a direct personal attack or something of that nature. But now that I know this policy, I won't do it again. And thanks for being very patient and understanding with such a Wiki-illiterate user like me. Take it easy! --WassermannNYC05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity in bios
It depends on whether their ethnicity was notable or relevant, particularly to them. For example, even though Albert Einstein was not particularly religious, nor did his work involved Jewish topics, he was a Zionist, he was forced to flee Germany because he was a Jew, the Nazis tried to remove references to his work because he was a Jew, and he was also offered the post of President of Israel, because he was a Jew. Moreover, his Jewishness is regularly cited in reliable sources. That's notable. Jayjg (talk)21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try removing that material because the owner of that article won't allow it. My interest in bios began when I noticed that "Jewish-American" was added to the lead sentence of approximately 800 Wikipedia biographes. It seems that this was done out of some sort of ethnic pride I am guessing but darker forces could have been involved as well, who really knows. The problem is that certain editors then wanted to add the Jewish-American tag to every criminal of Jewish decent. Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something. I am going to take my own advice and not edit this article for a while and step back. It seems that folks have an agenda either for inclusion or exclusion of Libby's ethnicity. Anyways, good luck! --Tom13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Then certain editors wanted to add every Jewish person to the list of Jewish-American business people to prove that the world is controlled by Jews or something" -- I resent that you believe that my intentions on the List of Jewish American businesspeople were malicious. I simply sought to expand the article because I have an interest in American and Jewish businesspeople, and I did a good job I might say. Also, it is clear that the page was unfairly targeted for deletion, even though most of the other lists of Jews (and most of the articles on Wikipedia) aren't sourced at all. I might try to restore the list in the coming days; if this is blocked by those users that for whatever reason are trying to prevent it, I might have to start blanking other lists of Jews (even though I of course don't want to) in the interest of consistency and fairness. --WassermannNYC06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wasserman, I apologize if I offended you. I believe I was referring to an anonymous editor but no matter. As long as you provide references and the people are of notability, please add them. I totally agree that there is alot of hipocrisy around here. I was actually blocked for an entire month for "creepy anti-jewish edits" by an Admin who I feel totally misread my intentions. Anyways, apologies again and good luck going forward. --Tom15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sort of a perversion of Wikipedia that people can bully their way into being "owners" of articles. Also, the category part at the least, seems to be in contradiction to WP:BLP regarding privacy and relevancy. Personally, I find the whole thing rather creepy, but I'm just trying to edit in accordance with the rules. I've worked on several highly contentious pages, but I've never encountered such bullying and personal hostility as I did with the Libby page. Seems a pity, that's all. Notmyrealname15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of being facesious(sp) about owning the article. Oh course people aren't suppose to take over articles but again, people become very personally involved and end up taking it that way. Good for you to try to stay within policies and remaining civil, that really does go along way. Sorry that you encountered any nastyness. I mainly work on bios since they are of interest of me. I have not made one edit about politics or George Bush, but that must be nightmare. Anyways, take care and best of luck going forward!--Tom16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If in one week from now you can confirm that the red links are notables and the blue links are Jewish, the list can stay. However, if there are no sources available by then providing suggestions that these people are wikipedia-notable and, in turn, Jewish, the list will be redirected to the List of Latin American Jews talk page once again. If you want help looking for sources, I'll do so. Usedup03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The charismatic Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
You need to read the category definition more carefully. "This category contains religious leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority." [emphasis added] While somewhat charismatic, Dr. King did not fit that definition. --Orange Mike19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that King was indeed a charismatic religious leader and thus belongs in the category. Dr. King is, in fact, often described as one of the most charismatic religious AND political leaders of the entire 20th Century, at least in America. That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that). Also notice that he is sourced as a charismatic leader over at the List of charismatic leaders page (Sutton, John,Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change () p.112, Pine Forge Press, ISBN 0-7619-8705-3). --WassermannNYC19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Werner Erhard a religious leader?
I understand listing Erhard as one of Weber's charismatic leaders, but I have never seen anyone claim that any of his organizations was religious. Can we classify him some other way? Roccoconon20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Sonnetology, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Sonnetology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sonnetology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deor23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote: "I also feel that many here on Wikipedia are singling me and my edits out for excessive criticism and scrutiny (for whatever reason?)." -- I read your mind User:Deor! Actually, I'm going to move that article now. I messed up for sure. The article (and category) should be named "Sonnet studies" (approx. 650,000 Google hits) (with Category:Sonnet studies), not "Sonnetology" as it currently is. I got mixed up apparently, because that's the term that I use colloquially. Still though...doesn't "Sonnetology" sound a lot more interesting than "sonnet studies"? I'll move the page now before we lose all of that data. --WassermannNYC23:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sonnet studies. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Deor01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Last warning" huh? And what happens next time I question and/or expose your (often times) unethical/biased 'editing tactics'? Too terse, too brief, often rude, unworthy, unexplained, and pathetically unsubstantiated "responses" (either in the edit summary, but mostly on talk pages) does indeed seem to be a 'tactic' that you and others use in order to silence debate on a particular edit/topic/issue (trust me though: you're not the only admin. that uses this 'tactic,' though you are among the worst offenders). I'm just stating the facts, Sir -- I can't help but tell the truth, especially when it comes to the wrongdoings/shortcomings (and clear bias) of people in 'positions of authority' (is an administrator position on a 2nd-rate internet encyclopedia even considered a real 'position of authority'?). Sometimes the truth hurts a little bit (though I obviously didn't intend the "User:Jayjg tactic" comment to be a personal insult, it was more like constructive criticism). After all you've been through here on Wikipedia, surely you can handle a non-issue as minor as this? --WassermannNYC14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wassermann...I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of "Jayjg's tactics." The guy seems to enjoy pushing his POV all over the place and he just ends up being extremely disruptive. MetsFan7619:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-adding Lenin. It can only undermine the credibility of all of these lists and encourage editors to delete them.--Runcorn13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to take Lenin off of the page. His name is BY FAR the best sourced name on the entire list. Your continuation of censorious POV only undermines the entire project. --WassermannNYC13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the references again (and please don't rashly remove them), and then notice this sentence in the charismatic authority article: "As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving." Some of the references refer to the Nation of Islam dissolving w/out Farrakhan's charismatic leadership. Also, other than a sentence or two, would you please care to lay out Weber's exact 'theory' of charismatic authority as you have read it to be? (and please quote the PRIMARY source[s] either here or on the TP). As of now it all seems rather arbitrary, with you all just adding/deleting whomever you feel is most 'appropriate.' I'll also remind you all (again...) that Weber was not the first person to write about charismatic authority/charisma; he was just one of the first people that attempted to 'systematize' it. --WassermannNYC15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder why you aren't fretting so much about the new (entirely unreferenced) "In business" section that someone recently added to the page?
Hey there. I noticed you re-categorized the Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition. I separated them with the reasoning that Astrology by tradition is for, of course, traditions of astrology like Western astrology, Persian astrology, etc., whereas Astrology by type is for applications of astrology like natal astrology, horary astrology, and so on. I'd like to differentiate them fully as the categories would cease to be useful when two categories mean the same thing. I was picturing it as:
---Category:Astrology
------Category:Astrology by type
------Category:Astrology by tradition
...with Astrology by type and Astrology by tradition "children" of the main astrology category as they aren't the same thing and hold different contents. — Sam15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they deserve to be interlinked together because they are so closely related. Even though they aren't the exact same thing as you correctly say, they should still be lumped together because of their clear similarity [if only for the sake of people browsing these categories]. That makes sense to you, right? --WassermannNYC15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite following your reasoning for that. The type of astrology is not dependent on any tradition, likewise a tradition of astrology is not inherently a type. The relationship isn't clear to me. — Sam02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, heh. I removed the reference to natal chart on the horoscope article because there are lots of different types of horoscopes drawn for various reasons and natal astrology is just one of these. Perhaps it could be mentioned elsewhere (I'm thinking along the lines of see also) but one application of a horoscope does not deserve a mention right in the introduction. — Sam15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why categorize the Jesus article under "former Jews?"
Hi WassermannNYC, you were reported on AN/I for a persistent pattern of incivility, and were issued warnings about it in the past, which you ignored. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours, to give you a chance to reflect on your actions. Please take the time off to review our policies, most specifically WP:CIVIL, and consider carefully your options. If you decide to abide by our rules, respect your fellow editors and admins, and contribute constructively, I am sure you will enjoy your time here and we will benefit from your contributions. Conversely, if you decide to continue harassing admins, attacking editors and violating our civility rules, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. I hope very much you'll select the first option. Thank you, Crum37519:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship
I see charges of Censorship or Suppressing information fairly regularly, and I have never seen them to be true. Wikipedia is not censored, and every attempt to censor this encyclopedia has met with rapid and resounding failure. These two arguments are pointless and useless, and usually a failure to assume good faith as well, if not outright personal attacks. If you find information you feel should be included is being removed, valid and useful arguments for inclusion are that the information is verifiable and notable. Use that approach, and don't accuse your fellow editors of censorship. KillerChihuahua?!?00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something to say, try to do so clearly. Linking to two lists and a deleted category with smarmy insinuations of censorship but zero civil attempts at communication of your concerns/questions/thoughts on the matter is utterly useless, unless your intent is to troll rather than accomplish anything meaningful or substantial. KillerChihuahua?!?10:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a duplicate of this message. That's not censorship, look it up in the dictionary. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word means. KillerChihuahua?!?22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Saturn's strange North Pole hexagon
Hi, my friend! Excuse me, for my english, but I think that you are very proper to see this topic about „Saturn's strange North Pole hexagon”. Unluckily, you must make an effort because the topic is in romanian :(. Thank you!--Abel21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.T.
I will support the inclusion of this link. I would also support a sentence or two,except that we'd all never agree on what it should be. The link is a neutral minimum--after all, the article is on WP & this is what it talks about. It doesn't imply approval. DGG05:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I see you've put the On the Jewish Question article into the Category: Anti-Judaism. I guess the reason is that Marx's essay is considered to take a standpoint hostile to Judaism. I've removed the article from that category again.
Please note that the article gives the sourced information that most critical scholars reject the argument that Marx would be an anti-Semit (I have not checked that source myself). So there must be a good reason to put the article into the category "anti-judaism".
Schwalker08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this category is totally appropriate considering Marx offers a radical critique of Judaism throughout the essay, coming to some fairly negative conclusions about Jews and Judaism. I'm not saying that Marx was an anti-Semite, only that this particular tract is very much against Judaism -- thus it belongs in the category. Have you ever read it? --Wassermann07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the definiton of anti-Judaism in the main article:
"a total or partial opposition to Judaism—and to Jews as adherents of it—by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior".
I don't think Marx accepted a system of beliefs and practices competing with Judaism. On the contrary, he advocated legal political equality for Jews. He probably believed that religious belief would become irrelevant in an emancipated society. Marx's main target of critique in part II of the essay is the ubiquity of
huckstering in bourgeois society. He then critisizes Judaism and Christianity as the interdependent ideologies of this society.
Since some have compared the essay with Spinoza's ideas, I would not object to put On the Jewish Question into Categories: Criticism of religion or Criticism of Judaism.
--Schwalker11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wasserman. I have removed your link to Wikipedia Review here. Please don't link to attack sites. See this determination by the Arbitration Committee: "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking".[3]. Bishonen | talk12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry..I wasn't aware that that website was an 'attack site,' so I do apologize. I do think that it is quite censorious of Wikipedia though not to have an article about that site and others like Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. Being an encyclopedia means that we should include EVERYTHING, not pick and choose what is most 'appropriate.' I also realize that quite a few editors here on Wikipedia are looking for any and all excuses (however minor) to block me, and because I'm trying not to give them that satisfaction, I'll avoid linking to that site in the future now that I know it is 'illegal' to do so. --Wassermann06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is no: it isn't censorship to exclude Ariel Toaff's work from Blood libel against Jews. The guideline on exceptional claims is quite clear: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people" [italics mine]. The policy on undue weight is equally clear: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Toaff's work is an "exceptional claim" from a single source and represents a "tiny-minority view" and so doesn't belong in the article. --Rrburke(talk)03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. I don't think I'm attempting to rationalize anything, merely to point out that there are long-established policies at Wikipedia regarding the threshold for including exceptional claims and how to decide on the relative weight to accord varying points of view on a given topic (including whether to devote any space at all to tiny-minority views), and that these policies are being applied properly in this case, consistently with the manner in which they are applied in similar cases, and hence that the application of these policies in this case is unrelated to the red herring of censorship.
The policies in question are the policy on exceptional claims and the policy known as undue weight. The first requires that exceptional claims "be supported by multiple reliable sources" [italics mine], while the second advises that articles ought to apportion space to elucidating differing points of view more or less in accordance with the proportion in which they are to be found in verifiable, reliable sources. Of particular relevance to this case is the portion of the policy which states that "[v]iews held only by a tiny minority of people... perhaps should not be represented at all." If it is censorship to remove references to Ariel Toaff based on these policies, then it is likewise censorship not to give over a section of the article Earth to discussing the views of the Flat Earth Society. Of course, neither case is actually censorship at all, but simply an attempt to give readers an accurate picture of the genuine shape of an issue by not exaggerating the importance of negligible points of view. In the case of the blood libel, there is the additional requirement, also clearly expressed in the policy, to apply this policy strictly in matters involving "historical events [and] politically charged issues."
Corrected direct link: [4]
I am informing you of this request for arbitration, initially filed by User talk:Notmyrealname, since you are an "interested party" who contributed comments in Talk:Lewis Libby (see archived talk pages) about these issues pertaining to Libby's "ethnicity" and his identification as "Jewish" and the category "Jewish American lawyers" in Talk:Lewis Libby (archived talk pages); I [had] modified the heading to focus on the articles in dispute as opposed to on a contributor and explained that there [but that was reverted by an administrator]. Please go to the link and indicate that you confirm having received this message. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) --corrected link; updated. --NYScholar 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing that will stop me from adding a valid category if it is indeed a correct category (as the Libby category so obviously is), but I'm not trying to get embroiled in a useless dispute with this sickening swarm of ruthless censors. The problem with these people is that they have absolutely no problems including Jewish categories in non-controversial articles about non-criminal 'good Jews' (is adding Jewish categories to Einstein's or Brandeis' article [and thousands of others] considered "yellow badging?"), but when it comes to controversial Jews like Lewis Libby, Marc Rich, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Paul Wolfowitz, Martin Frankel, Boris Berezovsky, etc. (i.e., Jews that are convicted of ANY wrongdoing or aren't well respected by the public), the Jewish categor(ies) of these articles are very often removed by these censors even if it explicitly mentions in the article that they are Jewish. If and when someone tries to re-categorize the article with these obviously valid categories, the censors will have nothing of it and will revert these valid edits until they are blue in the face. Frankly, it's pure madness; it represents a form of disgustingly methodical and eventually disastrous censorship that is clearly undermining the value and veracity of Wikipedia. I don't have the time or energy to keep up with it and revert/examine all of their censorious edits (because I am only one person, and they are working in unison), but I do what I can to at least expose it and make others aware that this is happening.
If a category is valid, as it so obviously is the case of Mr. Libby, I'm on your side and will keep on adding this fully true category until it sticks (and even if it doesn't, I'll just keep on adding it). Also, judging from your voluminous comments, it looks like you REALLY like to explain yourself thoroughly (also known as arguing)...the thing is that you can't rationalize or try to offer just and logical solutions to simple problems with these people simply because they are not logical and/or rational individuals, and their intentions here on Wikipedia are entirely destructive (deletion) rather than constructive (addition). Also, you are mostly wasting your time because, for every well argued paragraph that you compose on a talk page, they so often offer nothing more than a pathetic excuse for a response, only one or two sentences. Therefore, I feel like you are very often wasting good/sharp mental energy that would be better spent elsewhere...I'm not sure if you are a Jew or not, but have you ever considered joining a yeshiva? It would be a good way to work out your argumentative energies -- :) --Wassermann05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting this response here. (I did read it--as you ask about that in Talk:Lewis Libby; I refer to it on my own talk page in response to someone else objecting about those other users' tactics.) Re: the arbitration request, I think that it asks for those referred to as "involved parties" to indicate that they are "aware" of the request (why I posted a ref. to it here on your talk page) and to post their "statement[s]" on the RFA page for the use of the arbitration committee. I hope that you will consider doing that. (I don't think a yeshiva is the appropriate place for me! ;) ) Also, I don't think that whether or not [a particular Wikipedia user] is Jewish is [germane] to this [particular disputed] matter concerning Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; either an item [in the content of an article] is supported by reliable verifiable sources, or it isn't. In this case, I [and you and others] think it is. What I object to from the perspective of neutrality is the POV censorship going on. That does not have to do with my own ethnicity, religious orientations (or not), gender, or any other orientation. It's just a matter of fair and neutral encyclopedic exposition. Thanks again. --NYScholar 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [clarified in brackets. updated. --NYScholar 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)]
I agree with your recent comment at the CfD for Category:Anti-Judaism. I'd like to see it made a rule that notification of a CfD be put on the talk page of the main article for a CfD, especially as if you watch a Category, you actually watch every page in a category and I don't think anyone does this. Most of the reasons given at Category:Anti-Catholicism's CfD make no sense to anyone familiar with the long history of anti-Catholicism, for example, but there was little opportunity afforded anyone with such familiarity to comment. WP:BLP was particulary weak rationale -- there's really no stigma attacted to merely being against Catholicism that I'm aware of. Anyway, I've made such a proposal here if you think this might made sense as a rule for CfD going forward. CfD's deserve input from people who know what they are talking about but that doesn't happen often enough the way things are now. -- Kendrick7talk00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 18
I have reverted your latest edit here. It is probably not wise to edit the closing admin's decision. Similar behavior could lead to severe warnings or blocks. --After Midnight000105:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Christian etc CFD
re. your messages. I have re-opened the debate. My closing was possibly premature given that discussion is actively ongoing.
Thank you very much kind sir! I would again urge everyone that we should discuss this as a GROUP of "anti-[religion]" categories rather than trying to tackle them individually as we have before; tackling them one-by-one again would only further contribute to the chaos and disorder currently surrounding them. --Wassermann07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above note was left when I was in rather a hurry, I'd just like to expand on the reasons for my action. First and foremost I consider that, as the debate stands, the consensus is to delete the categories in question. The combination of arguments, policy, and precedents which admins take into account in closing discussions seems to me to point towards this result. HOWEVER, given that the discussion is still actively ongoing, with 4+ contributions in the 24h before closing, I will admit that I was perhaps hasty. As a result I am happy to re-open the discussion for a few extra days, so that the debate can perhaps lead to a more perfect consensus.
Incidentally, I should probably point out that I have no personal view on the topic; I am merely the humble vessel into which CfD debaters pour the fruits of their deliberations ...
I normally respect many of your views BrownHairedGirl when it comes to categories, but in this case (and with the other "anti-X" cats.) you and the other ballot-stuffers are dead wrong. --Wassermann 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on the CfD discussion, and I'd be delighted to see a substantive response to my more detailed explanation of the problems I perceive with the category. However, the reason I am leaving a message here is that you have made a serious allegation, viz that I am engaged in ballot-stuffing: I would be grateful if you would either substantiate that allegation or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed apologize, because reading back over that comment I do certainly seem quite harsh -- I can be kind of mouthy (typy?) sometimes...sorry about that! I was referring to how editors totally uninvolved with those particular categories basically just went down the list and wrote "Delete" three times in a row, not even thinking twice (or three times) about it, not even caring because they know nothing of the topic(s). However, I now notice that you all seem to be the people that regularly vote on most category related issues, so I suppose that you all do certainly have a certain degree of authority/expertise when it comes to categories in general. Again, it was indeed a rude comment and I am sorry about it, even though to be truthful I did sense a great deal of groupthink going on there at that time (i.e., no one offered any actual REASONS for deletion besides "per nom"). I actually sort-of shot myself in the foot right afterwards though because I then went straight down that list of nominated categories and added "Strong keep" three times in a row just like you all had added "Delete" three (or more) times that day, all to the same lists, all the same people, all in a row (this is what I meant by ballot stuffing, not 'sockpuppets' or anything like that). I don't know though -- I still don't understand all of the features and protocol of Wikipedia so I can seem pretty lost sometimes, so please excuse my general ineptness around here. I'll do my best to tone down my sometimes smoldering rhetoric in the future though before I go mouthing (typing) off again. --Wassermann08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's there to talk about? User:NYScholar is obviously in the right -- the removal of valid, factual, and sourced information (plus relevant categories) is considered vandalism, right? And whoever is removing them is vandalizing/censoring an article, right? --Wassermann09:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fourth reversion to the article Blood libel against Jews violates Wikipedia's Three-revert rule, commonly known as 3rr. However, since you are a comparatively new editor and may not be aware of the rule, as a courtesy I am informing you of the existence of this rule rather than reporting the incident to the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, where reported violations are commonly accorded temporary blocks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy.
I would also caution you against making unfounded accusations of improper collusion, as you did in the edit summary accompanying this reversion. Such accusations may violate Wikipedia's policies against incivility and personal attacks, and may result in the editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Rrburke(talk)14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A followup: I note that in this edit you have inserted your opinions about the merits of cited sources into the body of the article itself. The article's talk page is the proper place to discuss the merits of sources; changes like this may be considered vandalism.
Finally, I note that you often cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in justifying your edits. Doing so in the context of a simple content dispute fails to consider that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules has a deep meaning which, paradoxically, often conflicts with its apparent meaning; the shallower sense of Ignore all rules -- a kind of histrionic declaration of a right to do as one pleases, or a grandiose and adolescent refusal to be bound by rules -- is often invoked by inexperienced editors, for self-serving reasons, simply as a catch-all justification for changes whose merits they cannot persuade other editors of. This kind of invocation of Ignore all rules forgets that editors are indeed enjoined to Ignore all rules, but when those rules are hindering your ability to improve Wikipedia, not when they are merely hindering you from making changes other editors disagree with. --Rrburke(talk)17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wanted to caution both you and IZAK about the need for civility. If you are having a dispute and feel you aren't getting anywhere, you can ask for help: the Mediation Cabal does informal mediation; the Association of Member Advocates helps users navigate disputes; and you can also contact an administrator for help. Please maintain civility and get help before any dispute you're in gets out of hand. Best, --Shirahadasha04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call your attention to the Ashkenazi Jews page, and the discussion of the images on it, including as to licensing and copyright issues. --Metzenberg09:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I noticed you have been having some problems recently with Jayjg and IZAK so I figured you could use a little cheering up! Don't worry about those two! =) MetsFan7611:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
